choffer Posted June 27, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 27, 2011 Jimmy vs Shaun thread on page 50 of off topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 There's a newsagent near me that knocks a penny off the price of every newspaper they sell. I asked why they did it, and they said they couldn't remember, but anyway it saves me over £3.00 a year, so thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted June 27, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 27, 2011 6Music playing 'British People in Hot Weather' by the Fall. Tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 The 99p Chicken Tikka Baguettes at my newsagents. Love 'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ME Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 It's just given me my first bad hay fever day of the year, **** it. Mooney saying '**** it' did not cheer me up so much as get my attention. :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 He's coarse as a badgers bum that bloke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted June 27, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 27, 2011 That Mooney can be one profane (though he's decidedly not common in any case...) really bad person when he puts his mind to it.... The Roberts [supreme] Court continuing its amazingly strong run on free speech cases (I'm struggling to think of a case where they haven't come down on the side of free speech) Was kind of surprised to see Scalia take the lead in this opinion. His evisceration of Justice Thomas's opinion is epic: JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken towithout their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions—to require, for example, that thepromoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children fromhearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent. The latter would mean, for example, that it could be made criminal to admitpersons under 18 to a political rally without their parents’ prior written consent—even a political rally in support of laws against corporalpunishment of children, or laws in favor of greater rights for minors. And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made crimi-nal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 areligious tract, without his parents’ prior consent. Our point is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS believes, post, at 16, n. 2, merely that such laws are “undesirable.” They are obviously an infringement upon the religiousfreedom of young people and those who wish to proselytize young people. Such laws do not enforce parental authority over children’sspeech and religion; they impose governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto. In the absence of any precedent for state control, uninvited by the parents, over a child’s speech and religion (JUSTICE THOMAS cites none), and in the absence of any justification for such control that would satisfy strict scrutiny, those laws must be unconstitutional. This argument is not, as JUSTICE THOMAS asserts, “circular,” ibid. It is the absence of any historical warrant or compelling justification for such restrictions, not our ipse dixit, that renders them invalid. (yeah, Thomas is Scalia's sock puppet...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 Do people think I'm some sort of polite non-sweary type or something? :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Do people think I'm some sort of polite non-sweary type or something? :shock: Hell no, I always pictured you as Brick Top, from 'Snatch'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 Means nothing to me, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 He's "an 'orrible cuuuuunt" to use his own description ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 Oh, well that sounds like me, then, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ME Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Sorry Mike. I don't think people see you as such, I just did. Not to worry, I will reset view of you immediately. You are now Brick Top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted June 28, 2011 Do people think I'm some sort of polite non-sweary type or something? :shock:Well, yeah kind of. Is that a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 Do people think I'm some sort of polite non-sweary type or something? :shock:Well, yeah kind of. Is that a bad thing?Too **** right, it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Complaining; I never really used to do it, but lately I've decided to stand up for my consumer rights and have found there is much joy to be had in communicating my ire to 'The Man' (in this case, Wall's/Unilever in regard to some dodgy Soleros). Good afternoon, I recently purchased a 3-pack box of Solero Exotic ice lollies on a Tesco Online order; I have just come to take one out of the freezer and upon opening it have found that it did not have a wooden stick. Highly unusual, so I dug into the lolly with a spoon and found that the wooden stick was in fact there, wholly submerged within the ice-cream. Had a child been eating it, they could easily have choked on the offending item. After throwing the lolly in the bin, I checked the rest of the box and found another lolly completely crumpled (despite the fact the box had gone straight into the freezer upon arrival), almost as if it had melted before being placed in the box (the third lolly was completely fine, negating the possibility that the lolly had melted in the time it had taken the delivery van to arrive). I threw this one in the bin as well. I must admit, I am severely disappointed that 2 out of a 3-pack of ice lollies were unfit for consumption. I have taken photographs of the lollies should you require them, but I would like to know what quality control processes are in place before I spend any more money on this product and if I can be recompensed for my misfortune (the box retailed at £2.23 on Tesco's Online service)? Kind regards, -Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted June 28, 2011 Fair play Gareth. I will need closure on this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 Same. my favourtie bit was "I threw that one away too" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 28, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2011 I wish to make a complaint! This parrot - what I purchased from the very boutique, not half an hour ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 if you want to be interviewed Hitz, Fb me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts