Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 6]
Discussion
Sheets Tabuer said:
When the mrs asks for something nice when you are going to the supermarket what does she mean?
So far I've suggested pork pie, Samosas, chocolate, Olives and nachos all of which were greeted with nahhh don't fancy that.
Just bring back something nice.
My bring a socket set, that'll be nice.
I would suggest not listing things for her to approve, just go and buy something (it's the gesture in bringing something back that is being asked for rather than somethind specific). For extra points buy a 'Just Because' card and you'll more than meet the stringent requirements of crazy world.So far I've suggested pork pie, Samosas, chocolate, Olives and nachos all of which were greeted with nahhh don't fancy that.
Just bring back something nice.
My bring a socket set, that'll be nice.
Alickadoo said:
StevieBee said:
I may have misread but the hecklers Kay ejected were much more disruptive than just shouting out Garlic Bread.
Is the Garlic Bread thing a joke which I have missed?If not, what does it mean?
bigpriest said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
When the mrs asks for something nice when you are going to the supermarket what does she mean?
So far I've suggested pork pie, Samosas, chocolate, Olives and nachos all of which were greeted with nahhh don't fancy that.
Just bring back something nice.
My bring a socket set, that'll be nice.
I would suggest not listing things for her to approve, just go and buy something (it's the gesture in bringing something back that is being asked for rather than somethind specific). For extra points buy a 'Just Because' card and you'll more than meet the stringent requirements of crazy world.So far I've suggested pork pie, Samosas, chocolate, Olives and nachos all of which were greeted with nahhh don't fancy that.
Just bring back something nice.
My bring a socket set, that'll be nice.
Come home. Melt the chocolate dip the strawberries in the chocolate and feed them straight into her mouth
Don't discuss what you are doing in the kitchen with the microwave. Just say. I've got a surprise.
Finally she really needs to be happy for you to spank her with the daffodils. If not put them in a vase.
The danger with my wife is that something nice is as long as a piece of string. One day's nice is another days insult.
48k said:
Peter Kay did a stand up routine years ago about Brits going on holiday to Spain in the 70s and discovering "foreign" versions of "English" snacks ("OMG they've got Cadburys chocolate fingers!!...... they taste the same! ... they actually taste the same") and the old dad who can't be doing with "foreign muck" like garlic bread - "garlic bread?? garlic bread??... garlic? and bread?? no thankyouverymuch I've got some milk roll in my case". And the garlic bread exclamation became a bit of a meme and has been used as a heckle/catchphrase a bit like Mickey Flanagan's "out out".
Yes and he rejected someone for saying his catch phrase, hence how petty he is.mickythefish said:
48k said:
Peter Kay did a stand up routine years ago about Brits going on holiday to Spain in the 70s and discovering "foreign" versions of "English" snacks ("OMG they've got Cadburys chocolate fingers!!...... they taste the same! ... they actually taste the same") and the old dad who can't be doing with "foreign muck" like garlic bread - "garlic bread?? garlic bread??... garlic? and bread?? no thankyouverymuch I've got some milk roll in my case". And the garlic bread exclamation became a bit of a meme and has been used as a heckle/catchphrase a bit like Mickey Flanagan's "out out".
Yes and he rejected someone for saying his catch phrase, hence how petty he is.48k said:
He got them removed for being relentlessly disruptive and ruining the show for the thousands of others in the audience. There's a line, and they crossed it. Simples.
Like accusing someone of beastality lolAnyway just pointing out how modern comedians are very thin skinned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1145897.s...
If undercover police officers get jobs, legal or otherwise, under their false identities and if so do they get paid twice?
Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
Austin Prefect said:
If undercover police officers get jobs, legal or otherwise, under their false identities and if so do they get paid twice?
Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
In many case the money could be from the proceeds of crime too. Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
Of far more moral greyness concern, in my mind at least, is the issue of when they have sexual relationships with people as part of being under cover. For sure, if they are deep under cover then you could argue that it has to be "balls deep", so to speak, but it still makes me very uncomfortable as any consent has been obtained under false pretences.
It is interesting how con artists and/or undercover coppers seem to find it so easy to get their targets into bed. Perhaps they are just naturally manipulative or maybe if you use a false identity you aren't bothered about rejection, it doesn't seem personal.
Maybe I'll hit the bars tonight calling myself Peregrine Carruthers.
Maybe I'll hit the bars tonight calling myself Peregrine Carruthers.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Austin Prefect said:
If undercover police officers get jobs, legal or otherwise, under their false identities and if so do they get paid twice?
Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
In many case the money could be from the proceeds of crime too. Passing the undercover pay back as reverse expenses would make sense, but it might make cover a bit more realistic if they lived on their cover salary/occasional cash rather than police salary.
Of far more moral greyness concern, in my mind at least, is the issue of when they have sexual relationships with people as part of being under cover. For sure, if they are deep under cover then you could argue that it has to be "balls deep", so to speak, but it still makes me very uncomfortable as any consent has been obtained under false pretences.
Although if it's about the protest groups the police went undercover in, my unpopular opinion is their bosses should have been sacked, sent to court and locked up.
Even money from the proceeds of crime is a grey area. If it's stolen or embezzled then it should go back to the rightful owner. But what about drug deal money. If the drug user has actually got the drugs they paid for, should the money be treated differently from selling something legal?
Clockwork Cupcake said:
In many case the money could be from the proceeds of crime too.
Of far more moral greyness concern, in my mind at least, is the issue of when they have sexual relationships with people as part of being under cover. For sure, if they are deep under cover then you could argue that it has to be "balls deep", so to speak, but it still makes me very uncomfortable as any consent has been obtained under false pretences.
Indeed, a case relying on evidence obtained by undercover means, e.g. honey trap, is subject to the discretion of the court, the criteria is whether it was obtained fairly and its relevance, which, if you watch Court TV you realise why the proscecution and defence need 5 lawyers each and why a slam dunk case takes 6 weeks.Of far more moral greyness concern, in my mind at least, is the issue of when they have sexual relationships with people as part of being under cover. For sure, if they are deep under cover then you could argue that it has to be "balls deep", so to speak, but it still makes me very uncomfortable as any consent has been obtained under false pretences.
mickythefish said:
48k said:
He got them removed for being relentlessly disruptive and ruining the show for the thousands of others in the audience. There's a line, and they crossed it. Simples.
Like accusing someone of beastality lolAnyway just pointing out how modern comedians are very thin skinned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1145897.s...
Onelastattempt said:
How did the phrase " don't teach me how to suck eggs " come about ?
I said it to my eldest granddaughter today and she just looked at me as if I was a total idiot , ( to be fair she does that a lot ) , and asked why the hell I would want to suck an egg.
It was a thing back in the days of our grandmothers. Hence the phrase. I said it to my eldest granddaughter today and she just looked at me as if I was a total idiot , ( to be fair she does that a lot ) , and asked why the hell I would want to suck an egg.
It was a thing to make two small holes, one in either end of an egg, and blow (not suck) the contents out of the egg and then decorate the shell. Sort of like egg taxidermy. It was a skill that was so known that it was a case of "don't try to teach someone older than you a skill that everyone bloody knows like you invented it or something" which, let's face it, every generation does.
You could maybe say "Don't teach me how to log onto the internet" to your granddaughter.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Saturday 8th March 20:50
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff