iplay

I strongly support what quiddity and those of like mind have said here.

As usual, the news managers have shifted the focus of blame from Bush and poodle Blair. These two are good at managing news. However, from a purely management point of view, their "leadership" is not working, to say the least. They claimed that their illegal war in Iraq, on a pretext of lies, would make the world a safer place. Even a child would know that would not work.

Blair made an outrageous statement about "Islamic terrorists". The Commissioner of Police (or someone of similar standing) answered a question about "Islamic terrorists" to the effect that "Islamic terrorists" is not a collocation. The politicians stoke the fire and the professional police have to dowse it.

It is quite obvious that bomb attacks such as the London ones can never be stopped through war. They can be stopped only through subtler means. It is the job of political "leaders" to understand and employ those means. But to do that, they would actually have to think.

Was wondering if anyone knows about age limits for giving blood. I am 56, in good health, English, have O Rhesus Negative blood, and recently went to enquire about giving blood at National Blood in Bangkok (Henri Dunant Road). I was immediately told that there was an age limit of 55. I was also asked if I ate beef in England and when I had last been in England. There were no other questions and I was ushered out, though I was offered a mug of Ovaltine on the way. Checking around the Net, I see that many countries specifically state that they have no age limit for giving blood. Does anyone know what the reality might be? Is it age, Mad Cow, a surfeit of blood...?

Those Bow Bells must have been loud when he was born.

Best and most meaningful post in this thread .

56, male. I spend time in Bangkok (where I can't stop smoking 2 packs daily) and UK (where it doesn't bother me to stop smoking completely). Strange I'd love to stop in Bangkok too.