I'm not going to keep being drawn back to this thread because it amply displays exactly the kinds of attitudes that keep me away from this forum in general.
But...
I gather lack of legs, or use of ones still fitted is the only disability worthy of a badge, or marked out space on private land. This is precisely the narrow minded thinking that makes me so angry in the first place. I know and have known many people with two working legs, in fact I'd say I've known very few people without two working legs. Yet I've still known a hell of a lot of people who are disabled. I know of people who do have mobility problems that aren't related to numbers or efficiencies of limbs, and not all of them are eligible for a blue badge. Not all would want one either, as they're not asking for mobility scheme car tax or the right to announce to the world they're unwell, but they are mighty grateful for a slot nearer the supermarket door.
It's been assumed I'm not disabled. I'm not about to reel out my medical notes to satisfy someones prejudice or score points on a forum, but if by disabled you mean my leg count then no, I'm not. But even my pair of generally adequate legs can sometimes be in quite a lot of pain on a temporary basis - Should I not buy food on those days, or walk an excruciating extra 30 yards past a plethora of empty spaces?
Another argument that I've kept out of but fail to see the logic in is Missy's parking in a row of empty spaces when in a rush and/ or bad weather. The idea here surely is there's 20 empty spaces next to the door and they almost certainly won't be filled before the quick nip in and out is done. The key word here being empty - Would she still park in one of those spaces if there were only 2 or 3 vacant? So the other 50 cars not in one of those spaces, and driven by leg efficient drivers are not an issue - If it can be understood that Missy will not use a space in scarce supply, why would all these other drivers? And what about after around 9pm when the local 24hr supermarket evening staff all park in the disabled spots? The supermarket sets the policy, so if they're not concerned over their staff filling these places, why is it unacceptable for their customers?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Shambolic
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 48
0 miles · Dorset
Forum
Quote by Unc
Would you feel I was abusing a space if you saw me turn up without a badge, looking apparently healthy?
Yes, because it's very simple; if you don't have a permit to park in a disabled space you shouldn't park there.
Ah, so it's not about a persons actual capabilities on a given day, it's about their abilities to obtain a certificate of general inability?
I'm so glad arbitrary methods are used rather than some silly notion of assessing a situation on its own merit.
From what you say it isn't your parking that is the main issue, it's that you drive at all. For someone who even suggests they would drive into another person, whether or not that is hyperbole, and admits that some days their "ability to be civil and rational was being stretched to the nth degree" to be behind the wheel of a vehicle is just plain wrong.
So you've never driven when stressed about something then? Be it making a deadline, rushing to a hospital, having personal issues that are resting on your mind. No, I'm sure you, and every other good decent honest road user take a personal assessment of serenity before getting behind the wheel, no matter the need for the journey. And having reached this motoring nirvana your tranquility would not be in the least bit altered by some stranger making a judgment and enforcing it upon you.
The bottom line to me is not whether disabled spaces exist or not, or whether they are a crass commercial ploy, but that it is not the right of the bystander to make medical assessments on the fly and go on to enforce them. I would never advocate the persuading of these people to change their behaviour through use of a ton of metal, nor would I do so myself (though I would advocate a level of both imagination and comprehension in the writing of a persuasive piece, from both the writer and the reader...), but I most certainly would and it appears am currently suggest that those who do wish to stick to preconceived notions of abilities and rights leave those thoughts in their heads instead of being yet another do gooding moral guardian.
It seems to me common sense is being ever more eradicated in favour of merely having to recant a mantra handed out on a platter.
Quote by Srne
on a more serious note you shouldnt put that wool like stuff that the pet shops say is bedding in with hamsters etc for that very reason, use wood shavings and natural ones not treated ones or soft hay as they dont get tangled in your pets legs an stuff!!
Tanlging is a problem, but worse is pouching. Hamsters pouch their food - And anything else they chew on! Any fabric accessories can be a problem due to this, as can the fluffy bedding pet shops sell.
AFAIK hamsters are quite resilient to pine shavings, but I personally recommend against them as they can cause all manner of ailments in other small furries (due to the chemicals they release). Carefresh is probably a better idea for a small cage, although it's pretty pricey. Megazorb is a little softer and a lot cheaper, but only comes in large sacks so needs somewhere to put it! Ecobad/ Finacard and similar cardboard beddings are probably the best of all, with very low dust and aromatic content.
Wire wheels are a serious danger and frequent killer, as it's all too easy for a small leg to fall between the bars, causing the animal to be spun around by the momentum of the wheel. Far better are Wodent Wheels, Silent Spinners, and some very pricey but very well engineered solid metal ones.
Quote by helnheaven
After all, we're talking about bloody parking spaces, the sort of thing that is so totally trivial in the grand scheme of things.
It may be trivial to some but not so trivial if you have mobility problems.
If you have mobility problems, yes, I totally agree. But what about if you don't, and you're just feeling the need to defend the rights of those you believe to have mobility problems against those you don't? Like you said yourself:
How can someone pass judgement on who is and isnt healthy?
You know your health, but do you know the health of that complete stranger you've just seen pull into a disabled space? And is it worth possibly upsetting that person, possibly having them upset you, or even risking physical blows because you think you can judge their health and so confront them?
A parking space is still more trivial than a night in hospital, or worse, because you happen to challenge the wrong person about their chosen place to leave their car, surely?
Quote by Steve
Thats where the caring part of my observation came from ;-)
OK, to be succinct. Does the person challenging the "errant parker" really care about the person they're judging? Do they know anything about the persons medical background, emotional state, reasons for parking so abhorrently? Or do they care about repeating some dogma about the spaces and their intended users?
I knew someone who had about half a lung left, aside from some very serious mental health issues. Until the last 5 months of his life he never had a blue badge, and some days was more capable than someone half his age with twice his respiratory capacity. I'm sure it would have been very caring for someone to stop him parking a few steps closer to the supermarket door...
Quote by Cherrytree
Must admit, Shambolic, your post has scared the sh*t out of me.
Do you mean that people shouldn't object to anyone they feel is abusing the disabled space, because it might be you, and you might run them over?
I mean people shouldn't leap to conclusions based on their own prejudice and a very brief time to assess the situation. Who are you, or I, to judge other peoples rights to something as silly as a parking space on a whim? OK, yes, we all do it, but it should be kept in your head, not be turned into a confrontation.
I've seen typical chavmobiles pull into disabled spaces in the middle of the day, when there's only been a couple empty, and thought to myself that is very wrong. And then seen someone obviously physically disabled clamber out the car. I've seen clearly pensionable age drivers spring from their cars and spritely skip into the shops.
Going on face value maybe I should "have a word" with the driver of the first car as they're trying to park, but the evidence is it's the latter example who are taking the piss. And this was the point I was trying to make (you really don't have to take everything so literally - I wouldn't deliberately run anyone over, I hate having to clean my car at the best of times). Would you feel I was abusing a space if you saw me turn up without a badge, looking apparently healthy? Would you have the time to discuss the finer points of looking beyond first impressions when making a judgement? Would you feel the need to point out the injustice of your treatment in the face of your righteous indignation in on that day my stress levels were running high and I told you in no uncertain terms to go forth, because my ability to be civil and rational was being stretched to the nth degree?
It is not my place to inflict some form of verbal or obstructive vigilantism on someone because of a snap decision in a car park, and nor is it any body elses but the authority in control of that car park. I have known far too many people who appear fully able but who genuinely are not for me to agree with that sort of behaviour. After all, we're talking about bloody parking spaces, the sort of thing that is so totally trivial in the grand scheme of things. Yet it does result in people coming to physical harm (no, not at my hands...), and it does add to the misery of the genuinely incapacitated when someone is petty enough to challenge their rights to a particular spot based on the observations of a few seconds.
I'd put myself on a no post embargo the last few months, but this is a topic that really pisses me off.
I'll admit, I'm an utter bastard. I'll park in P&C spaces as and when, I feel it's only fair that a family has to walk a bit further before clogging up aisles, inflicting their fetid clashing of gametes on my ears, and being somehow more deserving of a retail experience because they've added to the population of an already overflowing island.
Yes I have sympathy for single parents who have no choice but to take their children shopping, but there's scant few single parents compared to the myriad of two parent several child families meandering the stores. The parents generally look harassed, the children bored and stressed. But somehow it's become standard practice for people to go through this ritual, and I object to the supermarkets encouraging it as a cynical ploy to make more money. These families may be more profitable than my single person shopping, but why should I or anyone else who shops sans crochfruit be made to feel less worthy?
I happen to drive older, rarer cars. The chances of me feeling like ripping someones arm off to prevent them ever slamming their door into the side of my car again is muchly reduced if the spaces are wide enough to begin with. Many times I've been in my car when I've felt and heard the thunk of bodywork on bodywork, and at no point has the offender ever apologised, even when I've made a point of checking the paintwork on my car and commenting they'd luckily not done any damage. P&C spaces are wide enough to prevent this happening, and if that's the only way I can be sure to avoid this kind of damage then it's just one more reason to use them.
When it comes to disabled spaces, they seem to be the reserve of the elderly. This I can understand, many of the elderly do have mobility problems that interfere with simple tasks such as shopping. But so do many people of all ages, and these problems are not always instantly apparent. A friend of mine suffers from extreme anxiety, yet to look at would be considered fully able. Until a panic attack occurs in the middle of the toiletries aisle, at which point every step back to the safety of the car is like running a mile through treacle. Not all illnesses are physical, and not all mental illnesses have no effect on physical ability.
I myself frequently have lower leg cramps, back pains, and also suffer from certain head fuck ups. To see me most days you'd think there was nothing wrong with me, and so long as everything is in my "comfort zone", you'd be right. But some days everything is not holding together very well for me, and being that little bit closer to the supermarket door is vital. I do my best to use the furthest disabled space from the door, and then only if there's several others empty, or the nearest normal space if it's a similar distance (or, of course, the nearest P&C space if there's one empty!). I wonder how kindly I'd take to someone deliberately blocking my access to a space due to my choice in car and lack of badge of inability? I wonder how kindly they'd take to a mouthful of abuse and rubbing of chrome bumper on shins, or a three hour conversation on the subject, depending on how my head was working at the time?
I'll admit, I'm an utter bastard. I'll park in P&C spaces as and when, I feel it's only fair that a family has to walk a bit further before clogging up aisles, inflicting their fetid clashing of gametes on my ears, and being somehow more deserving of a retail experience because they've added to the population of an already overflowing island.
Yes I have sympathy for single parents who have no choice but to take their children shopping, but there's scant few single parents compared to the myriad of two parent several child families meandering the stores. The parents generally look harassed, the children bored and stressed. But somehow it's become standard practice for people to go through this ritual, and I object to the supermarkets encouraging it as a cynical ploy to make more money. These families may be more profitable than my single person shopping, but why should I or anyone else who shops sans crochfruit be made to feel less worthy?
I happen to drive older, rarer cars. The chances of me feeling like ripping someones arm off to prevent them ever slamming their door into the side of my car again is muchly reduced if the spaces are wide enough to begin with. Many times I've been in my car when I've felt and heard the thunk of bodywork on bodywork, and at no point has the offender ever apologised, even when I've made a point of checking the paintwork on my car and commenting they'd luckily not done any damage. P&C spaces are wide enough to prevent this happening, and if that's the only way I can be sure to avoid this kind of damage then it's just one more reason to use them.
When it comes to disabled spaces, they seem to be the reserve of the elderly. This I can understand, many of the elderly do have mobility problems that interfere with simple tasks such as shopping. But so do many people of all ages, and these problems are not always instantly apparent. A friend of mine suffers from extreme anxiety, yet to look at would be considered fully able. Until a panic attack occurs in the middle of the toiletries aisle, at which point every step back to the safety of the car is like running a mile through treacle. Not all illnesses are physical, and not all mental illnesses have no effect on physical ability.
I myself frequently have lower leg cramps, back pains, and also suffer from certain head fuck ups. To see me most days you'd think there was nothing wrong with me, and so long as everything is in my "comfort zone", you'd be right. But some days everything is not holding together very well for me, and being that little bit closer to the supermarket door is vital. I do my best to use the furthest disabled space from the door, and then only if there's several others empty, or the nearest normal space if it's a similar distance (or, of course, the nearest P&C space if there's one empty!). I wonder how kindly I'd take to someone deliberately blocking my access to a space due to my choice in car and lack of badge of inability? I wonder how kindly they'd take to a mouthful of abuse and rubbing of chrome bumper on shins, or a three hour conversation on the subject, depending on how my head was working at the time?
Quote by winchwench
I had a throat infection about 3 years ago that knackered my voice :cry: But what the hell- I still sing coz it makes me happy!
I get a little concerned because I seem to have had something iffy i my throat for nearly 2 years now - And the doctor I saw couldn't find anything! Doesn't stop me trying though (it probably should, I'll bet I'm doing myself no favours). And I get really frustrated when I seem to be able to hold one or two songs together, then lose it all completely and wake up with a painful throat the next day. I'm too damned stubborn for my own good I suppose...
And someone please tell me that I was so drunk I imagined the lyrics "flop flop flop, flop like a mop"
:shock:
I knew there was a good reason for not liking musicals!*
*Rocky Horror, Little Shop and Nightmare Before christmas notwithstanding
Quote by duncanlondon
I was where you are about 20 years ago. I tried a few vocal coaches in The Stage, then found a local conservatoire. Where I got into Bel Canto, (beautiful singing) and learned the classical approach to singing. Which was hugely frustrating as it is a very disciplined method of developing your singing abilities.
I've also heard the classical training is good.. If you want to sing in a classical style. Which isn't really my thing (and yes, I have a problem with that level of discipline too
)Hours spent in freezing cold church halls etc.
I suspect, given my personal take on religion and churches, this might not be such a great idea ;)
Most other coachings are basically short cuts. Remember its easy to be flattered, when the flatterer is being paid by you.
This worries me. Money is tight, so I'd be wanting actual results and not a quick bodge or money grabbing charlatan. I remember my first driving instructor (to go on a bit of a tangent), who was happy to string me along to keep getting the money in, without ever really doing anything to help my skills or confidence.
I don't do it now, but it was quite an experience to have done it, as there were a few times when I met some truly talented and well known people.
I've not had much experience of meeting "talented" people, but the little I have had has been, erm, "interesting". I'm sure most people would love to think they have some amazing artistic flair buried away and I'm no different, but in reality I'd be happy if my voice could reach a passable standard!
That'd be greatly appreciated 
I'm sure my voice didn't used to be so bad, but years of ciggies, booze, chocolate etc seem to have taken their toll, and any "natual" ability has suffered just a touch. It's damned annoying as it's not that I'm tone deaf, or even that on a good day I can't hit the notes, it's just my throat cries "Enough" after a very short time and leavesme croaking and crackling all over the place
I'd love to be able to sing well enough to impress someone else, but the main thing to me is to be able to hold a tune well enough to please myself - I'm selfish like that ;-)
I'm sure my voice didn't used to be so bad, but years of ciggies, booze, chocolate etc seem to have taken their toll, and any "natual" ability has suffered just a touch. It's damned annoying as it's not that I'm tone deaf, or even that on a good day I can't hit the notes, it's just my throat cries "Enough" after a very short time and leavesme croaking and crackling all over the place
I'd love to be able to sing well enough to impress someone else, but the main thing to me is to be able to hold a tune well enough to please myself - I'm selfish like that ;-)
Yes, it's another New Year so I'm blotto* and trying to sing again. And I can't.
It's quite annoying really, and I was wondering if anyone had ever had any experience of taking vocal lessons, and if so if it was good/ bad? I've got various "teach yourself" courses, but was wondering if an actual "hands on" (should there be any female nudie teachers in the area I'd love to heart from you ;) ) approach might be a little more succesful? I think I've got about a 2.5 octave range (going by my keyboard), but naff all power and hideous breaks between ranges and littel stamina. Gets a bit annoying when trying to belt out power ballads I can tell you!
* - I would mention in my sig anything posted this evening is due to excessive yeast excretia, but I'm too sozzled to find the sig setting here...
It's quite annoying really, and I was wondering if anyone had ever had any experience of taking vocal lessons, and if so if it was good/ bad? I've got various "teach yourself" courses, but was wondering if an actual "hands on" (should there be any female nudie teachers in the area I'd love to heart from you ;) ) approach might be a little more succesful? I think I've got about a 2.5 octave range (going by my keyboard), but naff all power and hideous breaks between ranges and littel stamina. Gets a bit annoying when trying to belt out power ballads I can tell you!
* - I would mention in my sig anything posted this evening is due to excessive yeast excretia, but I'm too sozzled to find the sig setting here...
I seldom spot anyone on here that gets my pulse racing. And those that do seldom live anything like within reasonable driving distance.
Having said that, in something like 3 or 4 years of lurking I have spotted maybe a handful of women who definitely arouse my curiosity, so I guess there are some out there. And I'm sure there's many more that would certainly arouse other aspects enough if I stopped being so apathetic about the whole thing and made an effort!
Whilst I have a whole visual "pwooaaarrness" thing when flicking through the pics, I have to say there's one or two current and previous forumers that would definitely get my attention given the chance - As much as I'm a sucker for a pretty smile an interesting mind turns me on a hell of a lot more.
Trouble is I'm crap at flirting, and next to none of the women I might find attractive are even in the same geographical region never mind county!
Having said that, in something like 3 or 4 years of lurking I have spotted maybe a handful of women who definitely arouse my curiosity, so I guess there are some out there. And I'm sure there's many more that would certainly arouse other aspects enough if I stopped being so apathetic about the whole thing and made an effort!
Whilst I have a whole visual "pwooaaarrness" thing when flicking through the pics, I have to say there's one or two current and previous forumers that would definitely get my attention given the chance - As much as I'm a sucker for a pretty smile an interesting mind turns me on a hell of a lot more.
Trouble is I'm crap at flirting, and next to none of the women I might find attractive are even in the same geographical region never mind county!
Quote by Srne
I don't want to get into the religious argument as the the wave of opposition is far too great a tide for me to try and surf and I could be called a heretic!!
I've been called far worse, usually by those who so devoutly follow the Christian message of peace and love and free will...
Lets not forget that most of us don't even realise that in reality Jesus wasn't actually born on the 25th December. The date we use to mark the birth of Christ was moved to this date to suit the Christian Astrological calendar, it is thought through the Gospels of Mark and Luke he was born on the 11th or 12th of September in the 3rd century toward the reign of King Herod when there is documented proof written in stone (pardon the pun)that a census was compiled of all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and names Jesus of Nazareth living there. :shock:
Except of course the gospels hang their own stories over a loose framework of common theming due to being written over quite a period of time. Not to mention said gospels were edited, picked and chosen by a vote, written by people not even alive at the time Christ was meant to be around... You have to admit, for such a world changing event such as God's firstborn hanging out with fishermen there's really very little agreement on who, where, when, what, how. There's also the minor detail of the messianic prophecy in the old testament stating the paternal bloodline of the messiah, which is tenuously and erratically proven through Joseph - The slight problem being of course that was his step father!
But aside from all that, the celebration of Christ's birth was pinned onto the Winter Solstice in keeping with the placing of many Christian festivals. The giving of gifts has more to do with Yule than some loose re-enactment of three itinerant monarchs, just as I'm fairly sure even a miracle worker descendant of God didn't lay chocolate eggs on a different date each spring.
And this is why religion annoys me, and threads like this irritate me. People are being offended that their religion (the faith of the nation apparently) is being twisted, corrupted and subdued from various angles, when that very religion is a global example of just that process! Sadly many people repeat dogma parrot fashion without putting any thought into the words (Merry Christmas is a substitute for "Have a nice day" at this time of year), or play the "My Gods better than your (none existent for mine's the only true one) God" games, and just shows how a multicultural multi faith society is always going to have problems, even if the sledgehammer of politcal correctness reduces the scale of the tension.
Quote by Unc
You mean the way that Muslim countries educate their populations and promote acceptance of cultures different to their own? No, I didn't think so.
Unc.
In some of the Muslim countries it's acceptable to stone behead or hang homosexuals, murder women who break allowable displayed flesh rules, and disappear social dissidents.
I do hope you're not suggesting we follow their example on those matters too..?
Quote by browning
There lies the problem, when you are born you do not have a religion, it's normally your parents that, in my opinion brainwash you into a relgion. As an adult you have a choice. If you are born here and you choose to be a muslim, then you MUST respect our culture.
I'm no sure I can go along with that. Not so long ago "my" culture was imprisoning homosexuals and unwed mothers under the guise of insanity. Christian morals were used to oppressive extremes in communities as well as being the basis for many existing and new laws. Racism wasn't considered as unpalatable as it is now.
So it appears youre' saying that if you "choose" to be a Christian you're fine as you and the culture are as one, but if you "choose" to be agnostic, atheist, Muslim, Pastafarian or any other belief (or lack thereof) system then you must suffer the way things are and not protest at what you might see as injustice or oppression.
As to religious brainwashing, again I'm in complete agreement. But if a child is brainwashed from birth into believing a particular faith, is it really their fault if they keep that faith as they grow up? They were force fed the doctrine during their formative years so expecting everyone to question and possibly renounce their faith in adulthood when it's become a part of their persona seems a little extreme, and suggest to me very few people truly have a choice in the matter.
I for one do not wish to have anyone ordering me to have a happy Christmas (given I am certainly not a believer in Christ) and would be mildly irritated if they ignored my request (as in the OP), but I would also be tolerant enough not to go running to make a complaint about it!
Quote by browning
Thier country, thier rules. It was my choice to live/work there.
That I entirely agree with. But what about Muslims that were born here?
Do they have more less or an equal right to campaign for change as I do? I might disagree with their politics, but then I disagree with the politics of many people of the same colour creed gender and upbringing as myself - The only difference is one group is easier to shout down and dismiss as radical, foreign etc.
I see one of the biggest problems being idiot do gooders. You'll often find behind the red top screams of those "ethnics" trying to ban x y or z there's a white Christian type who's actually the one who came up with the ideas and directives. These schemes lead to the "How dare *they*" annoyance which causes the minorities to feel even more ostracised and increases tension all around, and it's all down to some simpering halfwit and not the Muslims/ Asians/ etc at all.
One small note - This wasn't always a Christian country. And in fact those who brought that faith to these shores also waved big pointy sticks around and were often seen as violent and unpopular side among the indigenous peoples. Funny how history repeats itself..
If people drove lighter cars they'd use a lot less fuel (assuming most driving is stop start/ round town). The problem with arguing about smaller cars is a modern "small" car is heavier than many older medium cars! On a like for like, an Austin Metro is approx 130kg lighter than the new FIAT 500 - That's roughly 16 percent more weight, and explains why even with its modern engine it's not notably faster than a 1986 MG Metro.
In fact, 930kg is only about 20kg lighter than a 1.3 1984 Montego!
All those leather seats, bottom warmers, power assisted everythings etc add a lot of weight to a car, and more weight needs more energy to get it moving.
As for veg oil - I'm all for it. But many modern common rail injection engines simply cannot run on it - The pumps are designed to run at incredibly tight tolerances in order to provide the massive pressure in teh system. These tolerances are specced with pump diesel, and veg oil has very different properties in terms of viscosity, lubrication etc. Even a fair number of older diesel pumps ingest themselves if run on the wrong fuel for any length of time. So in manufacturers coming up with more efficient (particulate belching) engines they have tied themselves all the more to a finite fuel source.
Fuel cells? Aside from the issues of hydrogen storage and efficient means of converting it to rotary motion, there's the minor issue of getting the hydrogen in the first place. It doesn't grow on trees, and can't be dug out the earth. It's an incredibly energy intensive way of creating a chemical fuel source, and ludicrously a lot of hydrogen currently produced is formed from oil!
In fact, 930kg is only about 20kg lighter than a 1.3 1984 Montego!
All those leather seats, bottom warmers, power assisted everythings etc add a lot of weight to a car, and more weight needs more energy to get it moving.
As for veg oil - I'm all for it. But many modern common rail injection engines simply cannot run on it - The pumps are designed to run at incredibly tight tolerances in order to provide the massive pressure in teh system. These tolerances are specced with pump diesel, and veg oil has very different properties in terms of viscosity, lubrication etc. Even a fair number of older diesel pumps ingest themselves if run on the wrong fuel for any length of time. So in manufacturers coming up with more efficient (particulate belching) engines they have tied themselves all the more to a finite fuel source.
Fuel cells? Aside from the issues of hydrogen storage and efficient means of converting it to rotary motion, there's the minor issue of getting the hydrogen in the first place. It doesn't grow on trees, and can't be dug out the earth. It's an incredibly energy intensive way of creating a chemical fuel source, and ludicrously a lot of hydrogen currently produced is formed from oil!
Quote by noladreams30
Ben, you joined the site in September so don't get too disheartened just yet!!
I joined years ago and haven't met anyone off here yet!
OK, so I've not really made an effort, not thrown an ad up, not contacted many (less than 5 I think) people and only pop into the forums to post on the more controversial topics nowadays but you'd think after 3 years or more some delusional nymphomaniac would've dragged me into her den wouldn't you? You wouldn't? Me either, but unless I get round to being a bit more proactive in these things it's the only way I can see me meeting anyone through here..
I hate it when the race card is played at the drop of a hat, as often it can be used to stifle free expression of non racist opinions because those opinions might be about someone of a certain race whilst having nothing to do with their race. But what I'm not seeing here is sympathy for someone who is now facing the consequences of her actions, but an excuse to jump on the Islamophobe bandwagon. For the record, I don't greatly respect or agree with that faith of the laws Islamic countries make based on it. But then, I have little respect for Christianity, and the laws passed that oppress personal freedoms in Christian countries. However, what I do have respect for it the right for these countries to pass and uphold these laws. And if I were to ensconce myself in a country which has such laws, I would abide by them and understand I would face consequences should I go against them.
I notice it's apparently OK to shoot someone even if he wasn't running away from the police because he was a foreigner and was possibly illegally working in this country. It's also OK to shoot someone if they are running suspiciously.
Well, why am I still alive? A couple of years ago, when the bombings, attempted bombings, and this shooting took place, Queen played a gig in Hyde Park. The area was crawling with police, understandable at the time. It was a very hot evening. I, as my username suggests, am frequently in a state of disarray, and I was going to the gig. As usual I was very late, very stressed (Londons road network confuses the hell out of me) and in a rush. After already swinging my car abruptly towards a group of police for directions, once I'd parked I put my thick heavy jacket on, pockets filled with refreshments and a camera, and ran to the entrance. Past lots of police. I got to what I thought was the right gate, only to be told my ticket was for the other end, so had to run the entire length of the area to get in. Sods law, some of the sweets I had started falling out my pocket, and I ran past police very out of breath, determined, in a bulky jacket on a hot day, clearly with my pockets brimmed to leaking. Not once was I challenged, let alone pinned down and repeatedly shot in the head.
Now, could this be because I happen to be white, and wearing a leather to a rock concert? Because I'm sure all terrorists are not white, and never wear leather jackets...
The point of the above is if we're to believe anyone acting strangely at a time of heightened tension should be at least restrained (if not shot), howcome nobody batted an eyelid at me? Or is it more a case of if you have darker skin and want to catch a tube, it's OK to shoot you so long as you live near some suspects? At the time people were saying he'd jumped barriers, was wearing a heavy jacket, run onto the train, and to this day many (who maybe want to?) still believe that, even when more reliable evidence says he was "allowed" to leave his home, get on a bus, get a ticket for the tube, get a newspaper and sit down on the train to read it before being killed. The police made a mistake that resulted in an innocent man being dead, yet I'm still getting the impression many consider that to be acceptable.
One other thing that has irked me is the lumping together of pets and toys. Without wishing to add yet more vitriolic tangents to this thread, I can't remember the last time a toy would eat, drink, sleep, breath, run up to great you when you walked in the room, and go through pain and suffering, and ultimately death. I'm pretty sure my lego never needed any medication to make it better either.
I notice it's apparently OK to shoot someone even if he wasn't running away from the police because he was a foreigner and was possibly illegally working in this country. It's also OK to shoot someone if they are running suspiciously.
Well, why am I still alive? A couple of years ago, when the bombings, attempted bombings, and this shooting took place, Queen played a gig in Hyde Park. The area was crawling with police, understandable at the time. It was a very hot evening. I, as my username suggests, am frequently in a state of disarray, and I was going to the gig. As usual I was very late, very stressed (Londons road network confuses the hell out of me) and in a rush. After already swinging my car abruptly towards a group of police for directions, once I'd parked I put my thick heavy jacket on, pockets filled with refreshments and a camera, and ran to the entrance. Past lots of police. I got to what I thought was the right gate, only to be told my ticket was for the other end, so had to run the entire length of the area to get in. Sods law, some of the sweets I had started falling out my pocket, and I ran past police very out of breath, determined, in a bulky jacket on a hot day, clearly with my pockets brimmed to leaking. Not once was I challenged, let alone pinned down and repeatedly shot in the head.
Now, could this be because I happen to be white, and wearing a leather to a rock concert? Because I'm sure all terrorists are not white, and never wear leather jackets...
The point of the above is if we're to believe anyone acting strangely at a time of heightened tension should be at least restrained (if not shot), howcome nobody batted an eyelid at me? Or is it more a case of if you have darker skin and want to catch a tube, it's OK to shoot you so long as you live near some suspects? At the time people were saying he'd jumped barriers, was wearing a heavy jacket, run onto the train, and to this day many (who maybe want to?) still believe that, even when more reliable evidence says he was "allowed" to leave his home, get on a bus, get a ticket for the tube, get a newspaper and sit down on the train to read it before being killed. The police made a mistake that resulted in an innocent man being dead, yet I'm still getting the impression many consider that to be acceptable.
One other thing that has irked me is the lumping together of pets and toys. Without wishing to add yet more vitriolic tangents to this thread, I can't remember the last time a toy would eat, drink, sleep, breath, run up to great you when you walked in the room, and go through pain and suffering, and ultimately death. I'm pretty sure my lego never needed any medication to make it better either.
Quote by mdr2000
If one single person who sits in judgment of this woman can honestly say to themselves they have never made an honest mistake then I would eat my own crap!
I've made mistakes aplenty. And I understand that with the freedom to make mistakes comes the responsibility of facing the consequences of my actions. Something that this woman apparently shouldn't have to do, as she should be judged by western rules and not those of the country she has chosen to live and work (and so no doubt be paid) in.
Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks this is 'right' and 'just' is as bad as the system that allowed this to happen..
You tar entire cultures and creeds with a very wide brush and look at them very unfavourably. How, exactly, is that different to those of other countries and cultures finding our culture abhorrent? I would have thought that people on this sit might have a little understand of what it's like to face an intolerant attitude, but obviously not.
Right now for the first time in a long long time I feel ashamed to sit back and feel as though enough has been done to protect this woman..
And I feel absolutely nothing has been done to protect the rights of UK citizens inthe UK. I find the constant attempts to reduce civil liberties in this country a far more depressing and important issue than the hypocritical desire to "liberate" other nations.
I wish I could say more.. I really do but freedom of speech is reserved for those who stand against us as a nation. British people can say nothing any more.. but clerics and others can stand in the street and slag off our way of life incite hatred call us blind threaten us and our beliefs and what happens to them.. Bugger all........... Great!!!
So is your issue with a country having the sovereign right to its own culture and judicial system, or with our sovereign nation and it's worrying trend? I'm in full agreement that we live in a country full of tension (sadly, much of which historically we have brought upon ourselves) and things are not entirely as they should be. But just because our government is (at least perceived) to be bending over backwards to accommodate distasteful dissenters doesn't mean that we should demand or even expect another nation to ignore it's own morals at our behest.
Quote by Fun Scottish Couple
its about children choosing a name for there toy, and if calling a teddy mohammed is so frowned upon and anyone working there (your words) should know this then why didn't the children that live there know this?
Do children born and raised in this country know you have to apply for a license before protesting near parliament?
Imagine if a foreign teacher took a class where a political debate took place, which resulted in a vote that said teacher would protest about something (animal rights for example). The teacher, unaware of the law, then protested. Now, stupid as the law may or may not be, should this teacher be let off for being ignorant? Should the children be held as more responsible than the teacher by dint of their being born here?
Surely the issue at hand is about an adult making a mistake for which the adult is responsible. Trying to now shift the blame to the children seems a little, well, disingenuous.
And I can't help but wonder if this is raising so much fuss because it's a white British woman. Would it even have been newsworthy if it had been just another Sudanese teacher..?
Quote by Catcorb
on.
I don't believe freedom for freedoms sake. But if we didn't in the past stand up and say something is wrong we would have a swastika on the flag of Europe now.
That is inaccurate for so many reasons I don't know where to start. How about the US happily dealing with the Nazi regime, the UK trying not to get involved, the true horrors of their oppression not being realised until years after the conflict started, just to name a few? Oh, and of course the fact that like nearly all wars, "liberation" of oppressed people was as much a motive as a desire to see their art galleries free of charge.
And I do get so completely tired of one diseased Austrian's quest being somehow a justification to condemn other countries so 62 years after he put a bullet through his skull.
There was a thread on here a little while ago on female circumcision that is prevalent in parts of Africa and is happening here as well, your augment says it’s their culture so it’s ok. It’s wrong and we should say something. Inca tribes used to have human sacrifices. If they were still around that would be ok its part of their religion. What a load of bollox. You know it’s wrong, I know it’s wrong.
By my beliefs formed from growing up in a liberal western democracy, many many things appear wrong to me. I find stories such as this to be the more trivial tip of an iceberg full of utter unpleasantries perpetrated on man by man around the globe. By stating I can not and should not have any right to pervert the course of a foreign sovereign nations justice does not mean I support their laws, but means I respect their rights to make and keep them. Had you or I been born into an Inca tribe, we might be fully supportive of sacrifices, had we been born into an African society we might both hold to the idea of female circumcision. You are placing your views and ideology formed in a very different culture upon these situations.
To put it another way, I do not appreciate you stating as fact I am wrong, and stating I know I am wrong. But however unpalatable I find your attitude, I respect your right to have it. And however unpalatable I find the death penalty, theocratic regimes, etc, I understand that it is the right of the countries that practice them to be allowed to do so. I hope they reach "enlightenment" and agree with my values one day, but until then I'll have the sense not to break the ancient code "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". If the woman in this case had have stuck to that she would not now be facing any prosecution...
Quote by annejohn
sometimes what another country sees as its rights and laws have to be thought it had the right to oppress poeple from inside and outside their own lands, should we not have opposed dont automatically deserve respect,it has to be earned and deserved
Is this an SH record for Godwin?
And if you think either world war with Germany was about freeing their people from oppression, you probably think Saddam had butt plugs of mass destruction and the coalition really did enter Baghdad on a sea of rose petals.
Quote by Catcorb
To stick up for it by saying “yes but that’s the law of that country” :shock: Wake up. You cannot stick up for opression no matter where it is and be a member on this site without the irony to be almost blinding.
Indeed. The irony of oppressing another countrys right to its own culture and justice system in the name of freedom escapes me not one bit.
Quote by Plimboy
I think it is more natural for a woman to be bi. Social protocol has always allowed two women together eg ballroom dancing - and I think culture develops into what is sexally acceptable from the way that mainstream society behaves.
I think it's the opposite - Mainstream society dictates what is sexually acceptable. And mainstream society today stems from theocracies (some countries of course are still very much theocracies) of the past. For example, the church decreed homosexuality was a sin. Whilst our modern society might not blindly follow the church any more, generations of living under christian decree will have engrained such opinions into our culture.
Now, who decreed what was good and what was bad, and why is another matter. Is there any real reason to condemn an action because a believer of one ancient culture was politically oppressed (or opressing) a believer of a different ancinet culture, and put that message across in a spiritual text of the day? Or is there any reason to condemn an action because someone else, generations later, decided to translate and edit that text to suit their own contempory political views?
In other words, is it as simple as society following some innate sense of acceptability, or could it be society accepts what it's told to?
Quote by Ukwineman
Reason well there are an aweful lot of Labour voters in that region and a lot of job would be lost. Remember Rover where the goverment stepped in with PUBLIC money to save a company in Labour heartlands and what happened to that.
What happened was Labour stepped in full of promises just before a general election, forked out a fairly small sum (in the grand scheme of things) to cover unpaid wages (not to buy votes, no, of course not), then let the whole lot get sold up to an abhorrent regime we're hand in glove with because said regime makes the cheap plastic crap that drives our consumer culture.
But the main thing is having been responsible for letting four incompetent if not downright dodgy directors take Rover in the first place, the government could pin the whole saga on said directors (who came out of it wealthy enough to not give a damn) and shirk any claims they might be in any way to blame.
<delurk>
It's not good IMO.
Is it me, or is the only added functionality the list by login/ join date etc? Which is very useful, as before the results would mean trawling through pages of ancient profiles (well, I say pages, most times I couldn't go to the next page in the results for some reason).
The layout might or might not be better, that's subjective (though again, IMO it's not good). But to introduce one useful feature and break another, possibly more useful one seems silly.
And what it has always lacked and still lacks is the ability to search by what someone is looking for. Eg, in my case I'm a single male looking for a single female. So long as said female has an interest in male dangly bits I don't care if they're straight, bi or meandering in the realms of uncertainty. But it appears I'd have to search three categories and look at lots of results simply to find out if said straight, bi or unsure female is looking for wobbly man parts. So what's needed is a "looking for a ..." selection with a "who are seeking a ..." next to it. That way the searcher can get results of searchees that should have at least some relevance rather than waste time clicking through a myriad of utterly pointless results.
Just my IMO, back to lurking!
It's not good IMO.
Is it me, or is the only added functionality the list by login/ join date etc? Which is very useful, as before the results would mean trawling through pages of ancient profiles (well, I say pages, most times I couldn't go to the next page in the results for some reason).
The layout might or might not be better, that's subjective (though again, IMO it's not good). But to introduce one useful feature and break another, possibly more useful one seems silly.
And what it has always lacked and still lacks is the ability to search by what someone is looking for. Eg, in my case I'm a single male looking for a single female. So long as said female has an interest in male dangly bits I don't care if they're straight, bi or meandering in the realms of uncertainty. But it appears I'd have to search three categories and look at lots of results simply to find out if said straight, bi or unsure female is looking for wobbly man parts. So what's needed is a "looking for a ..." selection with a "who are seeking a ..." next to it. That way the searcher can get results of searchees that should have at least some relevance rather than waste time clicking through a myriad of utterly pointless results.
Just my IMO, back to lurking!
