test levels go down as you age, so it follows that so would sex drive. another reason why most middle aged men would benefit from a bit of juice.

he got a hair cut and sucked his gut in. amazing transformation!

she would have done better to take her top off and rub her tits in his face.

And what % of all the tax are the top 7% paying? i would guess they are still subsidising the sh@t out of the other 93%...

doubt it, the devices seem to have been very primitive. there was a far right, nut job kid in the UK(david copeland) managed to make and detonate several of these type of nail bombs and he was working on his own. you could probably learn how to knock up these sorts of devices just trawling the internet.

prosperous doing jobs that lost money with the taxpayer having to pay the shortfall...

where's the dignity in doing a job that like that?

well i wouldn't go as far as saying i'm the man lol but yeh i have clue compared to you 

lol if only it was so simple. the uk economy needed to move on, emerging nations were producing the same things with much lower labour costs, in part due to idiotic union demands pushing up costs in the uk. if those dying publicly owned industries were really viable, they would have been bought up by the private sector , like BT and the utilities etc. keeping people in non productive jobs with the tax payer picking up the tab, would have  caused EVERYONE more pain in the long run.

what do you do if you're making plastic widgets and paying your workers £5 an hr and then someone else comes along and can make the same product but only has to pay their workers 20 pence an hour?
do you keep trying to compete in an area where you have no chance, or do you look for areas where you have the comparative advantage...

thatcher encouraged the uk to move towards higher tech and service industries where we had the advantage over the low skilled/labour cost nations.
when thatcher came into power the uk economy was a basket case with double figure inflation needing to be bailed out by the IMF in 1976(ala greece)

thatcher will be remembered(by people with any clue) as a hero for how she remodeled the economy and defeated the unions that were strangling the life out of the country.

don't see why people are saying he only weighed xxx so couldn't have been juicing. steroids make you stronger as well as aiding mass gains. if you don't eat extra calories you will not gain extra mass taking steroids , your body composition will improve and you will get stronger, which is obviously a big advantage for anyone in any physical sport/profession at any size. there are plenty of little boxers and mma guys who have been caught juicing.

well it was 40% under labour for the vast majority of their tenure. when people are bashing the rich and claiming how well they're looked after etc, it's worth bearing in mind that the top 1% of earners in the UK pay nearly 30% of all the tax.

better to have 40% or 45% of something than be greedy and end up with 0% of nothing...

not sure where you get those figs from, as the highest rate of tax has risen from 40% - 50% , put up at the end of the labour term and not changed by the tories. although there is pretty good evidence that 50% tax is probably higher than optimal for the good of everyone in the long run.

the myth that the tories look after the rich and screw the poor is just propaganda, the last labour government actually lowered taxes and courted the rich far more than any government in recent UK history(current one included). And to be fair labour did a pretty good job at encouraging healthy economic growth.

there was something like 12 years of unbroken economic growth under labour with record tax receipts(albeit with low tax rates) yet they still managed to leave the country in monumental debt and with a record spending deficit.

i am not a supporter of any party but when you look at the facts , there does appear to be a cycle where labour takes the the country to the brink of financial ruin and then the tories come and clean up their mess. it happened back in the 70s, 3 day weeks, union mob rule, imf bail outs, sick man of europe label etc, thatcher turned that around and when labour came back in 97 they inherited a golden egg economy. they did well for a long time, as blair had stolen the tories' clothes and never really veered from the economic policies of his predecessors. but eventually they let public spending get out of control and when the global downturn hit instead of being in a strong position to deal with it as you should be after years of strong growth, the country was back at the brink of bankruptcy, with labour vowing to spend their way out of debt...and the cycle continues.

don't really know anything about the EMA so can't comment. one thing i will say about university fees, i think it is right for students to chip in when cuts and tax increases are needed across the board, but one thing that i think was out of order was that initially it was announced that £9000 a year would be the top rate but that would supposedly only be in exceptional cases.

Then when the universities released their fees nearly every one was £9000, but then that hits the middle classes just as bad as the working classes(probably worse) as the grants are means tested so if your parents have money, they have to pay the fees up front, whereas if your parents can't afford it you get the fees offset until you are earning.

what about them?

the problem is when you end up with the debt problems the uk ended up with at the end of labour's reign, the books need to be balanced and it's inevitable that taxes are going to have to go up somewhere and there are going to be losers. you could argue if labour had managed the economy better, there would have been no need for tax increases, as the tories are not exactly known for wanting to raise taxes.

What are you talking about? anyone with the grades can go to university in this country. If you don't have the money , you get grants along with loans to cover your expenses , and the loans are only payed back when you start earning over a certain threshold and are at a very favourable rate and over a very long period time.

you really need to educate yourself with some facts and stop listening to bs propaganda

I have no allegiance to Cameron, i have no idea of the % who have benefited since he came to office. But can you show me the % of people that have lost ...where are your FACTS?

I look at things on a case by case basis and the bedroom tax seems to be at least a step in the direction. Even people on housing benefits in the private sector cannot get a spare room payed for, why should it be different for people in social housing?

How do you know the family with 8 kids haven't worked a day in their life? how do you know the elderly couple haven't been a drain on the system all their lives?
it's all assumptions and generalisations...
the bottom line is if the state are funding your housing you really are not entitled the luxury of spare bedrooms imo.

I have no allegiance to any political party, just seems like common sense that people living in state subsidised housing shouldn't have the luxury of spare bedrooms when there are other families crammed into houses with not enough room.  

Seems to me you're a typical brain dead moron, who cannot explain themselves coherently and really has no clue about the facts of the subjects you try to talk about.

What "social regulations" ? why not explain what you're talking about?
I know there is an exchange system , i grew up in council housing and i know plenty of people who have swapped property via the exchange system...

what are you talking about disabled people are being cut and thrown out of their houses?
do you mean you watched the news and they showed a couple of exceptional cases where disabled couples were going to be affected...i think i saw another case where they showed a women whose kid had died and she was keeping a spare room as a shrine for him...those stories do pull on the heart strings...

funny that i never saw anything in the media highlighting any typical cases, like where couples are just continuing to live in state subsidised 3 bed houses after their kids have moved out.

what about disabled people, how will this affect them?

what's a load of shit?

an exchange system doesn't exist? or there aren't families in overcrowded conditions?

what planet are you on?
the average those affected will lose from the bedroom tax is £14 a week...where do you think you can rent a room for £14 a week in the private sector?

there is an exchange system in social housing where people can swap properties, and there are plenty of families living in over crowded conditions.

well i didn't see anything about cameron's houses in that link...but if he is living in social housing with more bedrooms than required, he should have to pay the tax too  8

Its subsidised housing, why should the taxpayer subsidise people living in houses with more bedrooms than they need? If their kids have grown up and moved out why don't they exchange down to a smaller property? there are plenty of families in social housing that don't have enough bedrooms...

If you want the luxury of extra bedrooms go buy your own house or rent privately and pay full market rates, anyway the amount being charged for extra rooms is still only a fraction of what you'd pay for a room in the private sector.