The Code of Practice

[RufflyRustic]

The code doesn't mention Red Leather or Darkside Sisters. I think a little disclaimer somewhere might be needed.......

[Cliff Rogers]

....

"No bloke shall never be required etc ..."

...

Oops, read it as "A bloke shall ever be required etc...."

Sorry.

[Cliff Rogers]

The code doesn't mention Red Leather or Darkside Sisters. I think a little disclaimer somewhere might be needed.......

This is a Code for a bloke's shed, you need a Code for a sheila's shed.

[Driver]

Dear Aunty Agony Driver

I am in a quandry. I have always thought of myself as a non PC, non black armband, un metro sexual, rude, crass slob. As such I felt a warm kinship to your 'Charter of Shed Rights'

Er, that's 'Code of Practice', Bodge - and it's not mine, it's ours (see para 2 - Drafting Committee - with its references to a nationwide body of experts etc)

I often burn incence in the shed, when alone with my tools and the wood.

Tsk, tsk. However, the Code says (para 4 - Purposes sub para 4.2 - The purpose of a shed)

'The purpose of a shed is to provide an environment and territory wherein a bloke has total and complete dominion and control.'

Have I turned into a pillow biter, nascient politician, limp wristed Chardonnay socialist, PC dyke, Caroline Jones, Richard Jones, local Government councillor, Kofi Annan or a Public Servant soccer fan?

Possibly.

Has Fat Kim got the hots for me?

Couldn't say. I'm not privy to the Beezer's innermost (or even his outermost) urges, thankfully.

Is this deviant sort of revanchism OK with the blokes? I could seek treatment!

Please advise.

Whaddaya reckon, blokes?

[Ian007]

I think I speak for Harry72,Tankstand as well as myself can we please get Jack Daniels added to the list of allowed drinks under 8.3.6

While I think about it I drink my Jacks with coke, this has bubbles.

I think we need to add

"Spirits mixed with Coke, no poofter cola crap OK, only the real thing will do, premixed cans are permissable"

Thanks Ian

[silentC]

Whaddaya reckon, blokes?

I think as long as you ask "what's that poofy pong?" whenever another bloke comes in, it will probably be OK. You could blame the missus - although that might be construed as a breach by giving her access in the first place - it's probably a lesser offence.

To be safe, I think the best thing to do is to build yourself a gas fired furnace and torch the stuff properly, then melt a few kilos of empty beer cans for the hell of it. Kudos if you can set fire to something expensive in the process.

[RufflyRustic]

Okey Dokey - One Sheila Code coming up...... Sometime......

cheers
Wendy

[Driver]

I think I speak for Harry72,Tankstand as well as myself can we please get Jack Daniels added to the list of allowed drinks under 8.3.6

Don't see the problem, Ian. I would refer you to sub para 8.3.6.7

'Anything that you can ignite ....'

Cousin Jack would qualify, surely?

Incidentally, thanks to some good work from, amongst others, the axe-wielding mongrel, I have been able to amend and augment the Code, strengthening portions of it. A copy of the latest version is attached, with revisions highlighted in yellow.

Further amendments and revisions will be incorporated as you all bend your massive intellects to the task.

All contributions are welcomed.

Wendy, I admire your resolve. A Sheila's Code would be a tough one. For a start, how do you spell that noise you all make whenever you see something cute?

Toodle Pip!

Col

[Cliff Rogers]

Don't see the problem, Ian. I would refer you to sub para 8.3.6.7

'Anything that you can ignite ....'

Cousin Jack would qualify, surely?

....

or that makes your eyes water

[RufflyRustic]

snip.....
Wendy, I admire your resolve. A Sheila's Code would be a tough one. For a start, how do you spell that noise you all make whenever you see something cute?

Toodle Pip!

Col

Yep, it will be tough but fun

That noise, now what noise would that be:confused: . I really don't think I make whatever noise that might be. Do I? ...............

cheers
Wendy

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Hmmm... here's a problem I've had in the past. Interesting times, but I'm glad they're long gone. Now I'm wondering how the Code would be applied, if it could...

5 blokes in a block of flats persuade the body corporate to erect a shed for shared use.

While standing around in the shed having a few brews, one of 'em comments to the others that his SWMBO's complaining about how much time he spends in "his" shed. The other blokes immediately take umbrage to this.

The first, a woodie, says "Your shed? More than half the tools in here are mine! So if it's anyones, it's mine."

The second, a mechanic, comes back with "Hold on... I may not have as many tools as you, nor take up as much space, but my tools cost twice as much as all of yours put together."

The 3rd, a general handyman, quickly retorted "Maybe so, but for all that you blokes have all those fancy tools, whenever I come out to see what you're doing you're always using MY tools! Mine are the most used, my shed. Nyaah!" (All handymen seem to be a bit twisted. Trade-envy, I think. )

The bloke who made the original comment responds with "Yeah, but the Missus has a point. I spend more time out here than all you blokes put together. After all, none of you have to put up with her. I'm practically living here. BTW, we really need to add a dunny."

The last... ermm... guy, a limp-wristed hair-dresser who'd been sitting back quietly, sipping his fizzy pink drink (complete with umberella) finally chipped in with "Yeth. But it'th my bar refrigerator." (That's a beer 'frig to normal blokes. For our northernmost brothers, it's an esky with a power cord.)

Now, who wins this argument?
.
.
.
.
.
.
The way I see it, the last is the clincher. At least, until the 'frig is empty. After all, the question was "who wins this argument" not "who wins the (empty, really) title of 'owner'?"

But as far as the nominal title of "owner" of the shed goes, who would win assuming we could apply the Code of Practice? Anyone? Or should they all just be given a clip around the ear and the hair-dresser sent to the sin bin for failing to meet the minimum standards of blokeliness? (But surely he'd have special exemption; he does own the beer 'frig after all! :eek: Well... until after the other four have all chipped in to buy another 'frig, anyway. )

[Dan]

From appendix A

25. It is acceptable for you to drive her car. It is not acceptable for her to drive yours.

Not sure I can agree with this one. As the owner of an XR8 Falcon ute I can say without a doubt that the sight of a girlfriend driving said vehicle can be "good". To explain any further could render me unblokley.

When Lee Kernigan was asked in an interview if he allowed his wife to drive his kitted out Land Cruiser trayback, his reply was that he encouraged it! This was said with a large grin and proves I'm not the only one.

Besides, how else do you get home from a party when you're pi$$ed?

[Driver]

Skew

Tough one, mate!

However, the Code is here to help us to resolve these difficult philosophical issues. Here's my suggested rationale, based upon a glass of red and a hard look at the Code.

I started at para 3 Definitions, sub para 3.1 Bloke

" - a bloke is the owner, occupier and user of his shed. For further elucidation .....' etc (references to the Appendices).

The key point here is that right at the beginning of the Code, the shed's owner is defined as a bloke.

Problem: we have 5 (five) blokes all claiming ownership. So - who is the most blokely?

Aha! The Code supplies a ready solution. Refer to Appendix B - Blokeness Quotient. Get them all to take the test, measure their comparative Blokeness Quotients and the most blokely bloke is, by definition, the owner. In the event of a tie, the contenders will be required to examine some ancient tool (see para 6 - Tools, sub para 6.2.1 - .... a tool that has no known use ....) originally belonging to an ancestor of one of the less blokely former contenders. The bloke who comes up with the most plausible explanation for its application and use, wins.

How's that?

Col - (who is open to well-articulated and referenced argument).

[Driver]

To explain any further could render me unblokley.

Mate! There you have it. You're toying with a possible Code Violation. (Insert noisy intake of breath). Don't know quite how to advise you. Ve-e-ery tricky.:confused:

Col

[Dan]

An example

Angelina Jolie (in full Tomb Raider kit) askes if she can drive your Land Rover. Yes or No?

Obviously the example is extreme but it shows that there may need to be some sort of sliding scale applied, or possibly make it the individuals decision without the risk of a code violation.