Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

"exactly that one stan .... well worth a visit tho it's def not a pub for the girlies"

You mean the language is a bit well... un parliamentary?

"MaxK - 16 Jan 2015 20:45 - 55139 of 55141

Why not?

cos we are!


edit: Go ask your wife what she thinks about the idea of non gender bogs."

So where does the discrimination come in then?

There have been plenty of gender neutral toilets in bars in London for years. What is the fuss?

Come on Max, answer the questions -):

I've yet to come across a "gender neutral" bog, but there again perhaps I lead a sheltered life.

As for the idea of letting men free run in bogs where wimmin and children have to use is a recipe for disaster.


Still, it has one positive (if you can call it that) left and right come together...Stan and Haystack united in the cause of perv-ism.


If you two geriatrics cant see where this is going, perhaps you need to see a quack, cos your cognitive functions are for sure in rapid decline.

There are plenty of communal toilets around and have been for years. They have no urinals, just stalls. In France, it is not uncommon for women to have to walk past men at urinals

Hays is right, Belgium was like that years ago. I used to go on football tours to Ostend and that area.

Bit of a shock at first especially when you are not expecting it.

They have a person though sat in middle of room charging for your visit and also selling French letters and the like plus perfume for the women.

Far better to have a pee outside the back of the night club and cheaper. Pleb that I am and was.

By Charles Moore
6:05AM GMT 17 Jan 2015
The broadcasters have their own agenda – and it isn’t about enhancing the democratic process

David Cameron says he will only take part in television election debates if the Greens are allowed in too. Of course, he could not care less about the Greens. He is being wholly cynical and self-serving when he says this. He is simply trying to avoid the debates altogether. I applaud him for that.

Last time, in 2010, with the arrogance of inexperience, and the illusion of moral purity, the Tory leader’s team conceded the idea of a three-way debate. They let the Liberal Democrats share equal limelight with Labour and the Conservatives. This had never happened before, and therefore no leaders’ TV election debates had ever taken place in Britain. Until then, the broadcasters wouldn’t do it without the Liberals and the two main parties wouldn’t do it with them.

For Mr Cameron, that three-way decision was a disaster. In the first debate, he moved, in a matter of minutes, from being the fresh, bold challenger to Gordon Brown’s stale politics to being part of that stale politics himself. All eyes turned to the even fresher challenger whom few people had seen before, Nick Clegg.


Mr Clegg said nothing of the remotest interest, and in fact his party ended up getting fewer seats than it had won at the previous election. But he pulled off a simple television trick: he was nice and new, so people liked him. There was even something called Clegg-mania, one of those crazes, like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, that are very hard to explain to subsequent generations but seem real as long as they last (which, in Mr Clegg’s case, was less than a fortnight). Mr Cameron had voluntarily, airily, idiotically conceded his main advantage. His campaign never recovered. Hence five increasingly weary years of coalition.

This time, seen from Mr Cameron’s point of view, debates would be even more dangerous. He is the Prime Minister, so everyone else will want to gang up on him. Even a straight Labour/Conservative clash would be too risky, because the public expectation of Ed Miliband is so low that the Labour leader would have nowhere to go but up. The four-way debate – Lab, Con, Lib, Ukip – envisaged by Ofcom, could be (perhaps is) a form of torture specially designed by the broadcasters to destroy the Tories.

It might be a bit better for Mr Cameron if the Greens were let in too, because then the Left would split more and the thing would become enjoyably unmanageable. But if the Prime Minister’s bluff is called and Natalie Bennett does come aboard, the SNP will then demand its “rights”, and before you know where you are, Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein (voice spoken by an actor?) will all be pushing and shoving towards the camera. Expect Tory managers to hold their nerve and go on inventing reasons why their man should not take part: they are determined not to repeat the mistake of 2010.

At which point, most people in my trade look very grave and talk about an “affront to democracy”. Why will Cameron not face the people, they ask. Is he, in the Lincolnshire usage of Margaret Thatcher (who also, by the way, steadfastly avoided taking part in leaders’ debates), “frit”?

Actually, I think Mr Cameron is quite brave not to succumb to the clamour, but that is not the point. The real question is, what makes us think that the demands of the broadcasters are the same as the rights of the voters?

These debates are not, as Paddy Ashdown imagines, prescribed by some “independent” body: Ofcom can do no more than modify what others propose. They are cooked up by a cartel. The BBC, ITV and Sky join forces to bully the political parties into what, for their own advantage, they have concocted. The “5-3-2” format for the proposed three debates was sent to the parties without consulting them, and leaked in advance in order to exert moral pressure.

Why succumb? The essentials of our democracy are the House of Commons, the constituency and the ballot box, not the media. Obviously politicians should speak to voters and the voters should speak to politicians. The media help this happen. But beware when a medium tries to hijack this process.

Beware, particularly, when it is television. The main channels do not serve voters well. The precipitous decline of Parliament can be dated from the moment in 1989 when the House of Commons was first televised. (This is not a problem, interestingly, with radio broadcasting, which began more than 10 years earlier and proved itself a much more truthful medium.) Having invoked the public’s “right to know”, the telly moguls quickly got utterly bored by what they had conquered. They reported Parliament less and less in the news, and then only when they could feast their lenses on disorder. Gradually, the politicians despaired of debate. The political editor of the BBC, rather than anyone elected, has become the author and presenter of the soap opera his corporation demands.

In a similar way, the TV political interview moved in a generation from being an interesting cross-examination watched by millions to a preposterous ritual humiliation – see late-Paxman Newsnight – watched by hundreds of thousands. In elections, the telly news increasingly could not be bothered to go round the country reporting speeches and examining the sheer variety of voters’ concerns. It preferred to confect a daily agenda involving a “gaffe” by one party or another, pursued – because that is how cartels work – by supposedly rival channels all dancing to the same tune.

The leaders’ election debates are the apotheosis of this “producer capture”. The broadcasters conspire to build the stage, direct the production, write the reviews and then exalt or humiliate the actors. They also ensure that there is no other show in town. They serve the people only in the sense in which the managers of the Colosseum in Ancient Rome did so – laying on enough Christians and enough lions for a good, bloody spectacle.

In the second debate during the Scottish referendum last year, weak chairmanship and a grotesquely one-sided audience in the hall gave television the chance to create the story that the Yes vote might win. Actually, the voters stood firm, but Gordon Brown’s strange “vow” and its endorsement by Cameron and all the No-voting parties were the result of telly-induced panic.

Thanks to new technology, mainstream television is becoming less and less watched. Why should it now acquire some formal role in the constitution? In a general election that returns 650 people to Parliament, no leaders’ debate is in any sense necessary.

But if it is true, as the Hansard Society’s survey suggests, that only 12 per cent of voters aged between 18 and 24 expect to make it to the polling station in 2015, wouldn’t it be better to try to reach them on a medium they use by having an unregulated digital debate, as YouTube, the Guardian and The Telegraph are suggesting? There is a lot of piety nowadays about politics starting from the bottom up, yet nothing is more top-down than letting the three TV giants orchestrate the whole thing.

In saying this, I am not trying to protect the politicians. They are in a rough old trade and can decide for themselves whether they want to be gladiators and die in the dust or gain their freedom. It is the rest of us I am worried about. Now along comes the pompous and coercive suggestion from some of the media that there should be an “empty chair” in the debate for the Prime Minister who refuses to turn up. I have a more radical idea – how about an empty screen?

https://www.yahoo.com/health/what-your-blood-type-says-about-your-life-span-108255553688.html

People whose blood type is A, B or AB have an increased risk of heart disease and shorter life spans than people who have type O blood, according to a new study.

But that doesn’t mean people with blood types other than O should be overly concerned, because heart disease risk and life span are influenced by multiple factors, including exercise and overall health, experts said.

In the study, researchers followed about 50,000 middle-age and elderly people in northeastern Iran for an average of seven years. They found that people with non-O blood types were 9 percent more likely to die during the study for any health-related reason, and 15 percent more likely to die from cardiovascular disease, compared with people with blood type O.

"It was very interesting to me to find out that people with certain blood groups — non-O blood groups — have a higher risk of dying of certain diseases," said the study’s lead investigator, Dr. Arash Etemadi, an epidemiologist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

The researchers also examined whether people’s blood type may be linked with their risk of gastric cancer, which has a relatively high incidence rate among the people living in northeastern Iran. They found that people with non-O blood types had a 55 percent increased risk of gastric cancer compared with people with type O blood, according to the study, published online today (Jan. 14) in the journal BMC Medicine.

The association between blood type and people’s disease risk and life span held even when the researchers accounted for other factors, including age, sex, smoking, socioeconomic status and ethnicity.

Previous studies have shown that people with non-O blood types may be at higher risk of certain cancers and cardiovascular disease, but it was less clear whether blood type is linked with life span, Etemadi told Live Science.

About 11,000 people in the study provided information about their blood’s biochemistry, including their cholesterol levels, glucose levels and blood pressure. But only certain metrics stood out — for example, the people with type A blood tended to have higher levels of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, also known as the “bad” cholesterol.

It’s possible that higher cholesterol levels could partly explain the increased mortality risk. People with non-O blood types also have an increased tendency to form blood clots, and this higher coagulation might lead to more heart problems, Etemadi said.

Moreover, the gene that is responsible for blood type is on the same chromosome as some of the genes responsible for controlling blood cholesterol, Etemadi said.

But it’s unlikely that the cholesterol link is solely responsible for the difference in people’s life span, he said. “We think that it’s a mixture of both causes that contribute to this increased mortality,” Etemadi said.

Although people with non-O blood types may have these increased risks, they should “absolutely not” be concerned that their blood type is the determining factor in their health, said Dr. Massimo Franchini, director of hematology and transfusion medicine at the Carlo Poma Hospital in Italy, who was not involved with the study.

"Belonging to a non-O blood type represents only a risk factor (among many others), and actually, there are many and many millions of people worldwide with non-O blood type that do not have, and will never develop, any of these diseases," said Franchini, who wrote acommentary on the study that was also published in the journal. “Thus, in my opinion, a healthy lifestyle still remains the main factor able to influence the health status of an individual.”

Here is one for Napoleon.

It's grim oop north....



'Visit Barnsley, pound shop capital of the north!

Spoof Twitter account comes under fire for mocking Yorkshire town as full of 'doggers and derelict shops'

•Spoof Twitter account describes Barnsley as the 'birthplace of dogging'
•'Visit Barnsley' brands town the 'pound shop capital of the north'
•Joke account has almost 3,000 followers and uses hashtag #BarnsleyIsBrill
•The founder from nearby Wakefield said he has nothing against the town
•Councillor said the parody Twitter account paints the town in a 'bad light'


By Jenny Awford for MailOnline

Published: 13:38, 16 January 2015 | Updated: 14:59, 16 January 2015
.


A spoof twitter account has come under fire for mocking a Yorkshire town - branding it the 'pound shop capital of the north' and the 'birthplace of dogging'.

'Visit Barnsley', which has almost 3,000 followers, describes the former mining town as a 'godless den of filth' in a parody of the original council-run account.

Using the hashtag #BarnsleyIsBrill, the account highlights the town's amenities such as botched tanning salons and a market which sells cheap knock-off goods.

One photograph shows a woman smothered in fake tan with the caption: 'Planning an expensive holiday this year? Why not save a fortune and visit Barnsley suntan guaranteed #barnsleyisbrill.'

Another post shows a rundown street with a row of derelict shops and flats, with the message: 'Want US to promote your business? Just drop us line. Look how we've helped businesses in other areas.'

The founder of the account, who lives in nearby Wakefield and wished to remain anonymous, said he set it up because many people think of Barnsley as being a 'rough' town in the 'grim north'






More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913324/Visit-Barnsley-pound-shop-capital-north-Spoof-Twitter-account-comes-fire-mocking-Yorkshire-town-doggers-derelict-shops.html

The point is?

"MaxK - 16 Jan 2015 23:20 - 55145 of 55153

I've yet to come across a "gender neutral" bog, but there again perhaps I lead a sheltered life."

...Yes I think you probably have.

55141 - no stan, but it's very rough and ready

My requirements from a decent pub is good service, quiet'ish, good company and well kept Ale at a good price, if all that's in place all well and good.

It might be very rough and ready, but is it gender neutral?

you could certainly get legless very easily, especially if you get stuck into the cider

Quiet'ish is very important - no screaming children please!!

no chance of that in TG
it's surprisingly remote but well supported by the locals
no bar as such, and the beer is poured in the tap room and brought through to a little parlour where there are a couple of tables and a few chairs and a small victorian open grated fire
there's another room on the other side of the tap room where they play dominos and darts