- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "If you're tall, feel your balls regularly"
Collapse
-
1 in 200 is still a lot though. The same affect isn't seen in tall women, except in 100m runners and shot-putters, often Russian.
-
Yes, we know, but you should never let facts get in the way of playing with your balls.Originally posted by MrRobin View PostStupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Anyway, Spod's about 11 foot tall.
Leave a comment:
-
Stupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Leave a comment:
-
That's the last time I shake her hand!Originally posted by DaveB View PostI have a reciprocal arrangement with MrsB.
She does my balls, I do her boobs
Leave a comment:
-
I have a reciprocal arrangement with MrsB.
She does my balls, I do her boobs
Leave a comment:
-
-
Were they feeling their balls at Wikileaks?Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostPull yer finger out Wikileaks.
Leave a comment:
-
If suitably anonymised data were publicly available these kinds of statistical relationships would likely be discovered quickly. Physical attributes, lifestyle, occupation, family history, disorders, etc. Pull yer finger out Wikileaks.
Leave a comment:
-
It might be because taller men are further away from their testicles, making self-checking slightly more difficult.
Leave a comment:
-
If you're tall, feel your balls regularly
Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Should a new limited company not making much money pay a salary/dividend? Yesterday 08:43
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Feb 12 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42
- Contractors warned over HMRC charging £3.5 billion too much Feb 6 03:18
- Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for umbrella company contractors: an April 2026 explainer Feb 5 07:19
- IR35: IT contractors ‘most concerned about off-payroll working rules’ Feb 4 07:11
- Labour’s near-silence on its employment status shakeup is telling, and disappointing Feb 3 07:47


Leave a comment: