monkjack

Worksop's a nice place its just the chav's dominate the town centre so people tend to avoid it.

Worksop has Clumber on its doorstep so for countryside there's nothing more you could ask for.

>> You obviously haven't read the book Because the book written by him to promote his diet is of course going to by very independant. >> People always mock what they don't understand... if you're happy to dismiss it, fine! If it were as crap as you say then why would stars with very lean fit bodies swear by it and only use THAT diet? Because all diets are effective to SOME degree, and if you get there via your preferred choice you will swear by it, even if you don't realise you could have got there quicker by another diet. If I had a body like Brad Pitt and did so via the eating carrots diet, then no doubt I would be telling everyone to only eat carrots. >> If you read what Dr Atkins wrote, calories don't make a difference... but modern day rubbish that has been spewed at you through the TV makes you think it does! I'll forget the advice of scientists then and take your advice. Thanks for correcting me. The only true weight lost via Atkins is from calorific deficit. >> I know a woman that lost 9st on this diet...and has maintained her new weight for over 6 years. I suppose it's all water? Don't make me laugh! I said water was mainly in the first few weeks, when people claim they've lost a stone in an hour. That's what makes me laugh. And once you dismiss the inital water loss, the differences between low fat diets and Atkin's diet is nothing. >> I've read into a lot of diets and i am a qualified gym instructor (I also take regular exercise) I know about fats, calories and carbs... so sorry to **** on your bonfire! I've lost 6 stone so far, so I'm not a novice to the game myself. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=atkin+diet&btnG=Google+Search I'm happy that people are losing weight by any means, but Atkins seems to be having a bit of a comeback at the moment, and the fad will pass. Repeat to yourself. Weight loss = calories in < calories out.

So you're talking about Ecclesall Road South. Most people I speak to would consider Broomsgrove road area to be what would spring to mind when you think of Ecclesall. And you can't argue that house prices there are ridiculously overvalued, but that will probably continue for a long time, and that traffic is a nightmare compared to a non city location.

Well its green then blue then green then blue, so in a four week period you get the green bin collected twice.

It's housing provided by the council (local government) for people who cannot afford to or do not wish to own their own property / rent privately. The poorer you are the cheaper you get these houses. Obviously, a side effect is that the undesirables in society get housed in these places, and that has a detrimental effect on whole council estates, despite 99% of residents being perfectly upstanding citizens. If you can afford it, then in most cases you'd buy or rent in a private area.

I'm as anti drugs as the next man, but the war on drugs plainly isn't working. It's time to legalise all drugs, so we can free up the billions spent of prevention for spending on education and treatment instead. Figures in the Guardian (yes I know) earlier this week showed that some prisons could be housing up to 80% drug related criminals. Legalisation will stop these people from having to steal to get their fix. I'd rather they quietly inject themselves in a health centre, than rob my house to pay for the drugs.

While its difficult to do enough exercise to lose a lot of weight via pure burning of calories, regular exercise will increase your BMR and that makes a big difference. A walk for an hour a night would lose you a pound over a 2 week period (working on 250 calories burned per 1 hour, and 3500 calories per pound of fat).

>> Today is the beginning of my 3rd week into the atkins diet. I've lost 9lbs so far (and am happy with that amount over the time scale) and looking forward to saying that's 1stone gone and only 2 more to go! Most of that will be water. Not trying to **** on your bonfire as it were. >> I enjoy the food on atkins! I can go down the pub and have a mighty mix grill, I just don't eat the chips! Big steak, big gammon, lamb, chicken, veg..... phwoooooar! YUMMY! >> Breakfast... ok I like my omlettes and bacon... but when I get bored I've picked up a protein shake tub from body active at the bottom of the moor! Contains 0.2g carbs per serving and fills me right through till lunch... and it's strawberry flavoured! >> Lunch is usually meat with salad. chicken, Tuna mayo, etc, with boiled egg and cheese too! All that cheese and dairy. Hmmm, just think of the calories There is the same calorific content in Carbs as there are is in Protein. You can only lose weight by calories in < calories out. The atkins diet only gets all the press it does because people lose stupid amounts of 'weight' in the first 4 weeks, say 14lb, but it soon levels out to be the same, and I'd argue that its mostly water. But if you're happy doing it and you think its a wonder diet then that's a good motivator and thats probably the hardest thing to get.

Well judging by that last link you posted you're comparing apples and oranges. The same house would probably go for £500K in a nice area. Anyway, I'm not trying to be critical on purpose, but these areas are not nice, and it'll take a hell of a 'boom' before I'd consider living there.

It's hardly a four bed town house is it !

Lets group people together for a minute. You've got your teenagers who listen to Girls Aloud, Gareth Gates. Beyonce, and other such manufactured / glossy bands, who basically keep the singles market going. You've got your adults who like a bit of anything and nothing, not particuarly fussed, radio 1 or radio 2, it doesn't matter it's all music. You've got your music lover who has their own music taste. People who support the bands they like, and like a lot of other stuff besides. The kind of people who listen to Bob Harris on Radio 2, or Jools Holland on BBC 2. Obviously this is stereotyping and not all people fit into these categories. If the record companies came along and charged 10p per track, all properly recorded and compressed, in different qualities, with no restrictions on use (because they can't stop it anyway, but its the attitude that counts), then people would download more music, and just as indiscriminately. Transport (bandwidth) costs are almost nil on a 3mb MP3 (say 0.3p per MP3). Your teenagers will download everything by Gareth and Beyonce, including all the remixes. Lots of 10p's add up. Your non fussed like anything group will continue to not really be big music purchasers. Your music lover will download lots and lots of new stuff, trying new material all the time. Again lots of 10's add up. The first and third groups will net a fortune. They are the people who buy single and albums respectively. The second group are the people who used to buy the odd Bryan Adam's album, and don't really spend a lot of music anyway. I'm in the third group. Before the internet came along, I used to buy 2/3 albums a month. Not a great deal, but I used to stick with the people I knew, buying the back catalogue (I liked bands from the 60's and 70's who had a lot of previous releases for me to catch up on) because I wasn't going to spend £10 on someone I'd not heard before. Since the internet has come along, I've bought 6 albums in 3 years, and 4 of them were re-releases of an artist I collect regardless. My friend has around 500 CD's and used to buy 10-15 a month, he now has bought I'd guess 5 in a year. All because the cd's are too expensive. Not only that, but its far too expensive to experiment, you might spend £10 on some real crap. And no one showcases anyone but the chart hits. Where would you hear Rick Wakeman or Jethro Tull if you hadn't heard them before, and those are the popular acts out of the ones I like ! Never mind artists like Hem or Yanni. Since the internet the artists I listen to has exploded, at least 10 times over from around 4-5 to over 50 easily. These are people who I'd download and listen to on a regular basis, and would make a point of getting all their albums, and then there's all the people I download to see what they're like and listen to on an ad hoc basic. I would happily pay 10p per track, and everyone I talk to on this subject says that price would certainly get them to pay. All this £1 a song on pressplay, etc is ridiculous. Puts it back up to £15 for an album, so you might as well buy the CD. At 10p per track, it would not stop the indiscriminate downloading that I do at the moment. Neither would it stop the teenagers, since they happily spend 10p to say, "Wkd BB4 Cam 2 wn luv Beck XXX'. At 4000 MP3's the record company would have made £400 from me in around a year. So far this year they've taken £30 and thats due to the previously mentioned re-releases which is a one off. And while 4000 might sound a lot, I'm surprisingly fussy about how I download - only people I genuinely listen to. Most people I know just download everything and anything, having 20,000 + MP3's is not common. They need to act fast before everyone has the entire back catalogues of everyone they like.

The thing you've got to be careful of is that they'll lie to you about what the job is about, hoping you'll blag it when you get there. It's happened to me in IT.

I'm already on a permanent hosepipe ban. It's called a water meter

I've got one but I haven't used it yet The green bin twice a month will do me.