Not Here!

Bought this DVD of Vienna's Kunsthistoriches Museum in 2005. It is a 3D reproduction of the picture galleries with all of the pictures in the correct locations with text and audio info and several tours: http://ecomm.khm.at/cgi-bin/khmmuseumsshop.storefront/4d4aa01d0156ab252717c1aad8420688/Product/View/20000 So, not a new idea. But still a good one.

From the same wikipedia page "In the United States, both the novel and the film were called Tight Little Island, as a ban existed at the time on using the names of alcoholic drinks in titles." I also think the original title is much better and "Tight Little Island" sounds like a Disney film to me (probably part of their 'Disney Nights' series for the more discerning viewer)

His previous victory in proving ownership of the Try in Tripe (with the caveat that only when the word is spoken) has seemingly encouraged this attempt.

I'm surprised that no-one responded to this more Swiftly.

I would mod ths funny if I had the points (though I do hope it is a literary joke and not a comment in support of the GP's idea)

For that reason I would add 'A Scanner Darkly' by Philip k. Dick. Themes related to drugs and identity are very relevant to today's teenagers. The book is rooted in the present, so is recognisable and there is little moralising. It is being told by someone who lived through and survived drug abuse and the final dedication to friends that didn't survive is particularly moving.

I see what you are intending here, but it doesn't work. The original bit refers to high proces for bullets, with the assumption that a bullet can only be fired once. A knife can be used multiple times, so you might hate 5000 people and decide to use it on each of them - 1 pound each is probably a bargain.

But what can you expect from an Innocent White Lamb?

I thought the joke was pretty good anyway.

Well, bearing in mind that the 'rural north' (taking north in the sense that many Londoners seem to - i.e. North of Luton) comprises all of the large traditionally industrial towns and cities (with the exception of Bristol), then I hardly think it is fair to call the area Rural. Yes, there are countryside areas, but there are in the south and east (Norfolk in the east, the Cotswolds and Dartmoor areas in the south and south west for example).

The fact is that British wealth was built in the North of England, Scotland and (in a lesser part) Wales during the Victorian period. London had its industry too, but the balance in the last 50 years has shifted away from heavy industry and manufacture towards service industry (including Financial service) this has led to a concentration of companies in and around the City of London. London may now be the economic centre of the UK, but it got its start by siphoning off wealth that was being generated in other parts of the country.

Someone else on this board has pointed out that London has the starkest disparity between rich and poor in the UK. I accept completely that some of the most blighted areas of Blighty are in London, but money spent on high cost, prestige projects within the M25 (Wembley, Millenium Dome, City Hall, and the Olympics) doesn't help the people living in poverty within the city. Impressive new stadia isn't going to help anyone living hand to mouth, especially when ticket prices will likely be quite high in order to pay off the debts run up in building these white elephants.

Anything to back up that claim, it seems very unlikely. If it is true, what about the strain that sports related injuries would place on the NHS?

Agreed, they promote tourism - to London, the place where most tourists go and only a small proportion actually get out and look at the rest of the country.

Fine, but I suspect that what this run down area really needs isn't unused stadia. Other cities have used the Olympics as a way of improving infrastructure (e.g. Athens built a new cross-city public transport system), what comparable projects are going on in London? And this Northerner (living on the edge of the M25) agrees that London gets too much money spent on it, the fact that it is unfairly distributed is beside the point.

Part of the reason why the NHS introduced a new layer of middle managers was that this is what was recommended by the 'Management Consultants' who were brought in to look at it. I can't see any hint of vested interest there, can you? Using the NHS as an example for not funding public services isn't a good idea, it was the reduction in investment during the 80's and 90's that allowed it get into the state it is in. A constantly fully-funded NHS would likely have been cheaper in the long-term than allowing it to run down and then build it back up again.