Canny lass

Keith - forgot to say that the one correct answer you are looking for is !*!@#!

Cant understand why !*!@# is censored and not Charlie. It's discrimination.

And of course they did. Isn't technology fantastic!

1. Moby !*!@# 2. !*!@# van Dyke 3. !*!@# francis 4. !*!@# Tracy 5. !*!@# Dastardley I'll be very surprised if the censors don't change every answer when I try to post this!!

Can't wait to see how this is going to work! 50 beggars on Drottninggatan all at the same time - and on only a part of it. They'll be falling over each other - and the police will be falling all over them! I'm also wondering how much the charity will get out of this. They'll need to take 100 crowns an hour just to cover the hourly rate. Say they manage double, which I think is highly unlikely, then they can keep 200 crowns leaving 200 crowns over for their employer who has to pay 32% in national insurance per person (they are not doing this voluntarily if they are getting an hourly wage), cover their own costs and presumably earn something themselves. Not much left over för charity.

1. 116 years 2. Ecuador 3. Sheep, goat, horse 4. November 5. Squirrel 6. Dog 7. Albert 8. Crimson 9. New Zealand 10. Orange

I'll bet nobody dared to argue with her!

Don't know anything about the budgie and I don't know anything about William Hemsteads Fruit and Confectionery shop either. Anybody know where it was?

What year was this photo taken Foxy?

Is it this one Keith?http://www.bedlingtonironworks.org/gallery3/37/index.htm

Yep! Found the Olympic Park no bother. Who wouldn't with a view like that!

I don't know about putting them in stocks but I'm all for the idea of keeping them, and their parents if need be, occupied on Friday- and Saturday nights. Keith mentioned earlier on another thread that tthere are courses given to traffic offenders as a form of 'punishment' and they seem to do some good in making offenders aware of the consequences of bad driving. Why not parenting courses at the weekends for young offenders and their parents with the emphasis on communication and responsibilities?

There must be some way of maintaining control of children as the majority turn out just fine. I haven't lived in England for many years so I'd like to know what it is that's changed there. Who has taken away the right to raise children to be respectful, law-abiding adults? I know there are laws against the use of corporal punishment - and rightly so - but who on this earth has taken away the right to speak to a child? Punishment is a rather harsh sounding word which tends to be associated with physical abuse, but it needn't necessarily be so. Is there some new law that say's a parent can't stop a child's pocket money (there's no law which say's you have to give it to them as far as I know)? Is there some new law that say's a 13-14 year old cannot be given a set, early bed time by his own parents? Is there some new law that say's a parent can't curtail the use of a child's favourite 'toy' (read computer, i-phone etc.) for a period of time? Of course all of these "punishments" are dependent for their effect on being able to speak to the child and explain that it's the consequence of a certain behaviour so I cannot understand why it should be forbidden to speak to a child. What's wrong with teaching a child from an early age that human behaviour is always coupled to consequences - sometimes good and sometimes bad. Children are not born with a complete code of conduct stamped on their forehead. It's something they have to learn with the help of the adults in their lives. Getting through life is about making wise choices. Wise choice = good consequences. Bad choice = bad consequences. That needs to be learned as a child. Unfortunately I think there's a lot of truth in what Brettly say's. For some parents it's a case of 'anything for a quiet life'.

In some ways yes. Makes you wonder where the older generation is going wrong.

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.