Canny lass

WHAT!!!!!!!

Just bairns!

the underwear's OK but the bondage aspect could have been played down a bit don't you think?

I don't know about that but my first 2-wheeler was a CWS (Cooperative Wholesale Society alias "the store") but my brother told me that CWS really meant "copper, wire and string". I loved my bike anyway!

I've always wondered why cyclists are allowed to use pavements. If it's got wheels it's a vehicle and should be on the road. If it's got feet (and using them to walk) it's a pedestrian and should be on the pavement! (with the exception of children learning to ride with adult supervision).

More than good. Excellent!!

Interesting threegee! Didn't know that Jimmy Millne had anything at that end of the street. Where was the off-licence then. Can anybody remember?

Thanks a bunch Fourgee. I'll try that.

That's interesting Brettly. I've often wondered where the Whitley Memorial School got it's name. Could it have anything to do with him?

Anybody know what ages we're talking about here?

I'm quite enjoying the image.

3) could it have anything to do with Winston Churchill's bunker? Seating for 30, place to discuss politics and strategies? Just a thought.

Brilliant!!

010100110110111101110010011100100111100100100001001000000100001001101001011101000010000001101111011001100010000001100001001000000110110101101001011100110111010001100001011010110110010100100000011101000110100001100101011100100110010100101110

010011100110111101110100001000000111001001100101011000010110110001101100011110010010000100100000010010000110010101110010011001010010000001101001011011100010000001010011011101110110010101100100011001010110111000100000011001010111011001100101011100100111100101110100011010000110100101101110011001110111001100100000011011010110111101110010011001010010000001101111011100100010000001101100011001010111001101110011001000000110111001101111011100100110110101100001011011000010000100100000010101110110010100100000011001000110111101101110001001110111010000100000011000010110110001101100011011110111011100100000011011110111010101110010001000000110111001101111011101010110011101101000011101000111001100100000011000010110111001100100001000000110111101101110011001010111001100100000011101000110111100100000011001110110010101110100001000000110100101101110001000000110000100100000011101000110100101111010011110100111011101100001011110100111101000101110

01001001001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000110101101101110011011110111011100100000010101100110100101100011001011100010000001000100011011110110111000100111011101000010000001110100011010000110100101101110011010110010000001010100011001010111001101100011011011110010011101110011001000000110010001101111001000000111010001101000011001010110110100101110

01010111011001010110110001101100001000000100100100100111011011010010000001110000011011000110010101100001011100110110010101100100001000000111011101100101001000000110011101101111011101000010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000110001101101100011001010110000101110010011001010110010000100000011101010111000000101110001000000100100100100000011010110110111001100101011101110010000001101001011101000010000001110111011000010111001101101110001001110111010000100000011011010110010100101110

Threegee, this is about the bit that's not editable by me, so all that is also totally irrelevant. Can't agree with you on the publishing aspect either, I'm afraid. Beleive me if its on the Internet its published, at least potentially. "It's only visible to you", you say. Now there's a sentence that must have echoed repeatedly around the walls of the Whitehouse at some point in the past! I myself can't really see the logic in having made visible to me something which I would already know. I'm presuming of course that these warning points won't just sneak up on me in the night - although now that I think about it, my warning status did just that! You say that "If there is a problem I'm at a loss to see how this could be!" I guess I'd already worked that out for myself, so I don't really think there's any point in continuing the discussion. I'll just leave the last word to you.

Threegee, it's totally irrelevant through which warning system you recieved your warning and I am not asking you to eat your words - only to hear mine. As you have so rightly pointed out this is a democratic site. Neither have I askied you to disable the system or even to modify it - I've only pointed out that I felt my integrity to have been violated by certain aspects of it. I believe I have every right as a human being to do that here - this is a democratic site, is it not? I feel no need to google IPB warningsystems. I have a layman's understanding of them which is sufficient for my needs. I am not against these systems, indeed I believe they have an important role to play in the world we live in. However, I am against not knowing that I am being monitored and having my 'warning status' recorded and published on the Internet.

Threegee, I think you did say that, as I've posted above. You later said that you could "only remember one occasion that any were used." (July 18th, 8.59am) I am not against your feeling the need to have a system for dealing with disruptive elements. I can even accept that any such system includes being given a warning before any other measures are taken - in fact I think it's only fair and adult to do so. What I am against is: my, and presumably many others being under some kind of secret surveillance. (Nobody seemed to know about this points system, not even Malcolm - a moderator, who had to ask me where Id seen these warning points mentioned) that these points are published on profiles and in forums. OK, I have no points but I may have had, and that doesn't feel very nice. I cannot see my profile or my input in the forums through the eyes of the reader, so I don't know what they see. It's a very uncanny feeling, if you'll pardon the pun.

I'm all for knowing where the boundaries lie but should I ever cross them then a P.M. from a moderator would suffice to point out my disdemeanour. Warning points that appear in the forums are clearly not needed. Accordng to threeg it's only himself who has ever had a warning point. You can't claim that the warning point system has acted as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it hasn't been known that it existed until a few days ago.

I'm just wondering why it was turned on - or was made public, if it's been there all the time? I've been using this site for a year now without knowing this system was in use until the fact that I had "0 warning points" started to appear beside my input in the forums a couple of days ago.

It feels just a tad Orwellian - if I may say so without getting a warning point!