Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Bluefish2009
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 59
Straight Female, 49
UK

Forum

Quote by woohoo
Clarkson has a reputation for putting his foot in it, by saying things on Top Gear,which people take offence to, TOP GEAR is NOT A LIVE program, but RECORDED and can be EDITED before going on air,makes you wonder eh!!
innocent

:thumbup:
Yep
With the hunting act currently in the news as today is its 10 year anniversary, I see a lot of news reports and social media asking should the ban stay or be lifted? So I thought I would share my views here. For me the question is a more fundamental one. Has the hunting act done anything for animal welfare? Firstly hunting has not really been fully banned, for instance, you can use two hounds to flush a fox from cover, provided you intend to shoot it. Here suddenly we have introduced a gun and the chance for human error. If then the fox is wounded two hounds stand far less chance in catching and dispatching the wounded fox. If that fox should go to ground, you can not use terriers to flush it out or dig it out, it has to be left to die, how ever long that should take. Is that an animal welfare improvment? You can however use terriers to flush out foxes from underground if it is for the protection of game birds for shooting. You can hunt a rabbit with a pack of dogs but not a hare, unless it is wounded. You can hunt a rat with a pack of dogs but not a mouse. When I look at this I do not see a law based around animal welfare, but a law designed to stop certain people hunting certain animals in a certain way. The question I rarely see asked is how do the alternatives, which have filled the void of hunting with hound’s measure up in the animal welfare scale. No fox’s lives will have been saved by this law, other methods will have been used, but do many people care what other methods are used to control numbers? I personally would like to see it replaced with a wild mammals welfare bill, something along the lines of the Donoughue Principle, a bill drawn up by Labour peer Lord Donoughue. Something along these lines that would give all wild mammals protection from deliberate and/or unnecessary cruelty, not just selected animals. Lord Donoughue has championed two parliamentary bills based on this principle; both were well received in the House of Lords by all sides, as well as the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance. With a bill like this cruelty would be tested in a court of law, just as they are for domestic animals, on the basis of evidence, not opinion or assumption. Sadly when Lembit Öpik introduced the same Bill into the House of Commons in early 2004 it was talked out, probably as it would have made an anti-hunting bill redundant. I would like to see animal welfare at the heart of this sort of legislation, and I am not sure that this is the case with the hunting act.
I think it has all been said, is it your fantasy or hers would be interesting to know? I say this as I do get off on the wife having a large cock inside her, but many of her favourite meets have been with guys with much smaller ones. far more to good sex than just the size
Quote by Katniss
I vaped for 3 months, i stopped because i was getting horrible migraines from it, tried different strengths of liquids to see if that made any difference but to no avail :/ i know it works for lots of people so im not dissing it, just didnt work for me tiz all smile

Have you looked to what pg/vg % are in the juice, some people get reaction from one or the other, most often pg.
Quote by deancannock
Other thing we have to remember, is the end of oil reserves is in sight....without any new findings, I read less than 20 years. Because of this, a lot of money is being put into new technology and ways of running cars, other than petrol. So it is in the Arab Sheiks interest, to keep people wanting petrol driven cars, rather than any alternative !!! Once people start switching, then their cash cow is dead !!

Quote by deancannock

Tories showing their true face again.....anything to help the Toffee nosed, Eton Bunch you went to school with eh Mr Cameron !! What's next reduce the tax on the high earners....oh you already said you going to do that as well !! Maybe introduce a bedroom tax, so that the elderly and poor can't afford to live in their houses anymore..Oh that's right you already done that !!!
Just hope the above gets plenty of coverage....as it finally shows the true face of the Tories. Nothing is to much trouble for the Eton Bunch !!!

As mantioned above they did pledge a free vote on this in their 2005 manifesto, so nothing new, in fact by not doing that in this parloment they have failed.
For me I am not concerned with either the toffee nosed, Eton or Conservitives, my thoughts are for animal welfare, and this would be best served by a law that protects all wild life not just selected ones, which the hunting act fails to do.
I feel Mids makes a good point, in that much of our sentancing is weak in my view.
I have no problem with tax avoidance provided no laws are brocken
Quote by GnV
Why not just apply Chinese style justice and save a fortune.
Shoot the little scroats in the back of the head in front of their families.
Crime wave over.

Is GnV your pen name Mr Clarkson? wink
Quote by Rogue_Trader
So question;-
1) Censor social media to stop abuse that is not unlawful.
2) Let social media be a forum for free speech.

There should be no censorship in any society. People have to be free to say what they want and face the consequnces of their words and actions should they do so.
But no, there should be no censorship.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I am wondering how you can dispose of censorship and still punish people for using freedom of speech (face the consequences as you say)
If someone uses words or a phrase to abuse someone there are charges that can be brought against them (consequences) these charges vary from "inciting unrest", racial discrimination, causing an affray or even promoting an illegal organisation.
Recent examples would be inciting people to kill British Soldiers, racial abuse, promoting designated terrorist organisations that have been declared illegal, abusing a neighbour.
Censorship also covers many things, would you support a mans right to freedom of censorship if for example he went to pick up his child from nursery or primary school without any clothes because he is a nudist, or support people who wanted to have sex in public, on a bus or in the local supermarket or just in the street outside your house ?
Censorship does prevent some things that need to be prevented such as racial abuse, something which is censored in a sense as it prevents you from publishing or saying offensive material/speech of a racist nature. A lot of censorship is not about preventing you saying something but how you say it.
Would you support the freedom of the press to publish anything they wanted ?
I don't like all censorship but feel that some censorship is needed.

I think you're getting censorship and against the law mixed up.
I dont know much about these things, so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the laws that set our bounderies for our freedom to exspresion?
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Personally I would let her back in and jail her for joining an illegal organisation because she is a British Citizen born in the UK

Agreed, after a trial of coarse
On what charge?
The last time I looked being at war wasn't a criminal act, IF this is indeed a war. Check your geneva convention. Though if we are at war, then this is a dubious charge of treason at most, though committed by a minor. So in all essence probably a stiff talking to is the maximum she would get.
So has she committed a terrorism offence by joining IS? not really, has she committed murder? well if she has then its up to the courts in that country to try and convict her and punish her by the laws of that land.
Yes, your quite right, maybe I should have prefixed my statement with, after a police investigation.
I can not confirm any crime has been committed, no more, of coarse, than you can be sure one has not. That would be a matter for the police. I dont think it beyond the relms of possibility that extremist material could have been downloaded, which of coarse is a crime here, depending on its content, as it would appear she was radicalised online. That would be a matter for the police.
If a crime is committed in another country then as you say, that would be a matter for their laws.
I cant see the outcome of this being quite as simple as you say, she may if she reaches her destination attending a terrorist training camp, this could be an issue for some one returning here, at the very least her card would be marked.
I think it a real chance that some of these fighters as/if they return could face criminal charges of some kind
Quote by MidsCouple24
Personally I would let her back in and jail her for joining an illegal organisation because she is a British Citizen born in the UK

Agreed, after a trial of coarse
Quote by Rogue_Trader
snip
It has been said that the only way to negotiate with an Arab is with a knife to his throat. This concept is totally alien to the west and we should keep out of it.

agreed :thumbup:
:thumbup:
Wow, it may not be much of a statement but how ignorant.
I feel our intervention will do little to help anyone
Quote by Lizaleanrob
snip
It has been said that the only way to negotiate with an Arab is with a knife to his throat. This concept is totally alien to the west and we should keep out of it.

agreed :thumbup:
:thumbup:
For anyone wishing to learn more ther is a great internet program called "vapourtrails tv" I will not put a link in case I fall foul of any rules here. can be a great informative program with lots of kit tested, old shows available to view if required
Well done Sarah, keep it up, fantastic wink
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Last ice age was 40,000 years ago.

I was quoting numbers I read most often, can say I am an expert in this area
During the last 2.6 million years or so in the Quaternary period, ice ages, also called glacial ages, were times of extreme cooling of the Earth's climate where ice sheets and other types of glacier expanded to cover large areas of land. Between ice ages there were warmer interglacial periods and we are now living during such a time.
There have been many ice ages during the last 2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000 years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
What causes ice ages is not completely understood. The composition of the atmosphere, changes in the position of our planet around the Sun, and changes in ocean currents are some of the important factors that control the climate.


The world's most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago.

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 1.8 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.

Thanks for pointing out my small error of 19,000 years and yours of 10,980,000 years.
Its good to learn new facts and be enlightened!
Well my memory is not what it was, was a long time ago lol
Quote by Trevaunance
If they have arrived in France than they have escaped persecution and the EU rules say that they should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach. Therefore France should treat them as asylum seekers and we should treat them as immigrants.

:thumbup:
Quote by GnV
well, it seems you can't prove it so it will have to be left there.

I think the food bank is a wonderful thing, but a sad reflection on our society.
What I would say Gnv is that there will be cases that are cheating the system. I know of a family who needed the food bank, and yes they really did need it, and met the criteria to do so, but the reason they needed it is the head of the house is bone fecking idle
Not sure if there are many persons here who vape, but if so now is the time to act. Visit this site and help
A call to action: Save vaping!
Hold onto our civil rights!
While the result of the trilogue between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, concluded on the 16th of December saved electronic cigarettes from some of the direct threats, it still does contain too many loopholes and poorly elaborated conclusions that may (and most probably will) endanger the future of vaping on national levels as well as on a European level.

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Last ice age was 40,000 years ago.

I was quoting numbers I read most often, can say I am an expert in this area
During the last 2.6 million years or so in the Quaternary period, ice ages, also called glacial ages, were times of extreme cooling of the Earth's climate where ice sheets and other types of glacier expanded to cover large areas of land. Between ice ages there were warmer interglacial periods and we are now living during such a time.
There have been many ice ages during the last 2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000 years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
What causes ice ages is not completely understood. The composition of the atmosphere, changes in the position of our planet around the Sun, and changes in ocean currents are some of the important factors that control the climate.


The world's most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago.

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 1.8 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Is there any current climate change at all, where is the evidence for this?

Climate change is measured over millenia, not decades.
There isn't any argument that climate change is happening, the argument is based on whether that the human populace is contributing to it. Note how I said contributing not causing.
Its only the likes of the media and others trying to get their 15 minutes of fame that refer to "us" causing it. Climatologists state contributing to. But hey-ho anything for a sensationalist headline!
I agree, climate change is measured of long periods of time as I said above
Quote by Bluefish2009
which of coarse has been on going for over 11 million years since the last ice age

I think that it is important to point out we have not warmed in several years as the Media would like to portray otherwise to us. Of coarse it is not just the Media, successive governments like to play on this one also as they would like to use this as a vehicle to tax us with. Further to that many climatologists find there funding through these very governments. They dont all agree as some would tell us
Quote by GnV
The recent events om serious flooding in the UK (and elsewhere I guess) have left most people to belive it may be the cause of 'climate change' or however you might like to describe it.

Is there any current climate change at all, where is the evidence for this?
Quote by MidsCouple24
The people of the Netherlands have been worried about climate changes, over the years they have seen a drastic increase in the drying out of their soil, some believe this is due to climate change whilst others believe it is due to the vast amounts of wind turbines that have been erected in flat areas.
Nobody has all the facts but some say that whilst not being a good thing the drying soil has helped their land absorb the increase of rainfall they like us, have been experiencing.
That and the fact they do manage their land because they have always known the dangers and importance of managing it, they agree that climate change is having an effect but unlike the UK they do something about it before it gets to the state it has in the UK.
I agree and said, our successive governments and local authorities and water companies have been criminal in their management not only in general but moreso knowing that climate change has been taking place since the end of the ice age and is getting worse because of such things as greenhouse gases making the natural changes more rapid than before mans industrialisation of the planet.

This is a report from October 15, 2012
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released

In fact if we look hard enough some think we may freeze to death rather than boil, think we were all told that when I was a young man in the 70s
Quote by herts_darlings1
Does it have to be anybody’s fault? Could it just be that we are impudent in the face of Mother Nature? Rivers are naturally un-dredged, it is us who have dredged them, if we have artificially increased the carrying capacity of water courses to stop them flooding as often does not mean we haven’t stopped them flooding ever.
We are having a prolonged period of heavy rain, this has been compounded with very strong winds, that does not mean we are going to get these conditions on a regular basis. Next winter we may have a very cold period of weather, what are we going to say when the powers that be say we haven’t any grit because we spent all our money on dredging rivers!
There is only so much money out there and there are only so many things you can prepare for, if you don’t agree with that next time you vote (if you can be bothered to vote) don’t vote for a party that is going to control spending which I am afraid limits you to the Socialist Workers Party and then watch all the money leave the country flooded rivers or not.
It’s no wonder the Aussies call us whingeing poms! It was not any government that dredged the rivers in the first place, it was the people who wanted to settle there and for centuries it was the people who worked on this land that managed it. Why has that changed? Why does it have to be anybody’s fault?
If we want to blame anybody, as a nation why don’t we collectively look in the mirror? And instead of trying to find someone to blame just perhaps realise that if we want our home grown organic meat and veg, if we want our lovely homes close to the river with views over the valley, if we want to up root trees that via their roots, aerate the ground and attract scores of other species that make up nature, that deflect the winds and replace them with bricks and mortar that are not noted for their absorbent qualities then when we get the largest rain fall for god knows how many years realise it is us who have f*cked it up! Mother Nature is going to win, every time!
What we have done and where we have done it is done! Do you think in the future we may learn a lesson and adapt our expansion? Ye and pigs might fly!

I think you have made some very good and valid points here
Quote by GnV Ah, but....
It's the less populated countryside that produces the ....
Still, I suppose given the fields are currently under water, that some enterprising yound go ahead farmer will consider planting rice...

Indeed your correct, so food prices will go up as will sadly, our food miles, sadly crops and animals will not be part of the formula politicians use to establish priority prevention or responses to flooding
Sadly rice is very difficult to grow here
Quote by GnV
Not letting you get away with that one too easily Dean...
Why should the Country allow the Miners to hold them to ransom? What god given right did Scargill have to rule? He was not an elected representative of the people but yet he acted as a demi-god hurting the lives of thousands of people whilst he and his henchmen enjoyed lavish lifestyles.
He had no accountability - indeed he had no shame. That he very nearly brought the Country to its knees but for the determination of Mrs T to break the mob rule in the name of democracy is something that often, even 30 years later, seems to escape those who were brow beaten into submitting to his will for fear of being branded 'scabs' and publicly ridiculed in their own communities.
On the other hand, Mrs T did have accountability and won two further elections to boot. The Electorate certainly gave their verdict on her performance.
Scargill couldn't win; the establishment is omnipotent not unelected load mouthed bullies like Scargill. The electorate in common have the power to remove governments, not evil minded cretins like him with nothing but self interest in mind.
I'm so sorry that you were caught in the midst of this at such a critical stage in your adult development. I might have expected that the passage of time might have now healed those wounded emotions.

:thumbup:
Quote by Rogue_Trader
People who drive and smoke are worse than those on mobile phones.
so yep ban all smoking, eating and drinking in cars. If you are doing any of those tasks you are not in control.

:thumbup:
Quote by Toots
Many many more people drink within the limits, drink happily at home, drink when out and don't brawl/fight or become anti-social than do. Why should those people be made to suffer for nothing more than acting responsibly?

:thumbup:
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Having watched the the news over the last few weeks you can't help but feel for the people of flooded somerset, who's farms and homes are awash and roads that are now only accessible via boat
then this morning on the news hundreds of homes in surrey and surrounds who's gardens extend into the Thames all complaining that last night they got flooded blink
now having a house on the Thames at a premium price comes at a price surely and if you wish not to be flooded then the obvious choice would be to purchase a house either on a hill or somewhere other than the banks of a river :doh:
meanwhile 3 weeks later the poor souls in somerset are only victims of a lack of maintenance by the environment agency who's houses do not back onto the river for prestige or any other self centred reason i know who deserves the most help in my book and the most TV coverage.

I think it is always going to be a fact that a highly populated Urban area will take president over less populated countryside, whether that be preventative or help with the clean up