Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
At this time of year (since 1980 and the birth of Children in Need), Mr Wogan gets to take home a nice little earner for presenting the programme. That’ll be £10,000 he could (but won’t) donate to the charity.
Does he take home that £10,000?
At the end of CIN this evening the grand total was over £23,000,000 so what is £10,000 in comparison to that amount even if he does take it home?
If since 1980 if he has taken home £10,000 each year what does it amount to in the amount raised year in year out to the amount of money which increases each year in money to support CIN
What may be a more pertinent question is how much money raised by ‘charities’ is used to cover administration costs that never see’s it’s way to the reason it was donated
@toybulldog wrote:
fair enough rose.
It’s officially here in black and white, moon is booted by JC guides on sight.
ty
if I read this correctly – Rose said she would ban Moon on sight and she was speaking for herself and I would guess she has her own reasons to do so
I did not see where it mentioned all chat guides though
@panda12 wrote:
@j_in_france wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I think any organisation which only allows membership on the basis of race is racist.
There is a caveat though;
from the link – Membership is open to all solicitors, trainee solicitors, paralegals and students of African or Caribbean descent in England and Wales and any solicitor, trainee solicitor, paralegal or student who supports the aims and objectives of the BSN irrespective of their race, colour or creed.
so that is fine for black solicitors with African or Caribbean descent but what about the Indian and Asian descendants?
For once, I actually agree with you.
Appreciated – I really have a major problem with anything to do with prejudices in many different forms though at times it may not be expressed in a good way – for which I can only apologise but can never change how I feel
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@toybulldog wrote:
. . . . Could someone please explain to me why the Society of Black Lawyers AREN’T scoring a huge own goal, while creating enormous damage to the whole racism debate ? . . .
Busy weekend coming up and I don’t expect to be online, if nothing’s been said, I might have a go later. In the meantime,
Many of the societies of black lawyers etc developed prior to the 1990s. As has been acknowledged here times have changed. The fact you’re only just becoming aware of its existence shows that any ‘own goal’ is probably far less significant than the organisation’s raison d’etre.
I’m would hope there would be something on the history and purpose of the organisation on its website, which might explain more. I mean, if you really want to know what a person or organisation is about you’d have to go beyond the name, or you might think the Labour Party was all about digging holes in the ground while wearing a silly hat and UKIP was all about facilitating naps,
Words I appreciate you may not see this response for a few days but……
Peter Herbert representing black solicitors is a good thing but when he tries to move into a different area and try to make himself a representative of black footballers is a different thing. But when Clarke Carlisle who is a very erudite spokesman for footballers and someone who during his playing career was a very good player and who has also appeared on ‘Question Time’ has today questioned the position of Peter Herbert then it does become a bit difficult to understand why Peter Herbert feels he has to create a black footballers association, also as there are a great many nationalities from many different continents playing football in the UK
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? Nahhh
@panda12 wrote:
I think any organisation which only allows membership on the basis of race is racist.
There is a caveat though;
from the link – Membership is open to all solicitors, trainee solicitors, paralegals and students of African or Caribbean descent in England and Wales and any solicitor, trainee solicitor, paralegal or student who supports the aims and objectives of the BSN irrespective of their race, colour or creed.
so that is fine for black solicitors with African or Caribbean descent but what about the Indian and Asian descendants?
@kent f OBE wrote:
@momentaryloss wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
(actually has Skype but strictly for chatting to normal relatives and one friend over t’seas)
8-[
Oooo, you lil minx.
Wait till old J from France finds out, he’s bound to jump to the wrong conclusions!
Just me xx
I think I may have had a lil drink.
Helen and I have Skyped many a time usually about 11pm after Ruby has warmed me up (sorry Helen to bring your name onto the boards again – waves to Helen mwahh xx )
please feel free to give Helens skype details to everyone kenty if you have ever skyped her as she is always happy to chat to anyone on skype but that is f she only knew what it was
@rubyred wrote:
yeah !! anyone with a modicum of common sense would have realised..
nah i wont even explain. will leave YOU forever the buffoon!
au revoir Sir Prancelot !
jen jen/panda skype me soooon..
/poofily waves. xx
so a husband and wife having sex together is wrong?
but three women chatting on skype each wanking is ok?
@rubyred wrote:
@j_in_france wrote:
@rubyred wrote:
just wait till my skype mates come along.. you will see !!
sulks :)
sad that you have the need to get others to try and back you up
man o man ya dont beleive all this do ya :)
nahh the only thing I believe is that you are really really sad ruby
@rubyred wrote:
just wait till my skype mates come along.. you will see !!
sulks :)
sad that you have the need to get others to try and back you up
