pap

I'm not sure that they are required. In fact, there is a good chance of scalding with gravy involved. That, or lumpiness.

Oh, and another one I heard from some miscreants at Shirley Snooker Club. Beef brisket cooked on a low heat in the oven.

Right, don't know how true this is, but... Mate of mine from school used to have a particular sock for this nefarious activity. He squirreled it away behind the radiator to ensure his mum didn't catch on. After he moved out of home, his mum found said sock weeks later, which was now home to a thriving maggot community. Ick.

Sympathy for the Devil has one of my fave lyrics: "I watched with glee as your Kings and Queens fought for ten decades for the Gods they made".

I really would get that sorted, mate.

Why, does it have teeth? Gives new meaning to the phrase "bite one off".

I have seen all seven seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the show, there are things called hellmouths from which demonic creatures, such as vampires emerge. Such locations attract the supernatural. So, have you seen any additional vampires or werewolves lurking about? Or wood-wielding hot athletic women? If so, your ringpiece could be a hellmouth.

Big Trouble in Little China

The PS3 version of this game is getting a large patch this week, if it hasn't already. I've recently returned to the PC version and am running the beta patch, which fixes a lot of the issues people are encountering with quests. Finished the main quest ages ago, but am now moving on to the civil war stuff ( Imperial btw, those Stormcloaks tend to be a bit racialist (sic) for my elf tastes ). I really like the fact that the side quests feel as substantial as a lot of full single player games. So far, I've done:- 1) Mages College 2) Thieves Guild 3) Companions 4) in the middle of Civil War (have done a little bit of the Bards stuff too) What else have I missed here?

Very pleased for him too, although I'm surprised he reads this forum.

Lord D, I think we're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I often find common ground with you, especially on the Euro. I don't really buy that there is no other choice. Interesting piece on the Daily Politics today about a proposed piece of legislation, essentially to itemise where our tax money is going. Centrally collected taxation is pretty opaque. The Treasury recently provided some guidance, but they left out indirect tax and employer's national insurance contributions. Tax is one of the big levers in our society, yet we don't really know how it's spent. There is an argument that if people could see what they were spending their money on, they might become more engaged in the political process. Another point made on the Daily Politics was that we wouldn't shell out thousands in the real world without knowing what we were spending it on. I think a big reason that the government doesn't want to do this is that people would cotton on to their actual tax burden. Fuel duty and VAT are simulatenously keeping prices high and spending power low. Those are probably the two biggest economic levers we have, yet we don't touch them. Playing with either would put money back in people's and companies pockets, either through reduced operating costs for companies, lower travelling costs for motorists and lower prices at the tills. Then you've got a topic I've started a thread on, the end of the war on drugs. Decriminalisation would save a lot in police resources, while legalisation, regulation and taxation can actually generate money. Also, we've got membership of the Euro, an area of common ground for both of us. The validity of those policies is down to a majority to decide, but they're not even on the table. If this were a business or family crisis, those involved would be considering all the options. That being the case, it seems weird that when we're up sheet creek on a national level, our politicians seem to be operating within a very strict framework, forged in corporate interests and irrational dogma.

Found this on the Interwebs for people who aren't in Southampton. Props to @dankerins:- I think we should send it in to Viz for their "Up the Arse Corner" section

Was watching Prime Minister's Questions yesterday. The whole thing is available on iPlayer - check out the 25th Jan edition of the Daily Politics (thanks, Lord Duckhunter). I have never really been a fan of the coalition. Conceptually, I've been onboard with quite a few of their ideas. I like the idea of the Localism Bill, for example. Another good idea? Well, I can certainly agree that Child Benefit shouldn't be universal either. The problem is that the few good ideas have a load of very bad ideas for company, and even the stuff I can get onboard with is being extremely poorly planned. The slap-dash (and soon to be scrapped) idea for delineating Child Benefit along higher rate tax-payers is an example of a poor plan to achieve the conceptual result. Few things from PMQs:- 1) We've borrowed 158 billion more than we planned 2) Unemployment at highest levels for 18 years 3) IMO, Miliband put Cameron on the ropes and kept him there (don't take my word for it). Cameron is of course, blaming Labour for the mess. I agree with one of the Daily Politics responders - that excuse is now becoming very tired. I could sympathise with that position when they first took the reins of office. But 158 billion more than you planned to spend once you knew what the score was? That's more difficult to accept, especially when the Conservative Party has been dressing itself in the fashion of fiscal prudence. So, a few questions.... Has the Coalition already failed? What are the best/worst things they've done while in office? Are the current set of policies fit for purpose (the purpose being, getting the feck out of recession) PMQs: [video=youtube;-J7ZDkbLSUw]

Almost through Vonnegut's Hocus Pocus, which I've mentioned before. It's a delicious swipe at modern culture. Excerpt: My first ever Vonnegut, btw. Definitely going to read more once I'm done here.

Have you any idea how far you've strolled off the reservation here, sir?

They'll have a football team when Pompey is known as Southampton East

I'm just about old enough to get it.

I have to say, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. When I hit my 30s, I honestly thought "thank f**k my 20s are over". Complete nightmare capable of creating loads of trouble. Chilled out a lot more now, but still remember that no-one is perfect, especially at that age. I am glad the club are giving him a second chance. Everyone has their bad days, it's how you respond to them that matters. The noise coming from Puncheon is all good. If it works out, it's a win-win. "New" player plus a former source of disruption neutralised.

I like SDR a lot. I enjoy watching his marauding runs at/around defenders. Hopefully, the coaching staff will be as analytical about his weaknesses as some of the more constructive responses to this have been. That said, he does need game time. Remember that a great part of our success is down to many of the players being on the same wavelength as the rest of the team. Last year, we were saying similar things about Guly ( not attuned to team, not on same wavelength). Granted, this year we have a different set of complaints about do Prado, but hopefully the point will be made. Bit of focus on crossing, bit more game time - I think he's got the potential to really click with this team.

We all make mistakes. Most of us are fortunate enough not to have as many people scrutinising them. Welcome back, J-Punch.

The problem with using a scenario as a debating tool is that it allows someone to build an exact scenario to fit their argument, however unlikely that may be. You are creating an exceptional circumstance to argue for the continued existence of the monarchy. You can't have it both ways. If it's very unlikely, it can't be perfectly valid. A century ago, there were probably millions of Russians who treated their monarchy as a permanent fixture. Five years later, it was gone.

He's here now. You can calm down and find another subject to shout about ( plenty to choose from from last night's evidence ).

Are you asking him if he's got herpes?

They're clueless. Appreciate that they are your 'team' (sometimes, when it suits). The "getting people off benefits" schtick only works if there are jobs for them to do. Otherwise, all these measures will do is create more poverty and/or more crime. You're forgetting that people still have to eat. If the money isn't coming from the government, then it'll just come from people nicking stuff or dealing drugs, etc. The Tories and the people that support them haven't a f**king clue of how stuff really works.