buctootim

Its okay, she's not a looker so she's probably got brains.

Thats his own urine he's drinking too

That doesn't look any more fun than the infection.

Eyesight is going Halo Steve Grant Cary Grant

You can get them with NSU too. Thats probably where Bear has been.

Alas no, my career has been much more mundane (although I used to work with rent boys too). NHS innit Robbie Williams is snorting black ectoplasm btw.

Is this inside knowledge - we're jacking in Europe in favour of the semis in the Carling Cup?

A hooker I used to work with (draw your own conclusions) reckoned Rowan Atkinson used to pay her to walk up and down his back in stilettos. Odd choice of pastime imo.

Dont forget the Dejan Lovren exit (leading into road to nowhere) and the Nicola Cortese short order canteen.

Moss Bros. Can probably even rent it.

1.6m passengers spending maybe £50 per head in the city - even a stay and meal in the Premier Inn the night before would be more than that - is around £80m pa. Let alone all the docks handling, supplies from Ocean Trading etc. Its got to be worth over £100m pa to the city, £430 per head.

Somewhere you might want to call into - but not depart from or return to - thats Southampton again. http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/editors-picks/?src=nav

What will they do when the new multiplex cinema causes the old multiplex cinema already on the adjoining site to close down? Bulldoze it and leave it vacant for for 10 years? The trouble with Southampton planners is that they just allow more low architectural quality copies of what they already have, and end up with more than can be sustained by the market. They should have kept the sites industrial zoning and used it for dock related activities.

Picture 19 of 45 Naomi Goldschagg. Top name!

Its just another old ship that we didnt want in this country, so its hard to criticise anyone else.

Blagodje Samardzija doesn't have the same ring to it

I dunno tbh, I haven't really thought it through. atm I'm just attracted to the idea of monitoring / learning more about what generates comments and what is verboten. Somebody I used to work with helped set up the Open Democracy website, which was supposed to be a free and impartial news and opinion centre, but it never got the attention or readership that Tulisa's latest botox injections do. Theres a depressing moral there somewhere.

Its a worthwhile idea but I dont think you can read to much into the absence of ability to comment on any given story. Most media outlets used to encourage comments because they thought it bought loyalty and engagement and they would be able to target news to the reader - which potentially is more disturbing than your belief about about ability to comment. The Daily Mail online stuck with this model -which is why its now largely celebrity inspired clickbait which enables readers to comment on almost any old gack. Most sites discovered though, like Saintsweb, that the comments didnt generally come from their wider readership but from a small section of repeat commenters. Moderating the bickering of the same few hundreds or thousands of people day in day out over "he said mean / libellous things about me / my hero" was too time consuming and ultimately expensive so they shut it down.

Well done, failed yet again to grasp the point. I chided you for patronising Charlie for being wrong when you yourself are frequently wrong on Palestine - I wasnt claiming Egypt didnt recognise Hamas. In any event there is a major difference between recognising a party as a major player in a conflict and that you need to deal with them to create peace (aka the British government and the IRA) and accepting them as the best leadership for Palestine.

Go on then which part was wrong.

Fair comment. Obviously Egypt are supportive of Palestine generally. That didnt prevent this though. http://www.ibtimes.com/egypt-accuses-palestinian-elements-being-involved-sinai-attacks-postpones-gaza-peace-talks-1713436

Its mostly Pap I say is wrong, mainly because he is frequently factually wrong. I dont usually comment when people have a different interpretation of events.

I only comment on stuff I know something about. Try it. Which parts are wrong then Brett? given your in depth experience within the heart of the MoD an all.

I used to do a lot of work with Sainsbury's on ethical and sustainable sourcing of products. It was expensive for them and they used to complain that they got no credit for it for in the market or in press. Consumers, in spite of what they claimed, would mostly buy the Tesco version which was a penny cheaper rather than follow their 'principles'. One other company said that they never supported charities any more because in the past they had donated for nine years to one local community group and got no press at all but when they wanted to switch and support another charity in accordance with their staff's wishes, they got a barrage of hostile press along the lines of "local company forces charity closure". Sainsbury's are getting some of that now with the British Legion and are probably wishing they had gone the safe route and advertised 10p off Christmas puddings. If you want more ethical companies you have to use your money wisely - not criticising the better guys and falling instead for the corporate spin of the arseholes. That means, for example, seeing through the crap about how they are saving orang utans by creating a sanctuary when what they really mean is they cleared 98% of the rain forest for palm oil plantations and left an isolated patch of land as a reserve.