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.

How's it going chaps .. I read of a council swimming pool that no longer allows you to swim lengths ,only widths as it's too dangerous ,they said it may take a lifeguard too long to get to someone in trouble ,,, now call me stupid but i can't work this one out if your doing lengths then your somewhere in the width ,it's been hurting my brain ever since,,,I may sue for mental anguish....

Jimmy B,

Read the same report. Thought it was a wind-up until my local baths stated they were also aware of it. When questioned a council spokesman/woman/person stated, 'that swimming widths would also keep swimmers fitter as they would have to turn round more often'.

As to widths being safer, if the pool is lane'd off into widths, it will mean that some will be in the shallow end continuously whilst others will be continually in the deep end. Presumably those who are in the shallow end will never be out of their depth, unless they are very young or are height restricted (IE small), whilst those in the deep end will always be out of their depth unless they are over 6'6" (in my pool).
Presume the next step will be a height measuring compare figure, similar to those you find at the entrance to fairground rides.

I wonder if it makes any difference if you can swim or not?

I knew there must be a sensible reason.

You could'nt make it up greek ,,, i'm sure that one day the health and safety people will say it's all been one big April fool....

Hmm, don't know about this April Fool thing, surely it can't be politically correct to make someone feel foolish?! :o)

At last Gordon Brown decided to throw the towel in and resign. His cabinet colleagues decided it would be a worthy gesture to name a railway locomotive after him. So a senior 'Sir Humphrey' went from Whitehall to the National Railway Museum at York, to investigate the possibilities.


"They have a number of locomotives at the NRM without names," a specially-sought consultant told the top civil servant. "Mostly freight locomotives though."


"Oh dear, that's not very fitting for a prime minister," said Sir Humphrey. "How about that big green one, over there?" he said, pointing to 4472 Flying Scotsman.


"That's already got a name" said the consultant. "It's called 'Flying Scotsman'."


"Oh. Couldn't it be renamed?" asked Sir Humphrey. "This is a national museum after all, funded by the taxpayer."


"I suppose it might be considered," said the consultant. "After all the LNER renamed a number of their locomotives after directors of the company, and even renamed one of them Dwight D Eisenhower."


"That's excellent", said Sir Humphrey, "So that's settled then...let's look at renaming 4472. But how much will it cost? We can't spend too much, given the expenses scandal!"


"Well", said the consultant, "Why don't we just paint out the 'F'?"

This is me,

I think it's a great idea, as the Flying Scotsman/Lying Scotsman are both full of hot air, make a lot of noise for little effect, as well as being clapped out and unproductive.
An alternative perhaps......We have Thomas the Tank Engine, so how about Gordon the ? ?
Now if our real prime minister Peter Mandelson was a few kilo's heavier he could play the part of the Fat Controller (where is John Prescotts when you need him).
Any idea's for Alistair Darling, Harriet Harman and others.

How about grouse on 12th Aug on a Scottish moor being shot down by the Tory gentry?

And how about paying 12,000 per head per day for the pleasure of it?

Or maybe more perhaps? That was the daily rate told to me by a gamekeeper on a Far East holiday we took some 20 years ago.

Mind you, at those sort of prices, if you aimed sideways instead of straight ahead, you might be shooting at royalty.

MM?

I have a warm feeling in my heart this morning, hearing that we are to release the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi.
He is being released on compassionate grounds because he is suffering terminal cancer. The release is so he can spend the rest of his days with his family in Libya.

It obviously matters not that he was responsible for the deaths of 270 people, men women and children, presumably without an iota of compassion himself.

In the future when mass killings are carried out and our government states that the perpetrators if caught will never see freedom, how can we believe it.

And this is only a couple of days after the Ronnie Biggs news, he who mocked so called British justice by wearing a Policeman's helmet at a birthday party, and the news that the killers of baby P will be given new identities and full police protection, (they would not need this if they served life, meaning LIFE in prison).

Thank goodness this Labour government has got tough on crime, although I doubt if any if the other parties would alter much.

No wonder we are looked at as a soft target for crime and terrorism.

There wouldn't have been that problem if we had been as compassionate to him as he was to the people on the aeroplane i.e. hung him.

Alan Duncan said: "MPs are living on "rations" and being treated "like shit".

After a grovelling apology to his boss, David Cameron, millionaire Duncan is being allowed to stay on as shadow Commons Leader - and with responsibility for MPs' pay and allowances.

Mr Cameron said: "I made it clear the actions we take have got to demonstrate that we share the public's fury."

ExecLine said: "Rubbish! How can David Cameron keep Duncan in a job so closely involved with MPs' allowances? Oh Yes, I forgot. It must be to do with the tough stance Cameron is taking on this topic and also the skill he is using, which of course, includes picking the right man for the job in the first place."

Totally agree. Even if he was joking (which I don't think he was) it would just go to show how much our MP's hold us in contempt.

Also on the news this am

Sir Patrick Cormack has complained that his 64,000 salary was not enough to allow him to make donations to charity.
'One is expected to give liberally to all manner of charities, one is expected to attend all manner of events, one is expected constantly to be putting one's hand into one's pocket,' he added (a bit like us tax payers).

High-profile MP Nadine Dorries made things worse by blaming the media rather than politicians for the expenses scandal. She also claimed she recently assisted at a road accident but was too frightened to admit her identity as an MP, such was the publics anger. Poor lamb.

A Conservative MP has survived an attempt to deselect her following her involvement in the parliamentary expenses row.
Anne Main, the MP for St Albans, had allowed her daughter to live rent-free at a taxpayer-funded flat she claimed was her second home for the purposes of expenses.
No doubt she will be elected as it will be a case of which fiddling b*****d do we vote for. Pathetic.

Calf born with an MP's brain (ie. Half a brain for every gobbler)

Cow gives birth to calf with four eyes, two mouths and only one pair of ears

That Nadine Dorries scene in my head just won't go away. "Let me through, let me through, I'm a Member of Parliament."

Just what you need when you're about to draw your last breath. Not sure why she thought it was relevant for anyone to know?

Thats what I though, who would she tell and why.
But then I thought, what if someone at the scene had required mouth to mouth. Who better than a so full of hot air (wind) MP.

MPs don't fill in their expenses claims any differently than a lot of people!

I just had to move my daughter's car - clio with NO power steering - what a struggle - I felt like I needed oxygen after grappling with it.

But there are a several differences.

1 They can claim quite substantial amounts without completing/producing receipts to prove the amounts spent.

2 When/if they are caught, which is far less likely as proven by the period and extent it has been occurring, often nothing happens even if it is criminal (see No 3).

3 Until the 21/07/09 Parliament -- the House of Commons set their own rules, IE they were, and to a large extent still remain a law unto themselves.

4 The Department of Resources (auditors) in the MPs case knew that fiddling was going on but allowed it to continue, something that would be very unlikely in the private employment sector.

5 As they represent us the Tax Payer, who pay their salaries (and none tax payers) it is our money that pays their expenses, and yet we have no power in their instant removal.

6 We have no choice to be a customer of HM Government/Opposition, whereas we have a choice as to be a customer of a company or not.

I have had a T shirt printed which states....UK MPS are Institutionally Morally Corrupt. Democracy is Dead.

I wear this with every time I go to my nearest town Beverley, which is where our local MPS and Councillors (who are about as dishonest) stand and preach their sermons every other week-end. Since the expenses scandal they are hardly ever seen.

No wonder you call yourself 'skinny'! I thought all modern cars had power stearing. Have you checked if it has a broken power stearing?

Let's all vote for greekman at the next election on the no expenses ticket!