melons

This is pretty much what I was alluding to in my post. The person who has directly affected my life, I would love to see him die, rather slow and painfully as it happens. See him crying, begging for it all to stop. I know this is wrong, I know that its not acceptable, I know that I'm supposed to rely on the extent of the law throwing the book at him and him being punished. What I know and what I feel are two very different things. Like i said, I would like to think I'm the better person and I would be able to do what is socially acceptable by normal people, not the knuckle draggers. As for the person I mentioned, if anything like that materialised, I'd probably offer him a huge bag of morphine to off himself.

Depends if they acted on it. If they had, they'd deserve everything the law could throw at them, if they hadn't, i'd hope counselling would be available. Those I do know of that have that touched kids, I've spent time thinking happy thoughts of their painful death, but they've acted on it, and it has affected me and mine. It's far too complex to know how I'd react I suppose, I'd like to think i'd be the decent person I like to think I am and respond appropriately.

Black ones with a touch of lace always work brilliantly at disguising what they actually are. There is not a chance you'd catch me out of my warmers, its bloody cold in these hills!

This is just a whole load of brilliance. http://m.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/assault-charge-woman-squirts-breast-milk-at-cop-refused-bail/story-fnhocxo3-1227278350251 What a dickhead of a copper not to realise there was a chance of bodily fluids escaping.

I'm convinced.

including the corset. I think thats the crux, its your day too. If it's something you both want or you're willing to compromise on you're on to a winner.

After the second the caring lark becomes a piece of cake, you don't even have to worry about feeding them as the older kids remind you. IT gets better when they have to remind you of their name. I just do head counts when it comes to family outings. Indeed, I had fertility treatment for some of my lot, I would love another but not sure I could face the full on emotional roller coaster again. She? Ha! The confidence you've got in your swimmers!

I'm with Champ on this one, mine would have been a nice dress, the wedding in the registry office with a pub and cake following, Mr Melons wanted the whole big dress and the church do, we compromised on a campsite with me wearing the marquee. For me there was little to no stress. Ski on the other hand is still in recovery.

Youtube in general. My kids watch more of it than they do TV!

Even my old friend lanacome isn't helping out much these days...

You're older than me? I'm distraught.

I've no idea what those blue swirls are.

Buoy, I went to see them last year, there were boobs everywhere.

And thats the crux of the matter, there are few to no public sector council houses about anymore. It's all housing associations and whilst they may be not for profit organisations, they are treated like businesses.

The two are now intrinsically linked though, council estates may have started off as you described, then people aspired to own their own homes and it became a status and wealth symbol. The ex council house became stepping stone to bigger and better as there was massive proffit to be made based on the right to buy discounts offered back then. Many small estates in Gwynedd are still as you describe, the council grant planning permission for new private builds there are clauses, they can only have permission to build on the provision that they build some dwelings for the authority, some for low income and then the ones to make their profit.

Its not just about not building enough houses, its far more complex than that. What about people owning second and third homes? For my area its more about holiday homes than lack of social housing, I'm sure many don't have too much of an issue with private lets providing the rent is fair and the accommodation of a reasonable standard for that rent, but that's not the point. It is social housing, that is what they are dwelling in, there should be no automatic right to staying in that house for the rest of your life, a house in the same area, yes. People should not be expected to move far from their friends and family. Should people still be permitted to stay in that particular 3 or 4 bed house when your kids have left home? Sorry, thats a no from me. I should point out, this should have been made clear from the onset of tenancy, not something they're just introducing now because they need too. If people had been promised a house for life the authority has no right to breech that (no matter how stubborn i think those in the dwelling are being) just because they now need houses, however, for tenants taking on new tenancies over the last couple of decades, it should have been made crystal clear. It should be, social housing shouldn't be permitted to be bought on a right to buy at a substantial discount. I've been been brought up on council estates all my life, I stand by what i say above, people should be informed when they take on a tenancy that when their need for that size home is diminished, they will be asked to take an alternative suitable accommodation. My circumstances changed, I'm no longer in a council house, I've watched my mum move up from a flat to a 4 bed house when we were kids down to a 2 bed flat she lives in now. As she says, she doesn't need a bigger house, or a garden, why keep it from someone that does?

Having sex whilst still wearing the most horrible bra's of your life, stuffed with breast pads or worse, breast shells because you know that if you don't there'll be an even bigger wet patch on the top half of the bed than the one he's likely to leave in the middle of the bed.

I had a proud moment today when I caught my daughter watching free speech on Iplayer. I used to agree with this until I'd been made homeless. A single parent with 4 kids in an authority with a low stock of social housing. People shouldn't be made to move into private lets, thats not what I'm saying, but that people in social housing should appreciate there are times when others needs outweigh theirs and if there is alternative more suitable accommodation, they should have to consider it. It's not right wing bollocks, its a housing shortage.

People on tax credits ripping the shit out of those on JSA for being a benefit claimant. Thick fucks.

No, just that they were brief. Even if she was, that wouldn't impact CSA type payments just spousal payments.

Bollocks, just double checked, 30% was what they'd have been likely to take on a normal wage. The minimum would have been around £160 per week. That would have been around £150k based on 18 years of owed payments, not that he was eligible to pay for them for all that time, but the point remains. Also, the divorce finalised in 1992, he claims his business only took off in 1996.

From what I've read, around 1993. I've thought about this, and the more I think about it, the more pissed i seem to get about the "child support" line. Had the child support been paid, at the 1993 rate of around 30% of his net earnings, I'm sure it is possible things would have turned out very differently for the mother. Had he succeeded when they were still married, wouldn't she have enjoyed the rewards more so than the sum she is asking for now? He could have done both, he didn't. Should he be punished for being a feckless father? Too right he should. They all should. Yes, it does. He is old enough to support himself, he would be responsible for his own actions. Taking a man in at 18 does not a father make. Yes she did (she already had one previously that he'd taken on before having their son), and I do get your point, but i'll maintain the argument that having the support be it financial or physical makes a mountain of difference. Like i said before, the more i think about it, the more i could justify a larger payout on the basis of how much extra work was put in being the single parent than had it been the two, not just the CSA but for compensation for the effort she had to put in when he didn't. I know it sounds lame, but there were times when my lot were little I'd have given up a weeks wages for a couple of nights sleep, not only that, the child care bills used to run up to the £700/£800 a month mark, had my ex done his share, my hours may have been different and I would not have spent out that money? I can ramble on this one all day. Only if it doesn't cost them money.... Funnily enough, I've just come across this whilst doing a little digging on the ages of her kids... And he's now moaning about having to pay £500k in fees, my heart bleeds for the poor bastard. Not.

I almost missed this... I almost pissed my sides with the absurdity. The boy? Really? He opened a door for an adult to move in. Someone who was old enough to look after themselves.

Not fair, reasonable. If it was fair she should expect more than the 1.9m. The financial cost alone is said to be quarter of a million, what about the cost to her personally? What, so the kid can claim the money that he didn't have whilst growing up? Ay dad, where's my tenner a week pocket money? Or the guilt money for not seeing me 3 nights a week? They split when the kid was 1 or 2, the divorce happened years later. Not only that, he'd already started to make his millions before the kid turned 18. Why is it strange the kid lived with his dad when he turned 18? Serious question. My eldest moved in with her dad in November, it's only for a few months before she goes to uni in September, but still, I don't see the issue. Other than the fact she's 18 and doesn't need him around her all the time so he still gets his freedom.

Yet you're calling her the money grabbing cunt?