The Code of Practice

Driver, whilst I totally agree in spirit I have one small problem....the ban on

"Any drink containing cherries."


I'd like to apply for an exemption. My other waste of time, sorry hobby, is brewing and a favourite brew is a Belgian Lambic style beer of which cherries are a critical component.

Unfortunately some other Lambics also contain fruit of other varieties but I swear they are never served with umbrellas!

So can I have an exemption or am I covered by the fact that it's a beer and therefore allowed under 8.3.6 Blokey Drinks?

Cheers,
Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn_M

I'd like to apply for an exemption. My other waste of time, sorry hobby, is brewing and a favourite brew is a Belgian Lambic style beer of which cherries are a critical component.

---

Glenn

I'm not the arbiter of issues to do with the Code of Practice. I have merely participated - along with other august members of these forums - in drafting it. How a bloke should interpret the Code is a matter for the bloke - in this case - you. So, rather than reply, I will refer you to the Code of Practice:-

para 3 - Definitions

sub para - 3.1 [Bloke- a bloke is the owner, occupier and user of his shed.

and

sub para 3.2 Shed - a shed is the domain, demesne and realm of a bloke.

(One way to interpret these sections of the Code would be to say that what a bloke does in his shed is - up to a point - up to him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn_M

So can I have an exemption or am I covered by the fact that it's a beer and therefore allowed under 8.3.6 Blokey Drinks?

---

Looks to me like you've answered your own question, mate. I will, however, take issue with an inaccuracy in your quoting the relevant paragraph from the Code. You use the word 'Blokey'.

Banish this abhorrent term from your lexicon, son!

It's a word used by women to denigrate blokes and our activities. The correct term is 'Blokely'. More accurate, I think you'll agree. And it possesses the virtue that you're unlikely to hear a woman use it.

'Blokely'. Practise it: 'Blokely'. That's it! All together now: 'BLOKELY!!!!'

Thanks for the question, Glenn. You've given a practical demonstration of the value of putting some shape to the Code of Practice. Goodonya!

Col

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

Top effort. :D :D :D

Appendix A, item 7, 4th word should be 'never'

---

Ginger

It's a rare day when you and I disagree but mate, read that section again. If the word 'never' was to be inserted in place of 'ever' we'd have a double negative. To whit:-

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

Tsk, tsk. My old English teacher would revolve about her vertical axis, mate!

Toodle pip!

Col

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'

However, I have just experienced a stabbing pang of angst.

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

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? Has Fat Kim got the hots for me?

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

Please advise.

Great job Col ! :D

Love Appendix A Rule 24 :p


Cheers.................Sean

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

....

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

...

---

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

Sorry. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufflyrustic

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. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

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.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

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

Please advise.

---

Whaddaya reckon, blokes?

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:)

Quote:

---

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.

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

cheers
Wendy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

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 :D

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

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. :rolleyes: )

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'?" :D

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. ;))

From appendix A

Quote:

---

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?

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan

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

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.

Mate, if Angelina Jolie wants to drive my Land Rover then bugger the Rules of Blokeness, the Blokeness Quotient, the Code of Practice and you bloody lot too!

I'm yours Angelina, so's me bloody Land Rover! Yee Haaaaa!

One aspect that hasn't been covered in the code is shed attire. For me this usually involves either King Gee or Ruggers shorts, T-shirt and thongs for summer, with the addition of a Flannelette shirt for winter. What say the rest of the committee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan

One aspect that hasn't been covered in the code is shed attire. For me this usually involves either King Gee or Ruggers shorts, T-shirt and thongs for summer, with the addition of a Flannelette shirt for winter. What say the rest of the committee?

---

Good thinking. Let's have your fully codified contribution while I stand on a corner - dangling me car keys and waiting for Angelina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan

... shed attire. For me this usually involves either King Gee or Ruggers shorts,

---

I dont like ruggers!!!! i hate ruggers!!!!!

the pockets are just wrong! all the change falls out of your pockets whenever you sit down

Attire comes under the bit about the bloke doing whatever he likes in his own shed.:cool:

Maybe something could be said about the attire of visitors but I think we risk making the document a horse choker if we to go as far as stating the bloody obvious like NO PINK TUTUS (unless you are Angelina Jolie :rolleyes: ):D :D

Even if Angelina Jolie was hanging over my shoulder at the lathe,I'd still insist on a minimum dress requirement of ear-muffs & dust-mask/respirator.

Hmmm... come to that, in her case I'd be a very happy chappy if it was the maximum dress requirement too. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

Let's have your fully codified contribution while I stand on a corner - dangling me car keys and waiting for Angelina.

---

Ok, try this.

9. Shed clothing shall consist of pants and shirt, footwear optional with a minimum standard being thongs, boots are ok, underwear is discouraged.

9.1 Materials

9.1.1 Clothing shall be primarily cotton (preferably drill or flanellette) with small amounts of polyester allowable in T-shirts.
9.1.2 Boots shall be made from leather.
9.1.4 Thongs shall be rubber and of the double plug variety.

9.2 Colour
9.2.1 Clothing may be any colour other than pink and should be at least one shade lighter than the original colour.

9.3 Prohibited items
9.3.1 Trucker Caps, Berets, Scarves, Nylon Tracksuits and any item that causes concern from either yourself or significant other when contaminated with paint or glue.

9.4 Exemptions
9.4.1 Nylon football shorts may be worn only if you were a member of a team or have supported a team for a period of no less than five years.
9.4.2 Sports type shoes may be worn by those who experience significant discomfort without them.
9.4.2 For Blokes in cold climates a woolen jumper and beanie is allowable with a preference given to moth eaten items.

Errrmmm... Dan? Does a bandanna count as a scarf?

Hint: the answer better bloody well be NO, unless you wanna meet the shop dog. :mad:;) :p

Oh... and what's the difference between a trucker cap and a forum cap, besides the choice of advertising? :rolleyes:

G'day,

Shed attire, well for me that counts as jeans with at least one hole on the left leg of my jeans (somehow all my jeans I wear in the shed wear a large hole on the left leg :confused: ), shirt and now jumpers with paint all over them (all your fault Skew)

And now my shed attire has become usual garb for when I'm working my day job, it's only when I see clients that I look respectable. My shed attire also transends to going down to Bunnies or other places.

So, is this corelation of shed attire and lack of caring what the general public thinks of how we dress reflect back on us or do we really care what they think? After all you can't judge a book by its cover.

A great document Driver, worthing of printing and for putting up for general reading thereof when others visit the legal owner of said shed who don't understand what a "shed" is and the rituals and rites that accompany said shed and have ownership thereof. I shall email said document to my FIL for a stir :D , anything to stir FIL is worthy of such things)

May I add one point somewhere in your document, to the effect that owners of sheds and all that resides in it and by this ownership of a shed have unlimited rites of visitation rites to said shed at any given time of day for any length of time regardless of anything else that needs to be done, even be it for the purpose of leaning to ponder and think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Shed attire, well for me that counts as jeans with at least one hole on the left leg of my jeans (somehow all my jeans I wear in the shed wear a large hole on the left leg :confused: ), shirt and now jumpers with paint all over them (all your fault Skew)

---

:D You have a problem with waterproofing? It's a good way to determine which paints & finishes have penetrating power though, innit? If it falls off my clothes in the wash, it doesn't go anywhere near my wood. ;)

Quote:

---

And now my shed attire has become usual garb for when I'm working my day job, it's only when I see clients that I look respectable. My shed attire also transends to going down to Bunnies or other places.

So, is this corelation of shed attire and lack of caring what the general public thinks of how we dress reflect back on us or do we really care what they think? After all you can't judge a book by its cover.

---

It's called "a cunning plan." Now that your office is in the shed (how's it going, BTW?) if you were wearing a zoot-suit during working hours it's a dead give-away to SWMBO when you slip a few mins of shed time in. But once she gets used to seeing you getting about the office in your shed clothes, well... I can't very well imagine her getting upset about a spot of white-out on your flannel shirt. :rolleyes:

Accusations of "You've been working in the office when you should be playing in the shed!"?? I don't think so, Ollie. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

"You've been working in the office when you should be playing in the shed!"?? I don't think so, Ollie. :D

---

G'day Skew,

Little did I relaise that when SWMBO told me to thence out of house and build office in shed that it would open up so many possibilities.

As far as progress goes: the external walls are on, ceiling is up and fully plastered, 2 coats of undercoat are done on celing as of tonight and top coat goes on tomorrow.

Currently working out colour schemes and fittings and about to get the sparky in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

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?


Col

---

A point to note, a mixed drink will not ignite and jacks does not burn very well, I know I tried last night.

and Beer has bubbles so does that make it a chaps drink??

Don't be so bloody picky or you'll get ya self chucked out of the shed.....
Beer is beer.
It doesn't matter if it has bubbles or was made from cherries, it is still beer. (just don't get caught with one of those little umbrellas in it unless you are horribly sheyetfaced drunk or looking for a fight.:cool: )
Shut up & drink it. :D

Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this thread. All your contributions are very welcome and they are providing useful debate and discussion.

To answer some of your concerns:-

Dan – great work on the issue of clothing (aka shed attire). Some of your suggestions are very worthwhile and some perhaps a bit too narrowly-defined. However, they will certainly be heavily featured in the next set of revisions. (No sign of Angelina yet, by the way, I think she might have stood me up).

Skew – a bandanna shall not constitute a scarf – that’s got to be a given. Bandannas are blokely attire, no question. Scarves are worn by chaps.

Waldo – you raise an important issue re visitation rights – this will be included.

Ian007 – Don’t burn it, mate. Drink it. And Cliff’s got a point : beer is beer. The fact that beer is so manifestly a prominent part of the list of Blokely drinks (sub para 8.3.6) overrides any doubts about it’s alleged status as a Chap’s drink (sub para 8.3.7). It may contain bubbles but bubbles in beer are demonstrably and obviously blokely bubbles. The kind of bubbles being referred to in sub para 8.3.7.4 are similar in nature to the balloons Ozzy Osbourne meant when he said:

“Balloons, Sharon? ####in’ balloons? I can’t have ####in’ balloons on stage with me, Sharon! I’m supposed to be the Prince of ####in’ Darkness!”

The latest revisions will be incorporated and an updated version of the Code of Practice issued – probably tomorrow.

Keep ‘em coming!

Toodle pip!

Col

G'day Driver,

Look forward to the next revision. :cool:

This should be included in Best of the Best, and seconders to pass my motion?

Quote:

---

Dan – great work on the issue of clothing (aka shed attire). Some of your suggestions are very worthwhile and some perhaps a bit too narrowly-defined.

---

Yeah, got a bit carried away, edit as you see fit.;)

Quote:

---

No sign of Angelina yet, by the way, I think she might have stood me up.

---

I think she's temporarily distracted by that Brad Pitt clown (bet he doesn't even have a shed:eek: ). It's only a matter of time mate.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

Bandannas are blokely attire, no question. Scarves are worn by chaps.

---

and what do we call the ones who wear cravats?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

G'day Driver,

Look forward to the next revision. :cool:

This should be included in Best of the Best, and seconders to pass my motion?

---

Seconded! Definitely - and a Gold Star to Driver!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

This should be included in Best of the Best, and seconders to pass my motion?

---

Best of the best? i think it deserves greater accolades than that! put it in the Forum Ruleshttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon14.gif

OK. Here's the latest update. I've added an an Index page at the front and an Acknowledgements page at the back.

In the body of the text, the additions and amendments are highlighted in yellow and they include:-

- A very important addition to sub-para 4.2 - The purpose of the shed.

- A new paragraph on Visiting Rights (sub-para 5.12).

- A vitally important section on Cock-ups in para 7.

- A whole new section on Bloke's Attire (para 10)

Unless anyone can come up with something vital that we might inadvertently have missed, I reckon we're close to having a finished Code of Practice. Whaddaya reckon?

Col