And Kate's eating for two now, right? One hopes so anyway. Until she was in pig, I could have sworn her diet was limited to the rare canape at a function though.

"Never forget that Kate's a Topshop-wearing commoner like the rest of us! But this is pretty legit, actually, considering she could be lying around making Miss O'Brien feed chocolate-covered grapes to her mouth while fanning her uterus with a palm frond."

Pardon my candour, but the SFI isn't worth the paper it's written on. I mean seriously. It's framed in the wishiest of washy language, is not legally binding, is a loose collection of 'objectives' ... and I just bet the amount in dollars that the retailers will be expected to contribute to the initiative will come to…

Darwin. Darwin ... Darwin Awards, right ;-)

She'd have to have waded through bargain bins to find it since she was a mere two-years-old when it was released.

Oh my god. What a horrible thing for this woman! I hope, despite the fact that she and your grandma weren't as close since, that she received the support/comfort she needed from family/other friends into the future.

I swear, I've never heard that before. That said ... big piles of leaves created by autumnal shedding weren't exactly a feature of my hometown streets.

Holy crap. I can see why you'd issue warnings for that! Too too scary. I'm kinda glad we had no snow [at all] lying in gutters when I was growing up. Kids were warned more for playing in big flood drains [freak storms etc could wash them away/they'd drown]. That was the big warning for us.

*Chuckles* And what do you say ... ?! ;-)

Oh that's a classic. Kids are so literal.

Then you'd hear that once-in-a-blue-moon car driving down the road surely? ;-)

I take your point. :-)

Ha! The first time I was told not to 'play with fire' I think it was in reference to flirting with someone else's recently-single boyfriend. My parents were more direct: "Don't play with matches/touch the cooker/barbecue/etc".

.. Which is why I will never ever [to the power of a gazillion] EVER have children. All credit to those who are sprogging of course; you're all saints. Your children are not.

Thanks so much for your feedback on this. Am currently in a spirited discussion with my other half — a massive Tolkien fan — vis-a-vis all of your more salient points. BTW he agrees with you re the lack of strong male characters. And other points you've made as well! Cheers!

Oh I'd never go so far as to put it on the teen mom sex tape shelf ... but I was intrigued by the recent 'Game of Boners' post where — oh crap, forgotten which author penned it — the writer pointed out that one particular scene really was in the 'torture porn' zone. SO not a fan. No judgment of those who watch that…

Oh god. This. Yes. Even Jez has a 'tits count'. And that bothers me. Moreover, as I mentioned in an earlier post, esp. in season 1 [that's as far as I got, and only halfway through] the sex was unsettling at best.

Well, you don't know me, but I'll put my hand up for being one who DOESN'T love it. I just couldn't get into a show which fancied itself as some Tolkien re-jig but oh, BETTER because there are actually strong female characters therein. Screamed tokenism to me from the get-go, especially with all the back-door sex writ…

*Scratches head* Exactly which child, even with an IQ in the minor digits, would hide in a pile of leaves in the middle of a road? With traffic on it? And if they did seek out piles of leaves in the more familiar environs of a local park/garden ... what truck is venturing off the grid to seek out said hidden children?…

Someone page Janie Bryant STAT!