NIrishGuy

I really will have to start taking the train more often if this is likely to happen whilst on board !

The kiss that perhaps changed the thinking of a generation !?

@Z909 - ah I believe it states in the big book of "how to cover your imaginary tracks" manual that all boxes created to hide non existent personal belonging should be blocked out in white, please ensure you confirm to this or people may start to believe that YOU actually have stayed in this room and perhaps worse even shared it with an imaginary friend ! Also you have been very lax as in the bottom left hand corner of the image theres a grip bag in plain sight, complete with what appears to be a (used) tissue on display and of course as it's well known that a DNA sample can be collected from just such an article so a box should SURELY have been added to cover this obvious "clue" in this case as it could be argued that an intrepid SGF investigator could instantly upon reading the post make his to the hotel and rummage through the bins in search of said piece of tissue - as we're all so likely to as we all are believed to actually give a shit so much about who the person was that stayed there and important matters such as what colour of socks they have happened to have had with them on that trip as that could of course PROVE their identity beyond reasonable doubt in any court of law :-) Actually if we DID start checking such things as socks appearing in hotel room pics would that mean we were all nothing better than low life sock tourists perhaps !!?? lol

I cremated my dog a few years back as he was quite big and I didn't fancy having to ( physically) dig a gaping big hole in my front garden under the roses, so the cremation place took him from the vets where he met his end and simple delivered back a simple cardboard box with (his?) ashes inside, which I simply sprinked into the soil around the base of the roses and tossed the soil around them a bit to cover them and it was job done and good for the soil too I imagine and saves me having to look at a doggy grave every day on my way to work and get sad thinking about the poor bugger. I seem to recall it wasn't that expensive either so definitely something I would recommend and is getting quite popular now I believe.

I think if you investigate the cost of repatriating a body to anywhere you'll see why people almost always end up getting cremated at the place of death and sent back to wherever. From the little I know about it ( granted) getting your body embalmed and repatriated just isn't a feasible option if you wish to leave anything in your will that's not eaten into by that cost.

Damn, I was SO disappointed on reading the headline "Pope to resign" to realise that this was an old thread and so related to the last guy, oh well, hope springs eternal that maybe this guy will go soon too and the Catholic Church ( or God if ones to believe the hype re the appointment process :-) will put someone in the job who can actually maybe make a positive difference to the world - but I'll not hold my breath on that one just yet I fear :-(

Interesting to see Michael Douglas's publicist issuing a "clarification" of Michael's interview wishing to highlight the fact that Michael's cancer was NOT actually caused by oral sex, however the Guardian have stood by their story and released the audio file of the interview where it is quite clear what was said - obviously the wife DID give him a bollocking when he got home for telling the truth and the Hollywood PR machine was told to kick into gear to rectify the issue. To be fair to Michael he has remained silent as I'm guessing he knows the truth and couldn't give a shit who knows and maybe is actually trying to help and warn others of the risks. Mind you wouldn't it just be hilarious if the reason the wife might be objecting is that she KNOWS they haven't had oral sex EVER but yet she's noticed that Marcos their 22 year old hot gardener always seems to be walking around with a big smile on his face and seems to be driving more and more expensive cars of late !! :-))

I thought there was absolutely no doubt that the vaccine ABSOLUTELY is ineffective in anyone who has already been exposed to the virus - and as the virus is able to be passed on by normal every day sexual or even non sexual skin to skin contact it's assumed that a lot of people from say their late teens upwards will already have been exposed to the virus in one way or the other hence why the vaccination is only offered to young school age people. I do take you're point that "well you'd be no WORSE off" but spending £300-400 quid on something which lets face it most gay guys our age will most certainly have encountered before does seem a little daft, saying that I'm sure LMTU would happily have paid 100 times that to avoid or cure himself of his bout of it but I know any Doctor I've spoken to ( either NHS private) has told me plainly that to get the shots at my age (44) would most probably be a total waste of time and money. ( and before anyone says no, that's not because I'm a particularly bigger tart than any other gay guy I happen to know :-)

This I believe was the same (first) cancer that LMTU picked up, also from Oral sex perhaps ( and I'm not being mean there I think that was the accepted cause), definitely something to bare in mind I guess - but is it enough to make me rubber up for Oral- probably not I have to say, like everything in life you weigh up the risks and likelihood of picking something up against the pleasure I guess and until the number of cases start rising dramatically (and lets hope they don't) not much will change I guess. But fair play to Michael Douglas for being so upfront about the cause in his case, I'm sure his wife was just DELIGHTED with him when she read THAT interview over her morning tea and toast ! :-)

Excellent - god love the poor guy who had to follow that next year ! And I laughed as without knowing the guy he was so pegged as gay with his opening two words just - "HI GUYS" lol - but a great speech, you could almost picture Obama standing there giving it !

I'm guessing the people at the top who stand to make large amounts of money from F1 coming to Bangkok could care less about the local population and as to whether they might need to wear ear plugs or not as they'll be too busy away counting their legally gotten backhander gains no doubt.

To be fair considering the Bishops of the Church of England etc still sit in the House of Lords unelected and DO still sway power when it comes to the outcome of voting etc ( just watch them go once the marriage equality bill hits the Lords for it's reading there next !) I think we to could do with doing the same - and don't even start me on this backwater so called religious shit hole that I live in here in N.i Ieland where both sides still basically vote in their politicians based on their religion ( and so then politics) . So I'm ALL for separation of Church and State and think it should be even more enforced than it currently is - so if they Americans are prone to mixing their religion and politics too much then I've a fair idea who it was that taught them to do that maybe. And I'm not even sure we can blame the English on this one as the Scot's and the Irish were ( and still are) some of the worst offenders perhaps :-( So, yes I'm all for that - just as long as the other side don't get in of course ! :-)

As has been said I believe there generally is no such thing as being trained to shoot to maim, it's shoot to hit and stop i=s the order of the day if you need to take them down with the officer (generally) aiming for the largest surface area i.e the torso and ideally the heart area as it's simply the biggest spread to aim at and "should" result in your target dropping if hit ( but not always) and generally the best chance of stopping the assailant in their tracks. It's also a fallacy that most armed officers can hit what they are actually aiming at and in the heat of the moment and whilst on the street most I believe would be happy just to HIT the target and anything better such as a head shot etc would just be an added bonus. There is also the issue of the number of shots being fired where here in the UK each and every shot has to be accounted for and proved to be required and measured in it's response to the situation, leading to UK police officers being trained to fire in burst of two shots at a time, whereas in the US there seems to be a slightly less strict approach to this leading to the police perhaps emptying their magazines at someone rather than the two or four shots that would perhaps be fired here, which again depending on just how accurate ( or otherwise) the officers shots were would of course have an effect on whether or not the person shot was lucky (or not) to survive the encounter. And as for watching the video above huge kudos to the first response officers who fired on the gunman before even being able to get out of their car to assess the situation, the immediate follow up response after that by the other emergency services / police that arrived may be something that needs looked into as without going into details without too much more planning on the terrorists part the end result could have been very different - but well done to the police, they performed their duty admirably and its just a terrible thing that that poor soldier was so brutally murdered in the first place.

Just how long should we be prepared to wait then Anonone, our lifetime, the next generation of gay guys lifetimes or the next ? What's wrong with us all just saying "This is bullshit, just stop your blatant discrimination in many areas of society NOW, we won't stand for it any longer !" Personally I think we've been WAY too generous in allowing the straight community to set the pace of change and it's good to see the gay community asserting itself of late and DEMANDING their equal rights and not quietly hoping or asking "please can we have our basic equal rights" in issues such as marriage equality etc, enough is enough and the time to all speak out is I believe now and NOT to wait until people such as the Scouts and their like decide that we have conformed enough to their narrow views for them to allow us admission to their hallowed organisations and or whatever Federal and State bodies that chose to treat gay people with contempt ( as that's OUR job when dealing with each other it seems and a role which we seem to be able to manage to undertake perfectly well without THEIR help it seems :-) ( Oh and the above comments are not directed at you personally in any way Anonone, I'm just speaking generally here) Right, rant over, where's my Bra as I'm off to burn it !!

I note ( and am glad) that you underlined the implication part there as you'd absolutely right about that and my experience/s in the BB ( no not THAT one, but the Boys Brigade i.e. whats also known here in Ireland as the paramilitary wing of the Church :-) I can confirm the same. But what i want to know is why is no one CALLING the Scouts on this and asking them DO THEY think and if are they claiming that it's a Child protection issue if so why ? To be fair to them I'm not sure they are actually claiming that but are more leaning towards "being gay doesn't sit with our moral code" - but lets face it that's just another way of saying " you're all perverts and sodomites and we want nothing to do with you" - I mean this is an Organisation who only as recently as July 2012 concluded that its long-standing ban on gay scouts was "the best policy for the organisation" so that reads to me more like my above " actually we don't want a gay about the place but hey if we let a few in I GUESS that's ok if it takes the heat off until things die down, but hey lets DEFINITELY never treat gay people as actual equals or anything like that as that's just a bridge too far for those perverts" So, whilst their vote is more positive than negative I personally don't feel the gay community should be throwing garlands at them JUST yet until they get their house in order and start treating ALL gay people equally as surely MORALLY that's the right thing to do - not that we gays would know anything about being morally straight of course according to them - "apparently".

How ridiculous to lift the ban on members being gay but yet NOT on having gay scout leaders - and this vote coming from the very Scout leaders themselves, I think that tells you where their heads are REALLY at !! So a scout goes through his entire youth as a (gay) scout, perhaps right up to getting his Eagle Scout badge and lives and breathes scouting all his life and then at 18 or 20 has to either leave, taking all his enthusiasm and knowledge with him, OR go back in the closet and deny that he's actually gay to enable him to keep on doing what he's loved all those years ! Yeah there's progress for you ! Whilst this may be seen as a SMALL step in the right direction the vote was only carried by 60% of those voting and the question about them accepting gay leaders not to have even been asked by the ruling Council is just them hoping that they've dodged that particular the bullet until another day instead of them actually grasping the nettle and just going ahead and ending their discriminatory practices. So it appears that they still have a long way to go in their heads both as an Organisation and at least 40% of the leaders who voted as to the whole " yeah some people are gay get over it" campaign :-( So, "yes, we'll allow gay kids to join now, but hey just don't start thinking that you're actually equal to us or anything, or that you can teach us anything or that you talk, lead or deal with our kids or members in any way, cause you know what, actually we still think you're all just a little bit morally suspect deep down. But hey I guess we can tolerate a few of you joining if it stops the bad press and hell who knows perhaps our straight leaders can actually straighten you confused kids out somehow as you'll sure as hell not see any gay role models in THIS organisation". - yes, definitely a long way to go me thinks - and for an organisation that prides itself on being so good at camping too ( joke) !! Shame on them, they need to lift their ban on leaders now too and stop their discriminatory homophobic crap NOW and do that not just as they are being put under PR or Sponsors pressure but simply because its the right thing to DO !! :-(

I'm guessing you're right there ceejay, both on the 30 years part AND the styptic pencil ! :-)

[quote name="KhorTose" A funny way to look at it as no other company has offered to do that. Looks to me like they are trying to prove they are socially responsible. No doubt and Starbucks will continue to be the most successful coffee company in the world. Well for a man that reads the Guardian I'm sure you're fully aware that the US and UK unemployment are also most identical at 7.9 and 7.5% respectively and the US has only just dropped last month so you're comment about unemployment is a bit ridiculous and mean spirited to I would add and of course if companies such as Starbucks actually paid their fair share of local taxes without employing teams of tax lawyers to avoid doing just that then OUR economy and thus our unemployment figures would I presume be even less - so yes thanks Starbucks, google, amazon etc etc for that - very socially responsible of you all - NOT ! And as for continuing to be the most successful company in the world I guess if you measure success in profit then perhaps but for a company that prides itself and tells us all about great they are on social responsibly I would have though striving for a balance and success in all areas of their business might have been a better indicator of their success or otherwise. You talk of profit reminds me of the shareholder who stood up at the AGM to question their stance on marriage equality "in case it hurt sales with the Christian Right" - thankfully their CEO got it right that time and basically told him profit isn't everything in life and if he didn't like it could cash in his shares, lets hope they take a similar view now to their tax obligations in try counties in which they trade and start paying their fair share - enjoy your coffee, I'll pass for now thanks.

[quote name="KhorTose" Yes it is horrible to be so friendly to customers. How is your unemployment at the moment with all you industry gone? Well if you consider false empty gestures that are implemented and designed solely to generate more sales a sign of friendliness knock yoursd going there, I consider it false bulllshit and it doesn't impress me one bit - or most of the UK public too as the sales gimmick it wasn't well received across the UK in general, but as I say if empty gestures are what floats your boat and makes you think the person selling you your coffee is your friend good for you.

So, we're conceding "not just me thinks that way then" I hope now - good, lets move on. And speaking personally I don't find it "friendly" for a firm to ask my first name to write on a coffee cup so they can call my first name and "appear" to sound friendly, its pure PR bullshit - and THAT was the "Americanism gone mad" to which I was referring, equivalent to the fake "have a nice day" some Americans seem to be so fond of now. Somehow my coffee always seemed to manage to get to my table long before they knew my first name and I'm guessing it still will in the future when this policy fades out as it surely will. And as for them being a very successful company for their shareholders or that there is no doubt - not hard I guess when as I said you're paying NO tax in the many countries in which you trade and simply taking your profits out the door and contributing nothing in terms of tax contributions to the countries where your profits are actually coming from - whether that is legal or not it is still questionable morally for a company who shout so much about corporate ethics - and their admission in paying an immediate £20 million over to the UK tax man shows THEY know this to be true also in terms of how it looks. I ( like all the other people here in the UK who expressed their opinion - so not just me then) stand by my post as you will no doubt yours as is your right - but likewise mine too.

wonderful - there's a start, I'll check it out, many thanks :-)

So, whilst sitting around the dinner table in our canteen at lunch time today several of us got talking about a product we all remember fondly and this was a small bottle of white powder seeming known to us all as "magic powder" that our mothers used on use on us all should we have had a small cut or graze in order to stop it bleeding, it was miraculous stuff and worked every time and almost instantly it seemed. Of course now that we're all older we realise that the name "magic powder" was something obviously our mothers were telling us for effect and as one of the new mothers in the office wanted to go out and buy a bottle of this "magic powder" for her own son and none of us have seen a bottle in years, I was just wondering might anyone know the proper name for said powder perhaps? I'm also guessing that it's the same stuff that is given to soldiers in their field dressing kits to enable them to sprinkle it on gunshot wounds to both limit any risk of infection and also assist in coagulating blood flow, so, any ideas guys or maybe it was in fact just "magic powder" after all :-)

My business is of course irrelevant to this discussion, it's nothing special, nor is it's turnover or is the tax advice, as in fact it's not so much tax advice as "there's you're tax bill, pay it" and I'm guessing my accountant spends about 20 minutes a year thinking about that if I'm lucky. Anyway, as I say that's irrelevant as the point is that for ANY company to go out of their way paying legions of accountants all to ensure that they don't pay ANY tax in the country in which they operate WHILST AT THE SAME TIME TELLING US HOW SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE THEY ARE is to me totally disingenuous to say the least and if Starbucks didn't think they were being just a little bit sneaky then I'm sure they would have simply said "look, screw the lot of you, it's all totally legal and if you don't like it TOUGH" - but they didn't do that, on news of their tax avoidance scheme becoming public they immediately paid £20 million out to avoid the bad PR as even they were aware it looked shabby. And even if they didn't do that the fact that the public did mount a campaign against them then this then shows that the public thought it appeared shabby - which was my original point that no, I am NOT the only person that thinks their actions were less that suitable for such a large organisation.

Well I think for an organisation the size and scale of Starbucks to effectively set up their accounts to ensure that they pay NO tax in the Country in which they trade is morally questionable, I have accepted what they are are doing is perfectly legal and I don't disagree with you that that's something the Government should address. However we're not talking about a Company paying slightly less tax here but going out of their way to pay absolutely none by setting up complex accounting procedures to enable them to totally avoid paying UK tax in the country where they genuinely made their profit. Whilst i again absolutely concede they have done nothing illegal I do believe for an organisation of that size who talk so much about their wonderful social responsibly to the communities in which trade etc that is somewhat hypocritical. And to answer your question I pay whatever my accountant tells me to pay tax wise and I don't mean by that that they go on some round the houses tax avoidance scheme but merely take income versus costs, work out the tax bill and I pay it. And I do understand your point and don't entirely disagree with you that Starbucks and other corporations got it in the neck simply for following ( and playing) the rules but I do also believe they went far and away over the norm in order to avoid tax that would normally have been due when a company posts their annual profits and THAT to me for a company with such a strong PR message about their social responsibility is the morally questionable part.