Verbal

Not according to Zoopla.

Before that, he's got a job to do with the Spurs reserves, now they're back in training after jury service.

Neither. He's written in the future conditional tense. So when they're dead.

If everything is the same, how do you make sense of the world?

I'm here to condemn you.

So you're withdrawing this thread then?

Baffoon, buffoon, or baboon - it doesn't matter. Boris is history. Londoners want him out.

He'll be depressed about that. The paranoid android carries other connotations right now.

Don't be so silly.

After reading the peer-reviewed research on how right wingers tend to be stupid, I'm not surprised that this thread got started.

How low can you bow? Can you reverse, bowing, out of a doorway without looking? Just checking, because these are important skills for someone such as yourself.

A bit playground this, don't you think, trousers? As I said on the recent monarchy thread (!), I'm not that opposed to Liz 2, or even Jug Ears, so long as we reform them into a monarchy more appropriate for a modern democracy - the bicycling royals from The Netherlands or Scandinavia would be fine. That way, sensible people can ignore them and those with their curious fixations can worship them to their hearts' desire. Win win.

Really committed royalists - as opposed to the 'it's-okay-for-tourists' brigade - tend to be swivel-eyed right-wingers, and on the basis of recent peer-reviewed psychological research suggesting a close link between poor cognitive function and right-wing views, I'd say yes.

The biggest one is reversing the expropriation of common lands (including large swathes of the British coastline), carried out mostly in the 19th century to give George IV, who'd bankrupted the monarchy, some means of income support (the sponging oaf that he was). Consequently, Liz 2 and Jug Ears (through the Duchys) are by far the largest landowners in Britain. none of it was theirs to begin with. Putting the privately held, rarely ever viewed royal art collections - paid for by the proceeds from the 19th Century land grab - on public view and in public ownership (The National Gallery, British Museum, etc) Throwing open the palaces and houses of the royals to full public view (thus generating far more in tourist £s than the secretive monarchy. Setting aside the grim association of monarchy with the military dictatorship that was the British Empire. Paving the way for a modernising (and widening) of democracy, with a written constitution that includes a genuinely elected bicameral parliamentary system, and a more effective, more accountable separation of powers. Etc, etc.

It's not 'either/or'. If we abolished the monarchy tomorrow - at least 200 years too late, in my view - the Abbey and its corpses would not disappear with it. Of course, by far the LEAST interesting people laid out there are royals.

Yes

Brilliant. When the second Wailers album came out, I was a 'complaints officer' at Island Records. Just as I joined, the pressing plant lost the plot and pressed line after line of ashtray-shaped vinyl. So I spent an entire summer handwriting letters saying 'sorry, here's another bent album'. All done in a haze of marijuana smoke so thick that the forklift drivers downstairs in the warehouse were banned from driving in the afternoons. After three months of that, it just showed how durable Marley's career was going to be.

Of what, my fat little friend?

I didn't infer; I implied. If you revisit the sentence I was commenting on you'll see why. You canvassed for Milligan?! I guess that's why anonymity exists on discussion forums.

It's because the elites and the burgeoning middle class have long ago pulled up the drawbridge. Untouchables may not exist in name, but they certainly persist in reality; they are rendered invisible to the elites, who simply imagine them into non-existence. This weird psychological self-deception is at the heart of the Indian objection to foreign aid. (It was evident, for example, when the Indian film actor Amitabh Bachchan complained about Slumdog Millionaire's featuring supposedly mythical Mumbai slums.) The drawbridge is kept up by other means. For example, if you try to buy even the most modest bungalow in a well-heeled part of New Delhi, it will cost an absolute fortune, even by London standards. But the actual price declared for taxation will be a small fraction. One of the weird consequences of this is that few property owners in Delhi hold legal title to their expensively acquired homes. But the most important thing is to buy the prestige of a home in the right place but without paying any but a small fraction of the tax due - tax that, if raised, could have (emphasise 'could') gone to alleviate India's truly epic levels of absolute poverty, and its attendant consequences such a malnutrition, and a host of health problems including physical deformity and diseases that have been eradicated in most other parts of the world.

Will do. But you'll need a head for heights. They're building it on top of the existing stand - they're only demolishing the Riverside roof.

As a Saints fan, I have no ‘second team’, but if I did it would be Fulham, since Craven Cottage is just two streets away from where I live. The ground is also lovely – with a mixed home-and-away end (the only one of its kind)…and one of the few remaining pieces of great Edwardian football architecture, the Johnny Haynes stand. Now the club wants to build a new stand to replace the very dull Riverside, and it looks like this (sorry, I’m rubbish at posting pictures): http://www.fulhamfcstadium.com/design-concept/architecture/ Amazingly for a neighbourhood where houses just across from the ground cost $1.5m or more, and where people get very loudly wound up by anything architecturally new, everyone seems to love this design. If St Mary’s were ever to be expanded, I’d hope we’d do something with at least a similar bit of style…

It's customary - and highly likely in this case - for production companies to agree what's called a 'facility fee' for the people being filmed. I've filmed in SL myself, and that's exactly what we did - which is a bit awkward because you need a suitcase the carry around the huge bundles of local currency worth about $50.

That grim barracks in Fulford? You have my sympathies.

Part of the problem is that Indian elites HATE being reminded how dirt-poor the vast majority of their populace really is. There are more poor in India than in the 26 poorest countries in Africa. And it's a kind of poverty that takes your breath away. In one part of northern India, people survive on a diet of river rats. Indian politicians also hate the way that DFID has been able, with some degree of success, to target the aid where it's needed, and keep it out of the greedy, corrupt clutches of those same Indian politicians. Of course the Indian politicians should pay for this - they're clearly more than rich enough, given the horrendous levels of corruption they shamelessly indulge in. But they won't. There's more money to made from skimming a cut from deals like the one they've just made with the French. The Tories are being naive, quite frankly, if they think that aid oils the wheels with such craven elites as those in India. You either do this kind of thing because you think it's right, or not at all.