'...but I don't think we should change something because one person doesn't agree.'

'There are still some things we need to learn about Danish humour working in the UK.'

Blimey, Morten, it's not just that you need to learn about, it's how the wokies work as well! One person is more than enough, now, I'm afraid.

I don't understand the obsession some diners have with free water in restaurants - you're going out for (probably) a vastly more expensive meal than staying in and cooking, and that's what you choose to quibble about? I hardly bother drinking it anyway, unless it's a scorching hot day. Waiter! The wine list, please...

"It doesn’t have to result in a nanny state telling us how much to ration."

No, maybe not. Yet, somehow, it always does, doesn't it, Reader?

Ofwat chief executive, David Black, insisted the new differential charging is good for consumers and urged other water companies to follow the example set by Affinity.

He also made clear that a key aim of the scheme is to reduce water use, saying: ‘Water resources are being impacted by climate change which poses significant long-term challenges to river water health and security of water supply.

‘While charging is only one approach, companies need to use every tool at their disposal to support affordability, encourage us all to use water wisely and reduce our impact on the environment.

‘We want to see more companies seeking out and implementing innovative solutions.’

I want to see more companies cleaning up their own house first, before telling us how to behave while they are rifling through out pockets. 

Stick To Dipping A Paintbrush, Not Your Hands In Our Pockets...

A successful artist is seeking £33.6million in damages claiming he now paints too slowly after being run over by a stolen moped in central London - preventing him from creating 14 extra masterpieces per year.

Wow! Isn't he lucky the chap who hit him is a billionaire! That is what happened, right?

...he is now suing Mr Hinds and insurers Aviva ...

Ah. Of course.  

However lawyers for Aviva at the High Court in London today branded the claim 'extraordinary' and 'overstated', and suggested the collision had actually helped Mr Mathieu's career, citing interviews in which the artist discussed the 'positive impact of the accident' which 'influenced his subject matter.'

Whoops! 

They also argued that he often fails to sell a 'sizeable portion' of his work at events, undermining his claim that he could sell more works every year. And while not disputing some liability, they are challenging the amount of the payout demanded, arguing the claim is 'inflated' and 'based on hypothetical guess work'.

It's based on what he - and his lawyers - think he can get away with... 

Mrs Justice Hill is considering arguments at a High Court trial in London due to last about two weeks.

That long?