benjii

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6371AX20100408?type=lifestyleMolt :supz:

TBH, I think it was clear what he meant I was just being a tit. I like Dexter - good prog!

Thanks. They do look nice but I fear I would get too fat.

I would hope that no one votes out of habit but rather out of endorsement of the fundamental tenets, as they see them, of a particular party, irrespective of the contemporaneous political landscape. Anyone who votes, literally, out of "habit" is clearly a bit special. It's once every five years or so FFS, it's not like your morning coffee or your evening ****.

They owe Al-Faraj £2m. I wonder if that football creditors figure is liabilities that have fallen due or whether it includes future liabilities?

Please explain what a burger puff is. I am intrigued.

I had a friend who was partial to a doner meat pizza back at uni... I imagine you can get that anywhere though. Apart from Norfolk or Cornwall.

I imagine all of our managers have played first team football and managed the Saints.

Why don't people think we'll win? We drew away with them in the league and beat them at home easily in the cup. Apart from Jaidi, we will probably be able to field our strongest 11. We should win and I expect us to.

You don't have to pay 75% of the debt, you have to pay a proportion of the debt that 75%, in value, of the creditors agree to to achieve a CVA. If that happens then the unsecured creditors are bound by that agreement. But I agree with your gist..... they're in all sorts of bovver and no mistakin Mister.

If they'd kept football contracts expert Peter Storrie on in his consultancy role then this would never have happened. Their loss, our government's gain.

Maybe not everyone is aware of what an uber-amazing ITK you are. Maybe they read a takeover thread. Maybe they know that people change their mind.

Exactly, the player's mentality has to be that if we win every game we have a chance of getting promoted.

Someone better get on their forum then and start a thread about loads of Milwall/Saints/Cardiff/whoever fans buying up the 2,000. Isn't that de rigeur for this sort of thing?

Whatever reason Arkadi... sorry, I meant Sasha, Gaydamak bought them for?

If true, then I agree that is funny, although I doubt that many of the nurses turn up in a shirt and tie!

It would only confirm that to the ones of limited intellect.

Because it was decided to introduce a uniform policy that prohibited the wearing of loose jewellery when dealing with patients. Maybe someone else did have a problem. The "30 years with no problem" argument is clearly facile in the extreme anyway; it's like saying, "I've been drink driving for years and never crashed, so why should I stop now?". The law can't discriminate like that and must apply to all. Likewise, employers would have policies applicable to all, precisely to avoid suggestions of bias or discrimination. Employers have responsibilities and they are no doubt trying to discharge theirs. Maybe their policy is wrong and over-the-top, maybe not. Either way it has nothing to do with religion. As an aside, I have no idea why the Daily Mail believes a small child to pose more of a threat than a confused elderly person anyway? Very odd.

Sounds liks much the same sort of thing really? Ie. it was the jewellery itslef that was the issue, not the religious belief. I'm not aware of any Christian teaching that makes the wearing of a cross on a chain a requirement of the faith. I'm no supporter of religion and I'm no supporter of disproportionately draconian codes and policies drawn up for no good reason but when you read a report of a case like this, unless it's from a legal update which discusses the issues of the particular case and the points in question, it is likely that you will not get a fair picture of what is going on.

As one of the commentators on the article has succinctly put it: She was asked to remove a necklace, not a religious symbol. She could have pinned it to her clothing but refused to compromise. The Sikhs in the same Trust have complied with not wearing the Kara (bracelet) on the wrist and the Muslim staff have complied with only wearing tight fitting Sports Hijabs, but we are all up in arms over a Christian woman who would rather wear a necklace dangling outside her uniform than care for her patients. Surely more Pharisee than Samaritan?

There's nothing like basing an argument on a false premise is there.... That nurse was banned from hanging something on her neck whilst performing front-line (ie on ward) duties dealing with patients with mental health deterioration in some cases. It was assessed that hanging something round your neck in those circumstances presented a health hazard. When she wasn't carrying out clinical functions on the ward she was allowed to wear the chain. The fact that it was a religious symbol was irrelevant. She was told she was welcome to wear the religious symbol on her person but not have it hung round her neck when interracting with the patients in a clinical capacity.

Robsk, there is moral virtue in the use of paragraphs, mate.

The second paragraph is correct. The only reason everyone seems to hate Mawhinney is because he looked cheery on Sky Sports News once.

People say I'm a photocopier salesman but I'm not.... sure I might have sold the odd photocopier now and then.... who hasn't?