You'd have to let him in. Because if he is telling the truth, he will die if you don't. And if you were in that situation you would need someone to do the same for you.
But what are you doing without a phone?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
tomu
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 53
UK
Forum
Quote by Max777
total load of crap. absolutely no concept or understanding of the global financial system of debt/credit or banking just media shite.
So please enlighten us Gulson. How are you preparing for the oncoming apocalypse?
There's something to be said for learning the skills you would need in the event of the collapse of civilisation. As much medicine as you can, how to make an electricity generator, and lots of fighting?
Quote by easyrider_xxx
- and then there's always the option to sell more elsewhere in the world.
There isn't, at least nowhere near as profitably, that's why people sell so much stuff in Europe. Even if we could flog all the stuff to - I don't know, the US? China? Japan? - and get it all there, we'd lose so much of the profit in the process that it would severely knacker our economy.
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
long before i was born and probably long after i`m gone
history has proved that anyone party elected was not up to the job
so why not give a union of two parties a chance i`m sure most marriages are successful based on one keeping the other in check on certain issues one being better with money than another so only time will tell
I think the existence of the national health service stands as testament to how wrong you are......no coalition would/could have pushed through the legislation needed
Well, but if I remember my GCSE History right, weren't some of the first significant moves towards establishing the welfare state made by Lloyd George (of the Liberals) in 1913 or something? People of different parties can have similar ideas and beliefs, and a bit of moderation is often a good thing. One of the biggest problems with G. Brown, and indeed T. Blair, and indeed M. Thatcher, was their inclination and ability to railroad through whatever they wanted without reference even to their own ministers, let alone their party let alone the more than half of the population who didn't vote for them. Do you think we would have gone to war in Iraq or created the poll tax (or closed the pits or sold off the railways and utilities, etc.) if it had to be agreed to by MPs of several parties?
I think the achievements of the post-war Labour government are some of the most spectacular and beautiful things any government has ever done. They put it all up 50-odd years ago and every government since has chipped a bit off, but it's all still standing. In fact during the time of Blair I frequently wanted to grab ahold of him and go "Look! Look at that stuff! They had one term and they did all that! You don't need to sell all your beliefs to KEEP power, you just need to USE the power you've got. Grow a pair and do what you know is right! Gutless twat." Which I guess is an argument against coalitions. But, a series of coalitions would create more stability and coherence to government; so that each successive government wouldn't spend half its time trying to undo what the previous one had done, and wouldn't be able to so radically hack up their predecessors' achievements. If you believe in the principle of democracy, by extension you trust the whole of the electorate to collectively choose governments that will represent and realise their beliefs, which means coalitions, since they bring to the table a fair wider base of beliefs than one party can.
I'm not sure if I trust the British public. A much more appealing prospect is me as benevolent dictator.
T
Huh. Very tempting to say "yes".
What do we feel about anonymity for anyone accused of any crime at all, then? Until they're convicted. isn't the only crime where false accusations can affect your life. An accountant accuse of fraud or embezzlement would find their reputation tarnished, I'm sure. Or a schoolteacher accused of assault maybe?
I mean your basic argument against is that in a democratic country committed to the principle of freedom of speech, the press should be able to report on trials in progress, and often the identity of the accused is key to explaining the case; thinking of cases against companies, or, say, people in public office accused of corruption (although I can't think of any examples just now). And it would certainly make "the police are looking for THIS MAN (blurred out picture, no name given)"-type appeals considerably less successful... and much though the Daily Mail loves the idea of anonymity of suspects, if they weren't allowed to name suspected pedophiles they'd have to come up with about 20% more "Call Centres in India Give You Cancer" stories to fill their pages.
But there again, given the effect that a false accusation could have on someone's life, is anonymity of suspects more in keeping with the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
I'm genuinely on the fence about the issue of general anonymity of suspects; if we continue to name suspects in most cases I think there is a case for making sex crimes an exception.
What do we feel about anonymity for anyone accused of any crime at all, then? Until they're convicted. isn't the only crime where false accusations can affect your life. An accountant accuse of fraud or embezzlement would find their reputation tarnished, I'm sure. Or a schoolteacher accused of assault maybe?
I mean your basic argument against is that in a democratic country committed to the principle of freedom of speech, the press should be able to report on trials in progress, and often the identity of the accused is key to explaining the case; thinking of cases against companies, or, say, people in public office accused of corruption (although I can't think of any examples just now). And it would certainly make "the police are looking for THIS MAN (blurred out picture, no name given)"-type appeals considerably less successful... and much though the Daily Mail loves the idea of anonymity of suspects, if they weren't allowed to name suspected pedophiles they'd have to come up with about 20% more "Call Centres in India Give You Cancer" stories to fill their pages.
But there again, given the effect that a false accusation could have on someone's life, is anonymity of suspects more in keeping with the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
I'm genuinely on the fence about the issue of general anonymity of suspects; if we continue to name suspects in most cases I think there is a case for making sex crimes an exception.
Yes, definitely. I am massively turned-on by women who love fucking and love fucking lots of different guys. With the caveat that Duncanlondon and Kaznkev mentioned, if it seems like it's more about validation than sex, then that kind of worries/saddens me a bit; it can feel like you're taking advantage of a vulnerable person. So given that, if we're honest, that is the motivation for a lot of highly promiscuous people, the fantasy always comes into reality flavoured a bit.
But then, if I'm even more honest, there is a definite kink to being evil...
Definitely though, someone who is in control of herself, in command of her sexuality, and loves fucking lots of different men because she gets off on it... is like the ultimate sexual Ferrari to me. Would I take her home to meet my mum? Well... depends if she was nice or not.
I don't need to be "chosen" to feel special; I feel special already, I'm fucking awesome.
(Am I promiscuous myself? I haven't had many one-night stands, a few; I've had a few long relationships including my current one, and a fair few short ones; I've been to a few swinging clubs and parties and fucked a few people whose names I don't know; I've never cheated on anyone, and usually have sex within a relationship. Not really, then.)
But then, if I'm even more honest, there is a definite kink to being evil...
Definitely though, someone who is in control of herself, in command of her sexuality, and loves fucking lots of different men because she gets off on it... is like the ultimate sexual Ferrari to me. Would I take her home to meet my mum? Well... depends if she was nice or not.
I don't need to be "chosen" to feel special; I feel special already, I'm fucking awesome.
(Am I promiscuous myself? I haven't had many one-night stands, a few; I've had a few long relationships including my current one, and a fair few short ones; I've been to a few swinging clubs and parties and fucked a few people whose names I don't know; I've never cheated on anyone, and usually have sex within a relationship. Not really, then.)
I hadn't until now. Since the advent of the Strokes, the Hives, the Vines, the White Stripes, the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club,and especially, more recently, the *&%&%^* Wombats, I've made a point of avoiding any band whose name starts with "the" unless they jumped off someone's record player into my ears, in a good way.
But I like these Irrepressibles, I've just had a listen on the internet and I'll listen to them some more. Thanks!
Quote by deancannock
To be fair here, I have to say it is only right, that the party that gained the most votes, was given the opportunity to form the new goverrnment as they have. Gordan Brown however did not cling onto power. In fact quite the opposite. He was asked by Mr Clegg to hold on whilst he negotiated. In the end Gordan Brown was on the phone to Mr Clegg who asked for another 24 hours. Mr Brown told him, enough is enough, I'm off to see the queen, so you best sort it out in the next hour. This is soon to shown in a documenty" the last few hours" to be shown on BBC1. There was preview on Radio 5 other day.
The big question here, really is how come David Cameron was on the goal line, with the ball at his feet, yet still couldn't get the ball all the way over the line to score. The government was suppossed to be the most unpopular goverment since Thather with an inept leader, presideing over the deepest recession in decades. yet he still couldn't get a majority ????
Yes to everything here :-)
Quote by Kaznkev
snog,lesley judd, not really sure who she is
shag konnie huq ohh yes i know who she is :twisted:
marry valerie singlton, well i need mothering,
Alex ferguson Claudio Ranieri Arsène Wenger
or for the straight men and bi women
Posh,Cheryl Cole ,Coleen McLoughlin,
I don't want to do anything to any of them. Well, that's a lie, I'd shag Cheryl, and I could probably tolerate snogging Posh if it was over quickly enough. But does that leave me marrying Coleen? Christ. That's a life sentence. Hang on... I could marry Arsene.
How about Sporty, Baby and Scary?
Quote by awayman
Chicago school voodoo of the worst sort
That sounds like it should be an exciting new variant of techno for me to get down to.
Quote by awayman
i see thatcher and the pits constantly bounded on here
did thatcher close the pits out of spite or where the pits a non viable business with an inability to see off cheaper competition
Spite.
Next?
Greed.
Nicholas Ridley
Quote by Kaznkev
Also the fact that foreign coal was heavily subsidised by their governments,so British coal was not being sold on a level playing field.
But many economically productive pits were earmarked for closure,so i go for spite.
Yeah that's the badger: our mining industry was the most efficient and technologically advanced in Europe, ie, pretty much anywhere. That's one reason why people were so astonished that she was trying to close it. The problem was that all the other countries in Europe subsidised their mining industry, because they recognised the wider benefits to their economies: employment (ie more income tax, less unemployment benefit paid out); energy security; and the fact that all fossil fuel resources are consumable and frankly, they run out, so it's silly to throw them away.
But because free market dogma essentially rules out any kind of joined up or long term thinking (because it's all about the cash profit ONE person or company can make in one financial cycle) the pits were deemed less profitable than other alternatives. Even though actually by spreading the load a little bit we would all have ended up richer.
And the miner's union was very strong and very socialist and she hated unions and socialists and anyone who stood up to her, so she always had it in for them anyway.
One final note is that she was denying at the time that she was trying to close all of the pits. Scargill (for all his faults) had a list of pits that he was fond of waving, that he said was her hit list; the Sun called him mental; she said she was never going to shut them all down. All gone now.
In terms of more recent "classical" music, (there isn't really a good word for it is there? if it's recent it can't be classical; it's not necessarily orchestral; maybe "art" music?) if you want to sample some good stuff for free you could do a lot worse than sticking on Radio 3 any time between 12th July and 11th September - the Proms are brilliant, worth the licence fee on their own if you ask me.
Here are some recommendations:
Arvo Part
Pretty much anything, but it's worth trying some of his choral music, like his St John Passion. My personal favourite is a cello and piano peice called Spiegel im Spiegel. The Cantus in Memoriam of Benjamin Britten is lovely too. They're doing the St John Passion and the Cantus in Memoriam at the Proms on 17th August (along with Shostakovich 5 - should be a fantastic evening).
Henryk Gorecki
The Third Symphony, "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs", is his especially well-known one - it's very dark, very slow, and very very beautiful. It's ostensibly about and dedicated to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust - one movement takes its lyrics from a prayer for the forgiveness of the SS soldiers, written on a prison cell wall by an 18-year-old girl about to be executed - but like a lot of post-war Eastern European art, it's also regarded as being a lament for the Soviet occupation. Be warned that it starts of very very quiet but gets very very loud - so not really good driving music.
Gyorgi Ligeti
One of the most important modern composers, he died in 2006. Famous for "cluster chords" (ie lots of notes very close to each other) the music sometimes sounds a bit harsh and abrasive but I think at times it's really beautiful - try Atmospheres (there are two unrelated pieces with this name though, an orchestral one and an electronic one - I think the orchestral one is better) and also Lux Aeterna, which appears on the 2001 soundtrack - Stanley Kubrick was a fan. His prom is on the 11th August.
And then the Americans; a lot of American stuff over the last 30-40 years has been in the category "minimalist" - while in the rest of art this generally means "not very much", in classical music it means "the same thing over and over again - but in a way we think is interesting". It's a fine line though and a lot of American minimal stuff I find a bit repetitive and boring, and a bit too dissonant; but sometimes it can be really beautiful.
Steve Reich
Ste is credited as being a defining influence on ambient dance music, and in fact "Electric Counterpoint" was sampled by the Orb. That's a really good piece and I'd recommend starting there. Also "Music for 18 Musicians". "Different Trains" is really famous and important in the history of music too.
John Adams
In my opinion he takes the best bits of minimalism and takes it on a step. I really like Shaker Loops and Short Ride in a Fast Car (the latter is in the Proms concerts on 24th and 25th July).
In terms of non-classical music - for music with guitars and human drummers, I'd say if you're not already into the Arcade Fire give them a whirl; also the Animal Collective, Calexico, and Mogwai (definitely Mogwai - the album Young Team is a beast).
For music made with computers, my absolute favourite record of all week is Venetian Snares' "Rossz Csillag Allat Szuletett". It's the most artful AND the hardest drum and bass you will ever hear - drum and bass in 5:4 and 7:8? And yet he makes it sound fluid and natural. This album uses a lot of samples (Billie Holliday to Elgar's Cello Concerto) really intricately worked together so that from listening to it it's not entirely clear where the samples stop and the stuff he wrote and recorded starts. You can get some of this record on You Tube - put on Hajnal and let it run, it has an incredible build.
That's all for now
T
Here are some recommendations:
Arvo Part
Pretty much anything, but it's worth trying some of his choral music, like his St John Passion. My personal favourite is a cello and piano peice called Spiegel im Spiegel. The Cantus in Memoriam of Benjamin Britten is lovely too. They're doing the St John Passion and the Cantus in Memoriam at the Proms on 17th August (along with Shostakovich 5 - should be a fantastic evening).
Henryk Gorecki
The Third Symphony, "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs", is his especially well-known one - it's very dark, very slow, and very very beautiful. It's ostensibly about and dedicated to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust - one movement takes its lyrics from a prayer for the forgiveness of the SS soldiers, written on a prison cell wall by an 18-year-old girl about to be executed - but like a lot of post-war Eastern European art, it's also regarded as being a lament for the Soviet occupation. Be warned that it starts of very very quiet but gets very very loud - so not really good driving music.
Gyorgi Ligeti
One of the most important modern composers, he died in 2006. Famous for "cluster chords" (ie lots of notes very close to each other) the music sometimes sounds a bit harsh and abrasive but I think at times it's really beautiful - try Atmospheres (there are two unrelated pieces with this name though, an orchestral one and an electronic one - I think the orchestral one is better) and also Lux Aeterna, which appears on the 2001 soundtrack - Stanley Kubrick was a fan. His prom is on the 11th August.
And then the Americans; a lot of American stuff over the last 30-40 years has been in the category "minimalist" - while in the rest of art this generally means "not very much", in classical music it means "the same thing over and over again - but in a way we think is interesting". It's a fine line though and a lot of American minimal stuff I find a bit repetitive and boring, and a bit too dissonant; but sometimes it can be really beautiful.
Steve Reich
Ste is credited as being a defining influence on ambient dance music, and in fact "Electric Counterpoint" was sampled by the Orb. That's a really good piece and I'd recommend starting there. Also "Music for 18 Musicians". "Different Trains" is really famous and important in the history of music too.
John Adams
In my opinion he takes the best bits of minimalism and takes it on a step. I really like Shaker Loops and Short Ride in a Fast Car (the latter is in the Proms concerts on 24th and 25th July).
In terms of non-classical music - for music with guitars and human drummers, I'd say if you're not already into the Arcade Fire give them a whirl; also the Animal Collective, Calexico, and Mogwai (definitely Mogwai - the album Young Team is a beast).
For music made with computers, my absolute favourite record of all week is Venetian Snares' "Rossz Csillag Allat Szuletett". It's the most artful AND the hardest drum and bass you will ever hear - drum and bass in 5:4 and 7:8? And yet he makes it sound fluid and natural. This album uses a lot of samples (Billie Holliday to Elgar's Cello Concerto) really intricately worked together so that from listening to it it's not entirely clear where the samples stop and the stuff he wrote and recorded starts. You can get some of this record on You Tube - put on Hajnal and let it run, it has an incredible build.
That's all for now
T
Quote by Too Hot
If you want the council to have been able to have a load of money saved up against freak occurrences they weren't expecting... I presume you'd be happy to pay a higher rate of council tax then? No, thought not. There's no sense complaining about taxes on one hand, and then complaining about the lack of tax spending on the other. Which do you want? Potholes, or no potholes?
That is all well and good BUT..........where has my money gone btw £218 I spent two days ago on a years road tax for my car? Because all councils and governments are under pressure to only tax what they really need, and most (all?) of them are running deficits, it's simply not going to be possible for them to bank up massive contingency funds against freak occurrences.
This WAS a freak occurrence and it happened towards the end of the tax year. So they will have already spent the money last year.
The roads departments in all the councils will doubtless be asking for an increase in next year's budget to pay for this (remember last year's budget was spent on the normal things, normal levels of road maintenance, equipment maintenance, grit etc). Depending whether the councils grant it, when the new budgets are allocated in April you will probably see the work start.
But basically: all the things you want your council to do cost money. This was an unexpected event they hadn't budgeted for. They did not have the money sitting around to pay for it, because they already spent it on all the other things you want them to do.
You are missing the point. The council don't collect car tax - the government do. The money is not (and never has for that matter) being spent where it should be - on the roads.
No, I'm not. Ok, whoever collects car tax and whoever pays for the maintenance of the roads, the point is the same: it was a freak occurrence, they didn't have the money saved up to pay for it because they haven't got the money spare to save up huge piles of spare money in case freak occurrences occur.
If you want your government, local or national, to have the money sitting around to instantly respond to any unexpected and costly event that might happen, then you will have to pay much more in tax.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer. If you travel to work on a bicycle, and you get paid every month on the 1st, and you have to spend all your money on food and rent, as well as the occasional inner tube... and sometime around the 24th of the month your bicycle spontaneously transforms itself into an onion... you probably don't have the cash sitting by to buy a new bike. So what are you going to do for the next few days? Walk to work until you save up for a new bike, that's what.
Kenty, if you paid your road tax yesterday, that's very nice for you, but that money does not immediately go into the pot for pothole fixing. Budgets are allocated in April.
Quote by kentswingers777
Tolerance is a word that is used far too often nowadays...it is a bit like trust...it has to be earned and is not a right.
Incidentally, off topic, but I really disagree with this.
Trust, and respect, and perhaps to some extent loyalty... those are things that have to be earned. But tolerance, fairness, the benefit of the doubt, basic human decency are attitudes that all, well, decent human beings should display towards others at all times. I'm not religious myself, but I agree with turning the other cheek and treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself.
Actually, about respect... I think we should start from a position of respect towards everyone, but it can certainly be dis-earned...
Quote by kentswingers777
Jesus. Look, it was abnormally cold, the ice cracked up a load of roads, that was only a couple of months ago though and I daresay the councils will get round to repairing it soon enough.
If they get the money. Things cost money; they weren't expecting to have to spend the money so they won't have had it saved up. If you want the council to have been able to have a load of money saved up against freak occurrences they weren't expecting... I presume you'd be happy to pay a higher rate of council tax then? No, thought not. There's no sense complaining about taxes on one hand, and then complaining about the lack of tax spending on the other. Which do you want? Potholes, or no potholes?
I'd be willing to bet that when the budgets get replenished next month you'll see a flurry of road repairs getting done. Until then, it's a bugger, but basically, drive more carefully and put up with it.
That is all well and good BUT..........where has my money gone btw £218 I spent two days ago on a years road tax for my car?
£218 that as far as I can see goes nowhere near where it should do.
It was always supposed to go towards repairing the roads, and as there are more cars on the roads now than ever before, we should have perfect roads.....no?
I cannot believe that I had to pay that kind of money, and then leave this morning and see cracked roads and potholes everywhere on my way to work.
So where does all our money go? Because it is not going on the roads, that's for sure.
Well, given that I don't work in your council's road's department, and I have no detailed knowledge of how how much money is gathered and spent or what things cost, I'd say... what I said above: when they prepared their budgets last year, they weren't expecting this to happen, so they didn't put the money aside for it. Because all councils and governments are under pressure to only tax what they really need, and most (all?) of them are running deficits, it's simply not going to be possible for them to bank up massive contingency funds against freak occurrences.
This WAS a freak occurrence and it happened towards the end of the tax year. So they will have already spent the money last year.
The roads departments in all the councils will doubtless be asking for an increase in next year's budget to pay for this (remember last year's budget was spent on the normal things, normal levels of road maintenance, equipment maintenance, grit etc). Depending whether the councils grant it, when the new budgets are allocated in April you will probably see the work start.
But basically: all the things you want your council to do cost money. This was an unexpected event they hadn't budgeted for. They did not have the money sitting around to pay for it, because they already spent it on all the other things you want them to do.
Jesus. Look, it was abnormally cold, the ice cracked up a load of roads, that was only a couple of months ago though and I daresay the councils will get round to repairing it soon enough.
If they get the money. Things cost money; they weren't expecting to have to spend the money so they won't have had it saved up. If you want the council to have been able to have a load of money saved up against freak occurrences they weren't expecting... I presume you'd be happy to pay a higher rate of council tax then? No, thought not. There's no sense complaining about taxes on one hand, and then complaining about the lack of tax spending on the other. Which do you want? Potholes, or no potholes?
I'd be willing to bet that when the budgets get replenished next month you'll see a flurry of road repairs getting done. Until then, it's a bugger, but basically, drive more carefully and put up with it.
If they get the money. Things cost money; they weren't expecting to have to spend the money so they won't have had it saved up. If you want the council to have been able to have a load of money saved up against freak occurrences they weren't expecting... I presume you'd be happy to pay a higher rate of council tax then? No, thought not. There's no sense complaining about taxes on one hand, and then complaining about the lack of tax spending on the other. Which do you want? Potholes, or no potholes?
I'd be willing to bet that when the budgets get replenished next month you'll see a flurry of road repairs getting done. Until then, it's a bugger, but basically, drive more carefully and put up with it.
Thank you for playing, as well. To be honest, the more detailed and clear you are, the more it makes me think about what exactly I think.
I think we as a society are too squeamish about animals and food; I think actually if we were more closely involved/aware it would result in much higher standards of animal welfare. I don't have a problem with rabbits being ferreted as pest control or for food; it feels like at least there is a point to their death. And I think that way is probably much kinder and more discriminate than myxomatosis.
I can also accept parts of the pest-control argument for fox-hunting; I'm in no position to know whether traps or poisons are any better and if you tell me they are worse, I'll accept that. Every time you hear about foxes being encouraged to multiply, it weakens this argument a little, but to be honest I'd accept that those stories are few and far between and not necessarily that credible.
I also don't have a problem with drag hunting, although if I owned a load of land I might object to them going across it without my permission, which again is something I've heard about but have no real knowledge about.
I think what I object to is the hangers on, as well as the ritualisation of it. I mean, if it's just the ritual and the tradition you're into, if it's the riding and the horns, go drag hunting. If it's the pest control, you only need the professional huntsmen as you described above. The need to combine the actual death of an animal with a large crowd of people driving along in their 4x4s to watch it... that can only be about the desire to be "there at the death". This hunger for participating in a killing... is what I find unsettling. It's a little bit like wanting to be part of a lynch mob or bringing your kids along to shout at paedophiles going into court.
Thanks, this has been interesting.
I think we as a society are too squeamish about animals and food; I think actually if we were more closely involved/aware it would result in much higher standards of animal welfare. I don't have a problem with rabbits being ferreted as pest control or for food; it feels like at least there is a point to their death. And I think that way is probably much kinder and more discriminate than myxomatosis.
I can also accept parts of the pest-control argument for fox-hunting; I'm in no position to know whether traps or poisons are any better and if you tell me they are worse, I'll accept that. Every time you hear about foxes being encouraged to multiply, it weakens this argument a little, but to be honest I'd accept that those stories are few and far between and not necessarily that credible.
I also don't have a problem with drag hunting, although if I owned a load of land I might object to them going across it without my permission, which again is something I've heard about but have no real knowledge about.
I think what I object to is the hangers on, as well as the ritualisation of it. I mean, if it's just the ritual and the tradition you're into, if it's the riding and the horns, go drag hunting. If it's the pest control, you only need the professional huntsmen as you described above. The need to combine the actual death of an animal with a large crowd of people driving along in their 4x4s to watch it... that can only be about the desire to be "there at the death". This hunger for participating in a killing... is what I find unsettling. It's a little bit like wanting to be part of a lynch mob or bringing your kids along to shout at paedophiles going into court.
Thanks, this has been interesting.
Tomu / Bluefish
Q) Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
A) Actually, they are often the most troublesome, as they are unable to hunt there natural prey, it is far easier to turn to prey which are caged and can not ex-scape.
Ok, I didn't know that, and it's interesting to know.
Q) Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
A) Over an hour would be very rarer indeed, but from as short as a few minuets
Gosh. I didn't realise they would bother getting all the people together, driving up from London and that, if it was only going to last a few minutes. I would have assumed it would last much longer. Just goes to show.
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Yes, really. it is their job. I can only speak for local hunts to me
OK, and again I was surprised about this. I think we seem to be talking about two completely different sorts of thing. Are there two sorts of hunt, recreational ones and professional ones? Because obviously, the sort of thing I have in my head with a large group of people, maybe fifty or so (and hunt saboteurs hiding in the bushes!) just couldn't be assembled at an hour or two's notice in the middle of the night, on a weekday night like as not; and if it's only going to last a few minutes they wouldn't bother getting out of bed, if it's essentially a recreational sport. Would you mind educating me a little? Does the thing I'm thinking of really exist? What sort of numbers are usually involved? How many of them are actually employed to hunt foxes?
Q) Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
A)
OK, on this one I can come back to you. The polls you cite are all from May 2004 or earlier, and all predate the current law, introduced in November 2004. To use them to describe public opinion after the ban is inaccurate. They're at best six years old. More recent polls from 2008 and 2009 -
- consistently show more than 70% public opinion that fox hunting with dogs should remain illegal (even more for hunting other animals). One of those polls also shows that more than 70% of people believe hunts should not be allowed to break the existing law.
Going back to the polls you cite, the people who put together that document suggest it shows a decline in support for a ban up to 2004; If you read the numbers it shows no such thing. The column opposed to any kind of law looks stable around 20%, and if you were to phrase the topline "Public opinion believes that foxhunting should be controlled by law" (ie include the middle column with the antis, rather than the pros) you'd come out with around 70% - in other words broadly the same number who now oppose a repeal of the law. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Q) At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
A) I see the fact that they enjoy hunting as a by product of pest control. I know many who work in other pest control and they enjoy their job also. How much meat do we all eat? Is that not fun at an animals exspence?
The rat man where I work may or may not enjoy his job, but certainly fifty odd people don't show up to help him, for fun, in their spare time. But I've nothing against people enjoying their jobs, I enjoy mine.
Eating meat is of course an important issue, and many people do not believe that it's morally justified either (I'd be willing to be that at least some of the people on this website are of that persuasion!). Myself, I can totally recognise that from the cow's point of view it might seem a bit rude. I don't agree with veal, I eat free range eggs, I think some of the things done in the name of the milk industry are pretty sick to be honest (breeding cows that are in constant pain as their udders are just too big, and will die if they are not milked). I can justify it to myself on the basis that it's nutritionally important (although admittedly not essential), and that it's what I was basically designed to do - I have canine teeth and I can digest meat, in contrast to for example, grass, which I can't. It's certainly a grey area though, and for me it's a matter of extent.
For me there's a world of difference between eating a healthy, balanced diet and participating in a bloodsport.
Aaaah, so... this directly contradicts what you said above. So - it is for fun, not because it's their job, because nobody could afford to employ that many people; and I would be stunned if hundreds of foot-followers, and however many horses, could turn up at a couple of hours notice in the middle of the night;
Well, I can almost buy the pest-control thing. But at the end of the day, when it actually comes down to people enjoying killing tormenting and animals, I think it's inhumane.
Right, this is massively too long now. Sorry all. I wish I had put this much effort into the environment thread...
T
Quote by Bluefish2009
Hunting with hounds emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Q) Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
A) Actually, they are often the most troublesome, as they are unable to hunt there natural prey, it is far easier to turn to prey which are caged and can not ex-scape.
Ok, I didn't know that, and it's interesting to know.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Lord Burns also concluded that: "insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught."
Q) Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
A) Over an hour would be very rarer indeed, but from as short as a few minuets
Gosh. I didn't realise they would bother getting all the people together, driving up from London and that, if it was only going to last a few minutes. I would have assumed it would last much longer. Just goes to show.
Quote by Bluefish2009
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Yes, really. it is their job. I can only speak for local hunts to me
OK, and again I was surprised about this. I think we seem to be talking about two completely different sorts of thing. Are there two sorts of hunt, recreational ones and professional ones? Because obviously, the sort of thing I have in my head with a large group of people, maybe fifty or so (and hunt saboteurs hiding in the bushes!) just couldn't be assembled at an hour or two's notice in the middle of the night, on a weekday night like as not; and if it's only going to last a few minutes they wouldn't bother getting out of bed, if it's essentially a recreational sport. Would you mind educating me a little? Does the thing I'm thinking of really exist? What sort of numbers are usually involved? How many of them are actually employed to hunt foxes?
Quote by Bluefish2009
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Q) Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
A)
OK, on this one I can come back to you. The polls you cite are all from May 2004 or earlier, and all predate the current law, introduced in November 2004. To use them to describe public opinion after the ban is inaccurate. They're at best six years old. More recent polls from 2008 and 2009 -
- consistently show more than 70% public opinion that fox hunting with dogs should remain illegal (even more for hunting other animals). One of those polls also shows that more than 70% of people believe hunts should not be allowed to break the existing law.
Going back to the polls you cite, the people who put together that document suggest it shows a decline in support for a ban up to 2004; If you read the numbers it shows no such thing. The column opposed to any kind of law looks stable around 20%, and if you were to phrase the topline "Public opinion believes that foxhunting should be controlled by law" (ie include the middle column with the antis, rather than the pros) you'd come out with around 70% - in other words broadly the same number who now oppose a repeal of the law. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Quote by Bluefish2009
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
Q) At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
A) I see the fact that they enjoy hunting as a by product of pest control. I know many who work in other pest control and they enjoy their job also. How much meat do we all eat? Is that not fun at an animals exspence?
The rat man where I work may or may not enjoy his job, but certainly fifty odd people don't show up to help him, for fun, in their spare time. But I've nothing against people enjoying their jobs, I enjoy mine.
Eating meat is of course an important issue, and many people do not believe that it's morally justified either (I'd be willing to be that at least some of the people on this website are of that persuasion!). Myself, I can totally recognise that from the cow's point of view it might seem a bit rude. I don't agree with veal, I eat free range eggs, I think some of the things done in the name of the milk industry are pretty sick to be honest (breeding cows that are in constant pain as their udders are just too big, and will die if they are not milked). I can justify it to myself on the basis that it's nutritionally important (although admittedly not essential), and that it's what I was basically designed to do - I have canine teeth and I can digest meat, in contrast to for example, grass, which I can't. It's certainly a grey area though, and for me it's a matter of extent.
For me there's a world of difference between eating a healthy, balanced diet and participating in a bloodsport.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Others here keep saying about poor people do not hunt, they may not have a horse but the largest part of any hunt is unmounted people. I have been on Exmoor and seen several hundred foot followers on many occasions.
Aaaah, so... this directly contradicts what you said above. So - it is for fun, not because it's their job, because nobody could afford to employ that many people; and I would be stunned if hundreds of foot-followers, and however many horses, could turn up at a couple of hours notice in the middle of the night;
Quote by Bluefish2009
As I have said several times, I know from experiance my veiws will not change any one's mind or veiws.
Well, I can almost buy the pest-control thing. But at the end of the day, when it actually comes down to people enjoying killing tormenting and animals, I think it's inhumane.
Right, this is massively too long now. Sorry all. I wish I had put this much effort into the environment thread...
T
Quote by flower411
Somebody stated earlier that this is not a significant issue !!
The fact that he has a lot to say on the matter when it`s so insignificant to him just goes to show the level of ignorance that we are dealing with !
If you start a debate on an issue, surely you expect there to be differing views?
Why are we who oppose your view being branded as ignorant?
Wasn`t refering to you nola ...I was refering to the person who said it was irrelevent and then proceeded to dissect other peoples posts in detail.
Anybody is in entitled to their opinion I just call it ignorant to state that it is not relevent and then proceed to spend a lot of time and effort dissecting other peoples posts piece by piece !!!
Just struck me as ignorant !
I'm sorry you think I'm ignorant. I apologise if I've offended you (I'd also like to extend the same apology to Kentswingers, for other threads). If anyone thinks I need to tone it down a bit I'm happy to, I don't want to ruin anyone's pleasure. I've seen some pretty heated debates on here, and I do enjoy arguing, and at the end of the day everyone's going to have their own opinion.
But at the end of the day, you've got to be able to defend your arguments, or if you recognise they're weak, retract them. That's what debate is. You can't just resort to namecalling because you can't answer the points.
Crumbs, this went somewhere yesterday :-)
Just wanted to take the opportunity to say - I agree with almost everything Kenty said here.
Eh? Seriously? Because I've been quite rude to people and gotten away with it recently. Maybe if you can't answer him, you can answer me:
1.
For me it has nothing to do with the toffs. It's the fact that we are deriving entertainment from harming animals, as described by awayman:
2.
Well yes, if I was keeping a tiger. But I'm not, I'm keeping a cat (metaphorically: I actually have no pets). A cat is not a wild animal. It is a domesticated animal. I'm certainly not in favour of people keeping wild animals, or even worse breeding animals to kill (like your hounds). If my cat kills anything it's going to be mice, but the key point is, it's not doing it for my entertainment. Now, if I was throwing live mice to my cat and watching it kill them, that would be sick. If I was just letting it go off and do it, that's nature.
3
You said,
Well... no, they criminalise themselves by breaking the law. Once they break the law, they are thereafter no longer law-abiding. In the same way that someone who enjoys a spliff in the privacy of their own home... cannot be considered a law-abiding citizen, nor can someone who takes your car because they want it, nor can someone who commits benefit fraud. Just because you disagree with a certain law, it doesn't mean you can break it and still call yourself "law-abiding".
.
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
Lord Burns also concluded that: “insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.”
Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
Quote by kentswingers777
For me I do not like the idea of a pack of dogs being bred to rip a fox to pieces, and then the fecking toff brigade classing it as fun...that's bollox.
I am not a lover of foxes, and believe me we have a few around here, and they shit in me garden too but....fox hunting is a blood sport, pure and simple.
I cannot see how a cat can be even discussed in the same manner. Cats are not bred to kill small mammals, which btw I presume rats and mice, which are vermin.
As for fishI used to fish and in my experience the only time I have seen any cruelty towards them, is by youngsters, not the adults that take it very seriously. Plus the regulations now involved when you go fishing, far outweighs what they used to be.
Fox hunting is a blood sport and as far as I am aware IS illegal, where the others are not.....simples.
Just wanted to take the opportunity to say - I agree with almost everything Kenty said here.
Quote by flower411
As I am unable to answer this for fear of being banned, could a mod kindly remove the comment from the thread ?
Thanks.
Eh? Seriously? Because I've been quite rude to people and gotten away with it recently. Maybe if you can't answer him, you can answer me:
1.
For me it has nothing to do with the toffs. It's the fact that we are deriving entertainment from harming animals, as described by awayman:
Quote by awayman
Do we sell spectator tickets for abbatoirs?
If I need to have my dog put down do we invite an audience?
If I need to get rid of vermin from my land do I turn it into an entertainment extravaganza?
I have no problem with people riding horses; I would make decent drag hunting courses a part of any rural leisure plan. I just don't understand why that respectable hobby of riding a horse over challenging terrain has to be linked to animal cruelty.
2.
Quote by flower411
Hang on !!
Are you seriously saying that keeping a wild animal that roams around the neighbourhood torturing and killing other mammals while you are elsewhere is "morally" correct and that you have no responsibility because you can`t control it ???
Well yes, if I was keeping a tiger. But I'm not, I'm keeping a cat (metaphorically: I actually have no pets). A cat is not a wild animal. It is a domesticated animal. I'm certainly not in favour of people keeping wild animals, or even worse breeding animals to kill (like your hounds). If my cat kills anything it's going to be mice, but the key point is, it's not doing it for my entertainment. Now, if I was throwing live mice to my cat and watching it kill them, that would be sick. If I was just letting it go off and do it, that's nature.
3
You said,
Quote by flower411
The current law criminalises law abiding citizens.
Well... no, they criminalise themselves by breaking the law. Once they break the law, they are thereafter no longer law-abiding. In the same way that someone who enjoys a spliff in the privacy of their own home... cannot be considered a law-abiding citizen, nor can someone who takes your car because they want it, nor can someone who commits benefit fraud. Just because you disagree with a certain law, it doesn't mean you can break it and still call yourself "law-abiding".
.
Bluefish wrote a very good, well-argued post about halfway through page 2. It's the only reasoned defence of hunting that appears in this thread. I want to respond to some of your points though:
Hunting with hounds is actually the finest means of controlling foxes there is. Firstly, just like nature it is selective and non-wounding. It emulates the way that wolves hunt their quarry, they target the old, week, ailing and injured animals.
Surely, from a pest-control point of view, which is the only viable defence of hunting, it's not the old, weak and ailing foxes you're bothered about, it's the young, fit and hungry ones? Crippled old foxes don't kill so many sheep do they?
Lord Burns also concluded that: “insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught.”
Yeah, but how long have you been chasing it for by then? Hours?
Quote by Bluefish2009
the hunt will turn up in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the offending fox has made its kill.
Reeeeeeally? So swiftly? When (as Kaznkev experienced) half of them are driving up from the other end of the country?
Quote by Bluefish2009
The hunting with dog’s bill, in my humble opinion, is a complete shambles.
So this is an argument in favour of redrafting the bill, not abolishing it.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Public opinion is opposed to a ban, and supports a regulatory, or licensing, system for hunting.
Again, really? Nationally? I'll be intrigued to see the statistics about this.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Why pest control is somehow better for the fox/quarry animals concerned than an activity that has an element of sport involved is a mystery and leads to a twisted sense of logic.
At the top of my first post on this I said it's a matter of right and wrong. I do believe that's basically what it comes down to. For me it's wrong to derive your entertainment from hurting animals. It's a blood sport, and blood sports are wrong.
I'm late for work so I'll be brief.
This is a matter of what you think is right and wrong. I think it's wrong to torture animals for my own amusement. I don't think it's wrong for a cat to kill animals, as a cat is a cat and that is what they do. You can't ascribe higher moral functions to an animal designed by nature to kill other animals, that's just silly.
As a human being, equipped with a conscience and everything, I do have the responsibility to decide right from wrong. I don't think it's right to derive pleasure from hurting people or things, not when I have so many other options available to me, like watching the TV or going to the pictures. What's wrong with just riding the horses? What's wrong with doing competitive shooting? Why do you have to kill something to be having fun? Why is it any different to fishing, in fact, if you're saying fishing is bad? If you're going to say fox-hunting is about controlling fox numbers, why the red coats and the horns and the massive crowd of people, why not just let the dogs have them? Or traps or whatever.
Not a very rigorous argument but as I said I'm late for work. Didn't have time to do the reading so I daresay you'll say I'm ignorant. (incidentally though, tell me more about how it criminalises law-abiding citizens? Surely if they abided by the law and refrained from participating in bloodsports, they wouldn't be criminals?) I think it basically comes down to whether you like it or whether you don't, at the end of the day.
I also don't think it's an especially significant issue. I mean seriously, if you think this is worth deciding your vote on... read the news more.
This is a matter of what you think is right and wrong. I think it's wrong to torture animals for my own amusement. I don't think it's wrong for a cat to kill animals, as a cat is a cat and that is what they do. You can't ascribe higher moral functions to an animal designed by nature to kill other animals, that's just silly.
As a human being, equipped with a conscience and everything, I do have the responsibility to decide right from wrong. I don't think it's right to derive pleasure from hurting people or things, not when I have so many other options available to me, like watching the TV or going to the pictures. What's wrong with just riding the horses? What's wrong with doing competitive shooting? Why do you have to kill something to be having fun? Why is it any different to fishing, in fact, if you're saying fishing is bad? If you're going to say fox-hunting is about controlling fox numbers, why the red coats and the horns and the massive crowd of people, why not just let the dogs have them? Or traps or whatever.
Not a very rigorous argument but as I said I'm late for work. Didn't have time to do the reading so I daresay you'll say I'm ignorant. (incidentally though, tell me more about how it criminalises law-abiding citizens? Surely if they abided by the law and refrained from participating in bloodsports, they wouldn't be criminals?) I think it basically comes down to whether you like it or whether you don't, at the end of the day.
I also don't think it's an especially significant issue. I mean seriously, if you think this is worth deciding your vote on... read the news more.
And, I just read the Stephanomics blog on the BBC, from which you can deduce that
(a) public sector got slightly better pay rises than private sector this year; well, fine, they do much worse than the private sector the rest of the time so that's fair enough, besides which somebody's got to have some money to spend or we're all buggered
(b) the banks got higher pay rises than anyone! What the fuck? Yeah briliant.
Their whole argument about having to pay everyone loads of money to make sure they get the best people only works if they actually do get the best people; looks like the vast majority of them have been pretty shite over the last however many years though; surely the sector as a whole shouldn't be getting pay raises at all at the moment, since they've created the recession that's fucking up everybody else just now.
(a) public sector got slightly better pay rises than private sector this year; well, fine, they do much worse than the private sector the rest of the time so that's fair enough, besides which somebody's got to have some money to spend or we're all buggered
(b) the banks got higher pay rises than anyone! What the fuck? Yeah briliant.
Their whole argument about having to pay everyone loads of money to make sure they get the best people only works if they actually do get the best people; looks like the vast majority of them have been pretty shite over the last however many years though; surely the sector as a whole shouldn't be getting pay raises at all at the moment, since they've created the recession that's fucking up everybody else just now.
Yeah. I did a few things, enjoyed some of them, didn't enjoy others, and learned. Most educational were the ones I enjoyed at the time but afterwards felt a bit hollow about. Kind of made me think, is this really how I see myself?
I had one particular experience (not with anyone from SH) where I stayed over at the house of someone who normally charges people. Beforehand, I'd been quite flattered to be getting freebies; I'd met her at a gangbang and she'd told me I could have her whenever I wanted to. Well, great; the sex was great. But her teenage kids were in the house, downstairs, watching TV when I went to make a cup of tea; she was all saying, they're quite comfortable with my lifestyle, but it was quite clear they weren't. I was also pretty sure they thought I was paying to fuck their mum, and I kind of wanted to say "No no I'm not one of those people!" Not that I'm against the concept of people working in or using the sex industry at all, if they're doing it on their own terms: but something about the situation made me not want to be a part of it.
But the worst thing was lying in the bed over night (Christ this has become Tomu confessional here, sorry). It just hit me that I didn't know what to do. I didn't know whether to cuddle up to her or what. I think what I'm trying to say is that without an emotional connection it felt like a lie. I didn't sleep well that night, got up fairly early and got the train home feeling depressed. And came away knowing a bit more about what I like and don't like.
I don't judge here at all for her way of live, each to their own, and she was clearly being honest with everyone and was as in control of her situation as it's possible to be - her own website, choosing her own clients, and all of that. She seemed to be enjoying it, and she was basically a mum doing what she could to provide for her kids. Fine. I don't know whether paying customers ever went back to her house, either.
It didn't help that the whole thing was right after my best friend's funeral so I was feeling pretty messed up anyway, and it was at a time when being single was really starting to bite. The whole thing kind of told me that I really did want to be in love with someone.
(Just, in the perfect world, someone who enjoys being gangbanged).
I had one particular experience (not with anyone from SH) where I stayed over at the house of someone who normally charges people. Beforehand, I'd been quite flattered to be getting freebies; I'd met her at a gangbang and she'd told me I could have her whenever I wanted to. Well, great; the sex was great. But her teenage kids were in the house, downstairs, watching TV when I went to make a cup of tea; she was all saying, they're quite comfortable with my lifestyle, but it was quite clear they weren't. I was also pretty sure they thought I was paying to fuck their mum, and I kind of wanted to say "No no I'm not one of those people!" Not that I'm against the concept of people working in or using the sex industry at all, if they're doing it on their own terms: but something about the situation made me not want to be a part of it.
But the worst thing was lying in the bed over night (Christ this has become Tomu confessional here, sorry). It just hit me that I didn't know what to do. I didn't know whether to cuddle up to her or what. I think what I'm trying to say is that without an emotional connection it felt like a lie. I didn't sleep well that night, got up fairly early and got the train home feeling depressed. And came away knowing a bit more about what I like and don't like.
I don't judge here at all for her way of live, each to their own, and she was clearly being honest with everyone and was as in control of her situation as it's possible to be - her own website, choosing her own clients, and all of that. She seemed to be enjoying it, and she was basically a mum doing what she could to provide for her kids. Fine. I don't know whether paying customers ever went back to her house, either.
It didn't help that the whole thing was right after my best friend's funeral so I was feeling pretty messed up anyway, and it was at a time when being single was really starting to bite. The whole thing kind of told me that I really did want to be in love with someone.
(Just, in the perfect world, someone who enjoys being gangbanged).
Some of my unrealised fantasies involve being in an ongoing situation with someone who can't get enough cock, either a fuckbuddy or a sub-dom relationship where I'm the dom and I feed someone challenges, or a hotwife kind of relationship.
Some of the sexual encounters I've enjoyed the most have been gangbangs or MMF threesomes, but without an emotional connection to the person involved it can feel a bit empty, so to be in a situation that gave rise to a lot of those with someone I like would be neat.
Some of the sexual encounters I've enjoyed the most have been gangbangs or MMF threesomes, but without an emotional connection to the person involved it can feel a bit empty, so to be in a situation that gave rise to a lot of those with someone I like would be neat.
