| FORUMS |
Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Dating & Love Advice
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Health & Fitness
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Poems And Quotes
Prince Edward Island
Recipes & Cooking
Sex and Dating
Technology and computers
Volunteer Moderators Only
Thread: Killing Of Soldier in Woolwich
Killing Of Soldier in Woolwich
Posted: 5/23/2013 3:34:49 PM
So little time, so much to say...
Strangely, Strangeglove, I agree with much of what you have said, (in THIS thread, so don't get excited..
I also agree with Aloe-Vera's excellent post..
Billy, you must have been gutted, when those champions of the free market, the banks, all went 'cap-in-hand', to a
government, ( well
anyway, so shut-up!), and said; "Dad, we've spent all our money, and the rent's due". The problem is, if we'd let the "free market" determine their fate, then everything would have ground to a halt, as pretty-much everything relies on banks as the intermediaries in almost every financial transaction which is made today, in this almost "cashless society"
It's not socialism which caused this murder, it's probably the free market.
It was the free market which G W Bush was thinking about, when the only two planes which
"grounded", immediately after "9/11", were those two which carried Mr Bin Laden's relatives, back to Saudi Arabia, before you could say "oil cartel".
This was done at Mr Bush's behest, he's an oil man, like his Daddy before him.
Bin Laden was a Saudi, but "we" declared war instead, on Afghanistan. (Something to do with oil pipelines..?)
Women can't even drive in Saudi.. Their laws are far worse than the Taliban's.
The real problem, (IMO) is religion.
As long as we have institutionalised religion here, with a head-of-state as head of the church, and bishops in our legislature, and we continue to treat these myths as "fact", we are affirming the beliefs of "extremists".
We affirm it, by having "padrés" in the armed forces,
We affirm it with all our ceremonies, our funerals, our celebrations and holidays,
We affirm it every time there's a disaster, and they always get the thoughts of the local or national bishop or priest, We affirm it whenever people say "our thoughts and prayers are with you"..
There are also christian extremist, in the USA., who kill abortion doctors.
There are "jewish" extremists, who build on the west bank, and shoot at Palestinian children.
There are plenty of "muslim" extremists.....
But all of their ideas of "martyrdom", and "paradise", come from the same violent, tribal, patriarchal, hateful, misogynist drivel, the "old testament" of the bibble.
"God" tells you to kill other "non-believers", or your wife, if she "disobeys" you, (or turns out NOT to be a virgin!) or your children...
"Extremists" simply claim they're "more devout", more "pious", and more religious, and they follow the exact "letter of the law".
Irrational beliefs will generate irrational actions, especially in the
As long as we continue to give credence to, and "respect" as though they were facts, the primitive beliefs of superstitious bronze-age farmers, then we can expect that people will continue to act irrationally.
All religions are irrational beliefs.
POF in UK
Posted: 5/21/2013 2:44:00 PM
It's against forum rules to post a "polarised" thread, which only invites responses from one gender.
-But I'm prepared to let that slide..
So if I might offer an opinion:
Obviously, other than anecdotal evidence, I can't comment on how many unsolicited "pervy" messages the ladies might get.
From what I've read on the forums, over the years, it seems to be fairly commonplace, more so I suspect, if the profile pictures are at all 'revealing', eg., lying on a bed, in underwear etc., or if the user is attractive.
It seems to me, that this is a problem of anonymity, or at least the misguided perception of that, in the minds of the perpetrators.
We used to have the same problem of "heavy-breathing" type phone calls, made to women, before the telephone system offered "caller ID"., which almost stopped them dead, instantly. (It probably still goes on, but to a much lesser extent, from pay-phones, and anonymous 'PAYG' mobiles)
It seems to me that the internet still has a way to go, before the laws relating to sexual (or other forms of) harassment which exist "in the real world", are implemented on-line, in this context. But there have been prosecutions and successful convictions for offensive/hate messages. (Racial hatred, even "jokes" about bombs etc).
Sexual harassment is a reportable criminal offence, everywhere else, I don't see why anyone should feel they need to "put up with it", on the internet, or anywhere else. (Regardless of gender
It is perfectly possible to track down individuals to their real-world locations, via their IP addresses and ISP's.
The internet is now very-much a part of the "real-world", it's simply another means of communication, within it.
Also, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that anyone lying about age, gender, or anything else, "for personal gain" (and surely finding a partner and/or sex, is just that..?) is
, there are also existing laws which cover that.
I have always tried not to write anything which I'd be ashamed of, either on the forums, or in "private messages".
My user-name is my name. I am under no illusions.
I think people need to "wise-up" about the internet, it's not anonymous, there are footprints, all the way back to you.
Anything you write, in the "public domain", however briefly, (and even if it's immediately deleted,) can come back and 'haunt' you.
People need to start getting their heads around that....
Having said all that...
I'm immensely proud that we've been voted "Most Pervy Nation",
(There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of
Thoughts on Recent Pope-Parody News Story
Posted: 5/19/2013 6:39:17 AM
I think all religions are eminently worthy of mockery.
they are, after all, the superstitious beliefs, rituals, fears and myths of early neolithic farmers.
There are no other commercial establishments, which would be allowed to make such unsubstantiated and outrageous claims about their 'products', as religions do about theirs....
"Chant these magic words, over these magic books, for the whole of your life, and eat-ye-not bacon sandwiches, and I will
And yet, still people die...
It's a travesty.
I'm just surprised that no-one religious has yet postulated the theory, that this 'pubic stigmata' is a sign from "god",
and therefore 'proof' that she is the reincarnation of the 'virgin mother'
(Although there's some doubt as to whether the VM actually yet
any 'pubes', at the time of her seemingly non-consensual theological impregnation..? She was about "12 or 13" at the time, and yet, already "betrothed" to some 40 year-old carpenter.WTF!??
( - what was it, something about "not coveting other people's wives"....? -Seems the big 'law-maker' didn't follow his OWN rules there...?)
Anyway, I can fully understand catholic priest's outrage. They seem to have an aversion to pubic hair, -normally preferring them to be
younger than that.
I think we (atheists) should 'fight fire, with fire',
and we should ALL start dressing as priests, popes, mullahs, rabbis and nuns, all of the time.
This would 'rob' them of any "special respect" they get, just by wearing a self-appointed, 'fancy dress'.
See how they like that......
Hey, don't blame me...
Posted: 5/19/2013 4:42:55 AM
do you eat a lot of sugary food Jo van? maybe you are sweating trace amounts of sugar and this is what attracts the blighters. It's also a sign of insulin resistance, the pre-cursor to diabetes. If you eat a lot of sugar at once, your body sweats it out because it can't deal with it normally.
It's a good thought though...
My mum had it, and my sister's got it.
on testing me, (and my brother,) using her new-fangled device, just last year, and made a hole in my finger, despite my protestations...
My blood-sugar levels are fine.
(My sister has always been a little erm.... 'tubby', though she's now lost most of the excess, through her controlled diet, I've always been reasonably 'lean', and I've always been far too vain, not to excercise! )
I've often wondered if the ants, (who apparently "milk" the aphids) consider the wasps, (who try to eat the aphids,) to be like some sort of air-borne cattle rustlers...?
In general, I find all insects fascinating, and truly 'science-fiction-like'.
But I think we'd all be better-off,
Posted: 5/19/2013 4:04:52 AM
What worries me Chuzz, is that the kamikaze wasp at the barbey was
on a mission.
It had crawled up my leg, and reached as far as the knee, after gaining entry where the trouser-leg 'met' the shoe...
We all know
where it was heading.....
It was like that crazy crop-sprayer, who flew that plane into the mother-ship.
He was trying to "kill the brain", by attacking my kiwi-fruits!!!
I shudder to think of the consequences, if that attack had succeeded.
It doesn't bare thinking about....
It was only due to the technological superiority of my defences, in the form of the invention of 'zip-off-legs', which thwarted the attack.
Next time, we might not be so lucky.
They are everywhere, and they are watching.... and waiting for their chance....
Let's all stay vigilant people...
Your kiwi-fruits would have ended up the size of melons.
Next time you go to a BBQ, wear a pair of cycle clips.
I wouldn't have objected to the size thing so much, that's not a 'bad look'.
it's more the pain thing,
as it turns out, I'm allergic to pain, it's a medical condition,
I could probably get a grant, if I wanted to...
I will henceforth tuck my trousers into my socks, when at barbies...
Posted: 5/19/2013 3:25:31 AM
I'm pretty sure that wasps carry photo's of me, and I'm top of the wasp interpol's 'most-wanted' list.
It all started about 10 years ago.
Until then, I'd been one of those "don't bother them, and they won't bother you" people, even letting them settle on my hands on occasions, with no fear of them. I hadn't ever been stung.
Then, we had a wasps nest in the roof, and they kept appearing in my son's bedroom, so we got the council man in, and he went up a ladder, fully-suited, and 'dusted' them through the tiles.
-He warned us to be wary of any 'dozy' dying wasps, which could be around, 'til they all die.
A few days later, as I exited the french doors into the garden, I felt something land in my hair, on the top of my head, and forgetting about his warning, I reached up, to remove the object, which felt like a dry, crunchy leaf (I thought), and it stung me, on the inside edge of my middle finger.
I can't describe the
, which something so tiny (the sting) managed to induce.
My whole arm swelled up, and was almost paralised, even the vein in my anterior deltoid seemed to become engorged. My finger and my hand hurt for about a week.
I thought, fair enough, it was just a dying wasp, and I probably "asked" for that, by picking it up.
Later that same year, I was mowing the lawn on a hot day, all 'stripped to the waist', exposing my manly, sweaty torso to both the sunlight, and the neighbours.
I don't know whether the wasp had landed on my waist, or if it was on the handle of the 'flymo', but either way, as I pulled the lawnmower into my waist, it stung me there!
Strangely, this seemed to aggravate the earlier sting too, and my finger swelled up again, and it felt like I'd been stung TWICE!
No further attacks, until 2 years ago.
I was at a barbecue at a friend's house, and sitting eating my burger at the table, when I became aware of a 'pricking' sensation, around my knee. I reached down, and scratched my leg, but the pricking continued.
It felt like perhaps I'd got a thorn or something, in my trousers, and they were the type which 'zip-off' at the knee, to convert them into shorts, so I unzipped that leg, and a fvcking wasp flew out!
It had stung me about a dozen times, in a sort of spiral pattern, culminating in one big sting, which it was busily 'drilling' into my knee, by rotating violently, pivoting on the sting, at the time of it's release.
It was only my friend's corroboration, who was seated next to me, (now sadly deceased) which confirmed the event, as no-one else believed me, because I had remained silent, throughout the whole episode. (How 'hard' must I be..?
That's not the end of it though.....
I went upstairs to change out of my 'lounging' trousers, and into my 'going-to-the-shops' trousers, and I saw a big wasp fly through the open window, and INTO some 'summer' shirts, which were still optimistically hanging, on-hangers, from the handle of the wardrobe, since last year. (No-one to nag me now, see?!
I always leave the window open a little bit, as I suspect I may fart in my sleep...
Long story short:
I killed the (very large) wasp, (with a long stick) and then discovered it had been a 'queen', which had been building a nest, INSIDE MY SHIRT!!
It has chewed a hole, in one of my
I now have the little upside-down papier-maché mushroom thingy, complete with 6 still-live 'grubs' and some smaller 'eggy' things, in 'cells', and have put them in a cassette case, so that I can scrutinise the little fvckers with my eye-glass.
Whenever I pick it up and look at them, you can see them wriggling, and opening and closing their mandibles.
Wasps are out to get me.
This is war people.....
Does anyone else have any war stories about this scourge....?
Rotary Organisation - purpose?
Posted: 5/18/2013 10:27:45 AM
Brixham Rotary have a shop not a million miles away, so I ask if they can help. Much to my amazement, a crt Toshiba (& remote) magically appears about three minutes later - so far, so good.
I take said tv up to the lady & attempt to install, with no result.
Next morning I stroll over to Rotary and state 'that tv seems not to be a runner'..... I am curtly informed that it 'needs a freeview box' & 'no we don't have one'.
I sigh heavily & say I'll drop the tv back, when I'm very pointedly told that it was got 'just for you' - blatent lie, since it was already in the shop- and I would have to take it down to the tip. (Which btw I have done).
I can just see my 'client' struggling with two remote controls, one of which is knackered through overuse anyway (by the way, sound was non-existent on the Toshiba, I have installed junk before).
There is a strong possibility she might be 'eligible' under the "Digital Switchover" scheme, to a free "digibox", it might be worth enquiring.
When you say "no sound", do you mean no "white noise" was detectable..? Or that there was no sound, because it has no signal..?
Some of the cheaper digiboxes are less than £10, but you tend to get what you pay for.
To receive a digital signal, she will need a reasonable signal, from a decent aerial. Indoor set-top aerials generally don't work, unless you are very lucky/close to the transmitter.
Sometimes a powered set-top aerial can improve things, but I prefer the more directional, 'aerial-shaped' ones, to the aesthetically-pleasing, but inefficient and prone to interference, "loop" shaped ones.
I have no idea what "Rotarians" do..
I always supposed you had to have a minimum girth, to join...
I suspect it's yet another
, sociological "badge of goodness/merit", like "Freemasons", or "christians", or "Emo's"
A metrosexual or a vetrosexual........a.man who has something of the village about him ?
Posted: 5/18/2013 9:38:35 AM
When I grew up in the seventies my role models, footballers, had perms, sheepskin coats and ate peas.
Then in the late nineties a just retired footballer was photographed in the newspapers in a sarong and
later his underwear. Before this, women of my acquaintance would laugh at a man who stripped down to
his under garments. Men, if you'll allow me to call them that, began moisturising getting sanskrit tattoos,
working out (exercising) and the then nonce word metrosexualality entered our collective lexicon for ever.
I think you may have led a somewhat 'sheltered life'. (No offence, JMO) And your chronology may be slightly skewed or 'selective'.
In the seventies androgyny became very much the 'fashion', and we ("men") tottered around on our platform boots, (or tried to,) and had streaks in our hairs.
David Bowie de-stigmatised bi-sexuality (single-handedly), though it turned out that this was for purely commercial reasons, this was nonetheless laudable, and Marc Bolan also wore makeup, though his driving was appalling, (he's now doing very well at M & S.)
Kevin Keegan popularised the perm, and disrobed at any available opportunity, to reveal his well-developed torso.
Perms were actually
, in some parts of Liverpool, at the time.
Despite your assertions that an athletic physique is "unnatural", IMO there is nothing "natural" in the over-weight couch-potato, and it's only our (comparatively ) recent, ready access to food,
any actual work or physical effort being involved, which has led to that popular option.
no fat hunter-gatherers.
Women have always been attracted by a good physique, and apparent health and strength, regardless of what they might say, or what the current fashion trends might otherwise suggest.
It's 'genetic'. A healthy specimen is far more likely to produce healthy offspring, and the female 'investment' in this transaction, is far greater than the male's, and often more protracted.
Men used to wear lots of make up and lace, in the past too.
The ability to follow fashions denotes some disposable income, and an ability to 'ride' the trends, which is sociologically advantageous too.
There are lots of 'drivers' some biological, some sociological, which contribute to a female's choice of potential or actual mate.
Don't 'sweat it' Welshy, singledom is highly under-rated IMO
Older Women And Younger Men Dating.... What Do You Think?
Posted: 5/18/2013 4:52:39 AM
I think it's none of my business, but as you've asked, I'll elaborate.
I think there's a huge difference between meeting someone, and 'getting-on' really well with them, and becoming 'attracted' to/by them, and then subsequently discovering that there's a large age-gap, and deliberately 'targeting' only younger potential partners/'mates'. (Eg., having the maximum age of people who can mail them, set at 10 years below their own age !
IMO people claiming that "they only get-on with younger people" is both delusional and egotistical.
It's just "Trophy wife/husband" syndrome..
Having a younger partner doesn't 'prove' anything, neither does it stop the aging process.
You're getting old.
There's nothing "sad" about that.
Suck it up.
Live with it.
Justice at any price?
Posted: 5/18/2013 4:24:56 AM
I was and am fully supportive of any and all police efforts to bring a murderer to justice but is there a financial limit we should set on giving the defendant a fair hearing?
You seem to be saying that efforts to prove guilt should be limitless, but efforts to prove innocence should be restricted.
That doesn't seem very logical to me...
It also seems to (rather worryingly) leave individuals open to some sort of 'totalitarian state' deciding their "guilt", simply because they don't like their politics/'ethnicity'/cut of their jib etc...
I'm watching the trial of Mark Bridger accused of murdering April Jones and can't help but think this is a farce. He's saying he knocked the girl over, picked her up, put her in the car, tried, to resuscitate her, and can't remember what he did with her body. The evidence says there is no damage to his car, her blood has been found on the carpet around his fire and other places with evidence of attempts to clean up and a piece of human skull has been found.
There can't be a single person in the courtroom listening to this who think his evidence is remotely plausible.
On the evidence so far, it would
this man is guilty, but there have also been many high-profile miscarriages of justice, where "guilt" has been 'pre-decided' by the police and/or the media. - " The Guildford Four", the "Birmingham Six", etc etc.
So I think it's best to have fair trials by jury, regardless of the apparent "obviousness" of guilt, to you, the police, the govt., or anyone else..
Otherwise, we'll get cases of "Jimmy can't possibly be guilty of all these allegations, he does a lot of work for charity",
or "Stuart can't possibly be guilty, he's such a nice bloke".
Having said that, I do agree that the cost of lawyers is ridiculous.
The last time I made inquiries, (around 2003) London Barristers were asking upwards of
£400 per hour!!
This government have removed access to legal aid for employment disputes, and removed any 'unfair dismissal' claims, from anyone employed for less than 2 years.
I think there should be a limit on what any lawyers can charge.
I also think that there should exist impartial,
lawyers, to keep the costs down.
"Justice" is a meaningless concept, unless it is accessible to all, regardless of their financial situation, or their seemingly "obvious" guilt.
Quirky Things You Find Attractive?
Posted: 5/12/2013 10:45:09 AM
He (Rowan) has a few millions as well as quite a proboscis.
In 'polite' dating parlance, I believe this is referred to as an "extended profile".
has anyone mentioned a nice big willy with a smiley face tattoo'd on the end bit.. ?
I believe it was mentioned in Msg 58.
hope that helps.
Just hypothetically, of course, but would you still be 'ok' with it, if it was say, the smiling face of Hitler....? [/Godwin, 'No returns] Just asking, no particular reason...
i like that and find it quite attractive, especially in a man.
I don't think it would still be smiling, "in a man", unless it belonged to one of those "gayers". [Med. Term], but we have no way of knowing for sure...
From memory, my own little fella is only ever smiling, when he's in a
. But that's just personal preference, so no offence intended to shirt-lifters.
OT. 'Dirty' eyes, and a generous mouth.
Words I learned on POF
Posted: 5/12/2013 4:57:50 AM
And many others, which I can't be bothered trying to remember now..
All of the above were new (to me), as previously, I had no experience of "social media", or fora/forums.
Posting here, led me to other fora, which led me to other fora.
I have learned much, and followed links to other sites, which have made me aware of all sorts of stuff.
For me, the POF forum was a "gateway drug" to a whole world of information, which is available 'on-line'.
My name is Jo, and I am now an addict...
If you are really remorseful for murder, do you deserve some compassion?
Posted: 5/12/2013 4:41:50 AM
An interesting question, IMO Dora.
First of all, the word "deserve" is a difficult one (IMO), who "deserves" what exactly..?
Life doesn't always give people what they (or others) might imagine they "deserve".
Life is quite random. People die when they didn't "deserve" it, as in the case of this young girl, with (potentially) her whole life ahead of her. (I'm not familiar with this case at all).
IMO if this man really feels remorse for his actions, then there really is only one "honourable" solution, which would adequately convey/demonstrate that remorse. - That doesn't involve asking for tobacco.
The letter to his father doesn't really convey any "remorse", to me, at all.
I don't see him begging for forgiveness, or trying to explain how this "mistake" came about.
Neither do I see any empathy for her family.
case, I'd have to say that the OP is inapplicable.
In more general (hypothetical) terms, I understand what you're saying (I think), we are all fallible.
In the case of murder though, particularly for some sort of sexual gratification, I think most people's ability to feel "compassion" would stop with the victims, and their families, unless they happened to be close to the perpetrator, or knew some salient facts, which rendered the verdict to be an "injustice".
happen, and is mainly why I oppose the death penalty.)
I think we should treat the guilty with humanity, we are only each responsible for our own actions, not theirs.
I understand grief, and anger, and the "need" for revenge, but the problem with "revenge" (IMO) is that it's often targeted at the innocent. (Eg Afghanistan).
We shouldn't let the people who do "bad" things,
behave, or we are 'sinking to their level'. - ^^ We are only responsible for our
actions, not theirs.
Note to self. Remind Jo van at every opportunity Profumo was a Tory.
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 5/6/2013 6:25:28 AM
I just disagree with you. I found her remarkable in palpable and sustainable achievements and
her character. You have posted before about how she denied her background. For me in that
assertion you couldn't be more wrong. She never shut up about her father, his shop, his civic
work and their Methodist background it informed her politics. How many biographies, friend
or foe, have you read ? Do you like to read widely and have your understanding advanced. Or do
you like to have your existing prejudices or views confirmed each and every time by reading narrowly.
I've been listening to exerpts (sp?) from her
biography, on Radio 4. Interesting IMO was the early part. She was a terrible snob, and also did very little to promote other females. She basically 'saw' herself as a man.
She wasn't a very affectionate or good/happy mother either, and preferred to concentrate on her "career", and leave the children with 'nannies'.
Like most people (or tories, anyway
) of her age/time, she romanticised the past, and the days of empire.
She was a firm believer in 'apartheid', describing Nelson Mandela (One of the finest men who ever lived, IMHO) as "a terrorist, basically, she believed that people should "know their place". (Except
In her later years, her delusions of grandeur were epitomised in her "royal proclamation" of; "we have become a grandmother".
She was a racist, misogynist, reactionary, 'classist' old bigot, without an ounce of compassion, or empathy in her living body. I could probably find more endearing qualities in any Mafia Don.
No mention of the USSR role in ww2. Or, and it's not a popular thing to say, the opinion that war
could have been averted or at least the death of say fifty million lives mitigated. He was no great
strategist. Beloved ? Good orator ? Certainly but perennially wrong. No more so when post world
war 1 he took Britain back on to the gold standard at parity with the classic gold standard, directly
condemning Britain to the poverty of the 1920s. Mention of the general strike.
should give you a reminder of those bleak times. Worse than the 1930s in my opinion and directly
attributable to Winston Churchill. Apropos, Churchill was born in Blenheim palace I think.
In summary, -Churchill was a bit of a cvnt.
It's the moral right of the poor to undercut the rich. That could be us.
I've asked you before what you mean by this...?
It sounds a bit 'abstract' to be of any merit, but I await, with breath all bated.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
The problem with 'capitalism', is that they really did run out of other people's money, their customers', and had to look to "socialist money", to keep their well-paid jobs, and 'bonuses'...
It's funny how you "free market" types, don't quite know how to 'process' that one simple
So instead, you trot out the "comical" clichés, regarding "the problem with socialism", and all of the comparisons with Stalin, and Mao, as though that somehow "proves" that it can't work.
Meanwhile, you'll wave your own 'union flag', tug your forelocks, and pledge your loyalties, to the head of some tribal, feudal theocracy, ( basically a 'pyramid scheme' for the already wealthy) , and all based on some "purist-inspired", but genetically misplaced notions of 'tribal loyalty', and yet you'll simultaneously bleat-on about "freedom".... as though you've actually got some...
I'll bet you like to think of yourself as a "free thinker" too, amirite..>?
You disappoint me Billy, you appear to have subscribed to some sort stereotype, and believe that somehow equates to something admirable, but instead, it's just tedious, and predictable.
You 'hate' socialism, and yet you've been happy to have benefited from a "socialist" state education, and a "socialist" state-funded National Health service, which, as you grow older, towards your state-funded, "socialist" pension, you will increasingly make use of. Your electricity came from a state-funded infrastructure, as did your water, and gas, and your sewage goes to state-built, "socialist" processing plants, and all of your goods were transported on state-built railways, and roads.
You're only able to read this, because of the state-built, "socialist" telephone network.
Join the dots man!
The wealth of the richest
by 30% in 2010, during the depths of a "recession", when property prices fell, when share prices fell, when production and GDP FELL.
There's no sign of any sort of "recession", at the top-end of the market, do some research, Mayfair property-prices, Louis Vuitton, Cartier, Roll-Royce, Ferrari...
Try to think it through...
People who Inspire you or you admire ?
Posted: 5/4/2013 6:34:33 AM
GP. I'm shocked...
Lots of people for me, very difficult to narrow it down.
Leonardo Da Vinci,
All sadly, now expired...
and many more, still alive.
I'd also like to thank my Mum, my Dad,
my agent, and the many people who have helped me to achieve this most unexpected award....
Another star arrested
Posted: 5/4/2013 5:42:04 AM
, there's no need for that, you'll just get the thread 'nuked', if you resort to childish ad-hom's.
JV - you put words into my mouth I never uttered.
Show me Where...>?
I never claimed you "uttered" any of the points in my previous post, except the one I quoted.
The rest, I made very clear, were
(JMO- Just my opinion. IMO -In my opinion.
So you can pick your dummy back up.
I don't really care what you might think of me, so the emotional blackmail, regarding your threatened lowered opinion of my posts, won't really work.
You seem incapable of realising that the sentence quoted, was
Clearly, they weren't
"sacrifices", nor do I "blame" the tories, but I do question their ideology.
You have already admitted that you thought the allegations against Hall, to be untrue, because he seemed like a nice chap.
It's clear that your opinions are somewhat questionable.
"Celebrities", and "stars" are often 'held-up' by conservatives, as though they were some sort of "proof" that we
live in a 'meritocracy', and that "
can rise to the top, through sheer merit and hard work".
If you "want it badly enough".
Those of us
still-functioning brains, find these assertions, so risible, as to not even merit a response.
Although the "Spice Girls", Jade Goodey, Stuart Hall, and endless lists of other "celebrities", who each write their own "spin", would doubtless like to believe that they got there on "hard-work, and merit alone", the truth is far from that.
It's mostly luck.
The media, TV., film industry etc., create these "celebrities", and try them out, to see if the public "likes them".
They are sale-able products, or not.
They don't care about the merit, or morality of these 'products', just whether-or-not the public likes/buys them (/from them).
When these products fall-from-favour with the public, they are dropped.
(There have been many cases, Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand etc)
Because "the media", and it's created "stars"/"celebrities" are big business, and major 'players' in "the economy", just like "business gurus", and successful business people, they are "deified" and "worshiped", and listened to.
We are told/sold that it's an "honour" to meet them, whether we might think so, or not.
This position of power, and "untouchability", and unquestioning "reverence", is very similar to the positions of priests.
Children are encouraged to meet them, (often alone, at the "celebrity's"/priest's request) and benefit from their "wisdom".
This was the case in Hall's case, when an anonymous letter, detailing how he had "'groomed" a schoolgirl, years earlier, was sent to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, at the Independent, and 'sparked' the investigation, after she handed it to the police.
Like priests, because these sick-fvcks [Med. Term] are
, no-one would believe the allegations from a (clearly upset) child. (Or two, or three....) So they are able to continue their depravity, for decades.
This "worship" (just like any religious one), is a commercially-driven, and planned enterprise.
But as ever, It's Just My (very-old) Opinion
does sweet fa to add to the discussion
Well, don't do it then
Should I really be listening to advice from someone who seems to think that infantile name-calling, somehow
"add to the discussion"...?
-I think not...
Posted: 5/3/2013 1:22:04 PM
Like it or not, because product can now be shipped around the world relatively easily and cheaply, manufacture will move to the cheapest location.
And that cheap location means hourly rates way below what we are used to.
It's why I'm always repeating that immigrants
"come over here, and taken our jobs", they stayed where they were, and our 'noble leaders' [/sarcasm] have sold the jobs overseas.
The same people who "influence", and "advise" our governments, on economic policy, and lobby hard to have workers' rights removed, (which this govt. is duly doing), like Sir Phillip of Monaco, or Lord Sirloin Sugar-tits, are getting their manufacturing done in places with no Minimum wage, no child-labour, and no health and safety at work laws.
Mr Cameraman wants to "make our country more competitive", so that those people can make the same sort of obscene profits
, that they currently make, by exploiting people overseas.
Audax/ Strangeglove, you occasionally say something with which, I agree .
I like the sound of these "fortified pleasure-domes",
and wish to subscribe to your news-letter.
Another star arrested
Posted: 5/3/2013 12:42:43 PM
JV - if I had any respect for your point of view it has just gone out of the window.
A recent report/inquiry/whatever, into the culture of bullying/sexual harassment at work, within the BBC recently (this week, I think?), said something along the lines of
"some of these stars seemed to think they were untouchable"
(It's a shame they didn't think
about the children they defiled...)
The reason why they thought that, (IMO) is because they were pandered to, and groveled to, and their every whim, catered for.
If they didn't get what they wanted/demanded, there, in the BBC, there was always present the threat that they'd go to commercial TV., where they could get even more.
-The reason they could get even more, is because they pulled-in the audiences, and consequently, the big-bucks advertising too.
It's the same reason why moronic, morally-bereft idiots, rapists, drunkards, and violent thugs, get paid more in a week, than some people could earn in a lifetime, for simply
I have 'bolded' the word 'game', in an attempt to make some people realise that's all it is.
An invented, made-up game, played, for fun, for a few laughs.
There's no need to cry about it, or even to
about the results, because they
literally don't matter.
There's certainly no need to stab anyone for wearing a different scarf.
But that's why Nokia, and Barclays, and Carling spend billions there, to gain access to the most lucrative, gullible demographic.
Clearly, people who are able to become so "fanatical", and so 'tribal', and so emotional about a
, are 'self-qualified', from a marketing POV., as "eminently suggestible", and lacking in self-control.
(They are also willing to pay over £100 for an ugly, ill-fitting, nylon shirt, which is already covered in advertising, which only cost $2 to make, in some manky sweat-shop in Malaysia, and then pay £100 all over again, next season.
It's why what little advertising which remains on 'terrestrial' [/misnomer] TV., gravitates towards the "lowest-brow" shows, and why TV has become so 'dumbed-down' with dross like Towie, and Big Brother, and I'm a celebrity, etc etc.,
-It's because the (very large) audience, don't think too deeply, (about much at all) hence -'fertile ground' for adverts.!
Whether you like it or not,
, commercial interests, and the quest for commerce, and all that that entails; advertising, corruption, etc etc, have affected our society, and it's perception of morality, just as surely as the arms-manufacturer-sponsored NRA., have affected the USA's.
EG., even though bribery
actually a crime in this country, it was deemed "not in the public's or the country's interests" to pursue some of the clearest cases of corruption, in the arms/aeronautical industries. (The BA 'Al Yamami' (sp?) deal is worth billions in exports, so the case was dropped, under Blair)
-In other words, a crime
a crime, if the amount of money involved, is big enough.
Sorry to break it to you mate, but when it comes to questions of morality, or ethics, "the economy" 'trumps' all other concerns.....
If Abu Hamza had instead been a member of the Saudi Royal family, (but with the same views) he'd be living in Knightsbridge, and having tea, with call-me Dave.
Another star arrested
Posted: 5/1/2013 9:49:44 AM
I could be wrong, but I thought I heard that he was being suspected of rape, which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
Not a "kettle of roach", surely...?
Still, I expect he'll get a 'thumbs-up' from Len Fairclough...
I wonder what Minnie Cauldwell would say...
You CAN have "smoke without fire", it's called a "smoke machine"
As I said in the Savile thread, (and people vehemently disagreed
People have "worshiped" the famous, for a long time, and the phenomena of "groupies" is well known, and documented, but "we turn a blind eye", because celebrities must be pandered to.
IMO this kind of thing is an inevitable symptom of that.
I very much doubt that either Savile, or Roache would have had as much "success" with women, (/girls?) had they not been in those positions of "power", and had to rely on looks, or personality alone.
Rape is all about power.
Money is power, and the very-wealthy feel they shouldn't have to live by the same rules as the 'plebs'.
Please note: This is not me "blaming the victims", this is me "blaming society".
Young girls are
being "shoveled" at celebrities, they still "take their pick", and "give" the remainder to the roadies...- but "we turn a blind eye", because celebrities must be pandered to.
Celebrity-worship is a media-created phenomenon.
They create them, to sell advertising.
Such victims are merely human "sacrifices", to the tory god of; "the economy".
When I am king, I will send all the other celebrities, to the salt mines.
That is all...
Posted: 4/30/2013 12:51:53 PM
Hmmm, not sure how I feel about that remark, I ll perhaps delightfully and optimistically bat my eyelids whilst I think about it, but not in too naive a way!!!!!
Apologies Dora, for any perceived slight, it wasn't perhaps the best choice of word, but it was in response to your "can't we all find a middle way?" post, and sadly, history doesn't show a very good record regarding the very wealthy,
relinquishing their (excessive) wealth and assets, to feed the poor...
But I completely agree with what you're saying, and I think I completely 'get' what you mean, (apart from the religious references.
)) and I think that your fiscal policies are sound, and most prudent, and far better than Billy's, which are frankly, just silly. IMO.
I'm not "blaming the tories" for the banking crisis, they didn't
it, but their "big bang", and their unwavering belief in "the free market"
Also, let's not forget that all of the deregulations were lobbied
for, by the banks, and financial sector. They literally spent billions on getting what they wanted. But their main "mouth-piece" was the tories, who had their own "Deregulation Task Force" dedicated to the task.
Blair carried it all on, I'm well-aware of that, but the tories were always calling for less regulation, not more.
It always pisses me off that fewer politicians ever seem to point this out, when the tories trot-out their standard line, about "how bad an economy the labour party left".
It was "bad", because they continued to write the regulations,
as advised by those they were "regulating"!!
. (The banks)- And the tories, the self-proclaimed "party of business".
Which is what the tories always insist is the best way, "for business"!!
They're still saying that, about the press, and we've already seen how that worked out!!!!
I was always enormously nervous about labour making "friends in the city", and friends in the press.
-Those are both tory heartlands.
That's where they get their donations from.
More than 50% of their money comes from people in finance and insurance and banking, and hedge-fund managers.
Check out the new treasurer's CV (Mr Spencer)
Formerly, it was "Lord Ashcroft", another crook. (Allegedly/IMO)
The tories believe that if you look after the interests of the 1%, the business owners, the other 99% will (eventually also) benefit.
Or at least, that's what they
they believe in!
But the wealth of the 1% has grown, almost exponentially, (in relative terms) during the last 30 years, it's still rising today.
And yet wages are frozen, and living standards, (for the vast majority) are falling.
Poverty is spreading, and there's "much worse, yet to come."
Unemployment has hovered around the 3 million mark, since Maggie first put it there.
It's "treat 'em mean, and keep 'em keen' politics.
Or as "Spinner so eloquently put it, in another thread, it ensures a compliant and "flexible workforce".
A few more years of tory rule will see the abolition of human rights, (already under-way) "-Used by terrorists"
The abolition of worker's rights. (already under-way, "red-tape discourages employment")
The abolition of building regulations. ((already under-way, "get the economy moving")
Finally, the abolition of the minimum wage.
-Well, it's a "global market", and if we're gonna compete with those people in Dhaka, we have to be prepared to work in the same conditions.
380 dead so far, and climbing...
All because of slack building regulations,
and listening to business owners,
about what's "best for them".
and making money, being the most important consideration.
Capitalism is so fundamentally undemocratic.
Posted: 4/28/2013 3:54:35 PM
I've read it all, and had no problems understanding any of it.
Some great posts IMO.
Especially Aloetune's (sp?) well-reasoned and thoughtful post, and Pandora's delightfully optimistic naivety .
Daver, the T-party inspired allegation that the "Fanny May" (?) and "Freddie Mac" schemes were the root cause of all of this, or that it was based on some form of "socialism", and that they're somehow "proof" that any Govt intervention in the "free market", will always lead to disaster, has to be seen in context, from a USA perspective, where they also think that about the NHS too.
The AAA ratings were given by the credit-ratings agencies, who competed with each other, for business, and also worked
-Just as the people selling the "sub-prime" mortgages did.
-The faster they could sell them, the more money they, and everyone else made.
The better the ratings the credit-ratings agencies gave to the newly-invented "CDO's", and "SIV's", the more Lehman Bros liked it, and so, the more business they would get from them.
They had every incentive to be very generous with their ratings.
And the faster they rated things, the faster the CDO's and SIV's poured in, to be rated.
This wasn't because of governments, trying to help people, this was because of pure GREED.
Ive no idea if I'm a "socialist" or not, I've never read any Marx, other than a few of Groucho's better quotes....
We are a social animal, we live in societies, we "socialise", and we "socialise" our children.
But the word "socialism" itself, is somehow a taboo.
Even Mr Cameraman talks about "Big Society", though most of us know that it's just a form of camouflage, or a distraction, from cuts to any form of "social spending", which their ideology prohibits.
I think there are too many stigmata (pl?) attached to words, and it shackles debate.
Consequently, (Billy) I think historical comparisons with earlier associations or interpretations, are about as valid as their view of "creation" was, about 100 years ago.
When capitalism expired, in the current era, it was the socialists who shouted "CLEAR", and applied the plates to it's chest.
You'd think they'd show a little gratitude. but no, they're straight back in, on the attack, it's all socialists this, and socialists that, and saying how bad socialism is...
I'm beginning to suspect that capitalists can't perhaps be trusted........
Posted: 4/28/2013 10:09:41 AM
I know people 'hate' "cut'n'paste" posts, but there's no other way, except to answer your points one at a time. -Otherwise, it just becomes a series of long-winded rants, which don't really say anything....
I believe in sound money and a free market any backsliding from the goal of a free market
for goods and services and sound money ends up hurting the poor.
The "free market" sound-bite means, in reality, lots of people in the "food-chain" for commodities, or goods, or anything you buy.
In other words Thatcher's Britain, with the emphasis on the "service sector".
Lots of people "making money", by buying and selling, but very little actual manufacturing, or production.
That's what got us to where we are today, and the collapse of the banks, with the entire "financial services sector" bankrupt, and having to be bailed-out
by the state
public ("Socialist") money
We make nothing, -other than a very small group of people, incredibly wealthy, for very little that could be described as "work".
- That's not "sound money", at all.
(This same small group of people
the tory party, and in return, policy is decided in their best interests.)
Despite costing the taxpayers some £1.5
, so-far, and all of the "cuts" etc., none of those people are now any less wealthy, than they were, before the collapse.
Gambling is not "sound money".
I never confuse the state
with us the people. You do Jo. You cant wait to capture your fellow men and women with
handouts and warm words of community, inane class war or know your place.
I don't want to "capture" anything, except people's thoughts and imaginations.
I'm not an "anything-ist".
I just try to look at things logically, and rationally, and objectively.
Mainly, just without the "centuries of tradition".
"Us", [sic] the people,
the state. The state is whatever we want it to be.
I believe it's the moral right of the poor to undercut the rich. I don't think trade unions believe this.
I have absolutely no idea, what you mean by this.
The US sub-prime housing crisis was a $300 billion problem exacerbated by a $6 trillion derivative
flutter with our money. If you look at the underbelly of it you will see that the state and its interests
wanted to help the poor on to the rigged housing market. Good intentions you see. But as night followed
day working men and women's labour was deployed and destroyed in the process of socialism advancing,
I have no idea what kind of "socialists" you might imagine were behind the "sub-prime" scandal, and it's inception, or who exactly got rich, because of it.
If you truly believe that the interests of large corporations, and financial institutions. or 'brokers', or "fund-managers", are somehow for the "common good", or somehow the "advance of socialism", then I strongly suspect that you are already beyond any further help.
The only involvement of the "State", ("Socialists" or not!) was the
deregulation of the financial sector, which Maggie had begun, (at the behest
that same financial sector, and it's minions in the tory party, who were still bleating about "excessive regulation", right up until the very day of the collapse!!)
Maggie's "legacy" was the privitisation of any profits made by state-owned/run industries,
-but the 'nationalisation' of any privately-owned debts....
It's funny how tories don't seem to
to discuss that..
Posted: 4/28/2013 4:23:29 AM
tis pity we disagree how it got like this or what to do. :) or perhaps :(
"Status Quo bias" is how it got to this.
50% of the land in this country has been in the same families for over 500 years, much of it, for close to 1,000 years.
We all "carry" all of those people, and maintain their lifestyles, and very expensive tastes.....
The wealth may be in the hands of the few, nowhere near what you think though.
The Duke of Westminster alone, owns about £6Billon worth of property in Central London alone, everyone with offices there, or who lives there, pays him rent. We all pay for that, in the prices of everything we buy, whether that's food, or goods, or services.
There are literally thousands more, like him.
Just 'google' "stately homes", or "who owns Britain's land". I think people would be surprised if they knew the true extent of the feudal system, and it's cost, to those who
It's a 'hidden tax' on everything you do, including just being born, if you don't happen to have been born into the "aristocracy".
it's worrying that you should think that confiscating their assets is somehow going to solve the problem.
It's not just a case of confiscating their assets.
Mr Cameraman, and Baronet Boy-George have decided to shine the light of public disapproval on those who don't work, or contribute anything to aid our exodus from our current economic plight.
I am simply extrapolating that.
The real question is: How much is
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/27/2013 7:59:20 AM
Thatcher funeral costs .....£ 3.6million
£2, 200,000 of that on police wages that would have been paid out that day.
Thatcher family have promised to make a contribution to the costs. People are highly vexed over this.
Apparently, the "reception" costs alone, were £500,000.
That's about the same as the price of two 'semi-detached' houses', where I live, for a fvckin drink.
The last few funerals I've been to, (all much better people than Thatcher!!!) we all paid our own way, and very few of us were millionaires, like all her friends are.
Apparently she couldn't be cremated, as there wasn't enough coal left,
sooo she's being buried with her old mate Jimmy,
because they both shared a penchant for fvcking mine/ors.
Apparently, Sir Mark referred to it as the "Wonga Funeral",
and Carol said "Golly".
(But I don't think she was looking directly
anyone, so keep calm!).
I expect Mark's already spent it.
The real "legacy" is more of the same corruption, which made him an instant millionaire, when his mum used her corrupt influence, to get him to be the "broker", for some of her dodgy arms deals.
She has ruined this country, because all she cared about was money, and greed.
Her influence was a purely retrogressive one.
The tories are now re-writing history, though they themselves shunned her, as an electoral liability.
Posted: 4/27/2013 7:30:20 AM
Politicians are just 'tinkering around the edges', they are ignoring the 'elephant in the room', (Mainly because of the elephant's influence).
There's still plenty of money about, it's just that as time progresses, fewer and fewer people, have now got most of it.
It's wealth inequality which has spiraled out of control.
"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago."
In the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels.
"Other traditionally more egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have seen the gap between rich and poor expand from 5 to 1 in the 1980s, to 6 to 1 today."
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that
the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.
 The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008. In 2001, 46.4% of people in sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty. Nearly half of all Indian children are undernourished, however, even among the wealthiest fifth one third of children are malnourished.
Interesting article, I'd recommend a read.
In this country, we are all "carrying" a privileged few, who's full-time "job", is trying to spend their vast fortunes.
The families of the landed gentry have been taking their "taxes" by owning the land on which your food is grown, for centuries.
They also own the towns and cities, so the end result is the highest land prices anywhere, the highest rents anywhere, -and the smallest homes.
It's not the £72/week people, but the £7 million/week people, -who also aren't working, or 'contributing' in any way, that we should be questioning.
Until people stop seeing abject greed and wealth as "admirable" qualities, nothing will change.
Maybe the world will have to degrade even further, -maybe to the point where it's simply no longer possible to "buy" a good life, anywhere on the planet, maybe then, the very-wealthy will voluntarily take less.
Of course, en-route to that point, many people, perhaps ultimately driven by a combination of hunger and anger, might decide
not to wait
for their belated realisation.
Also see: "All in this together"
'Showrooming' - Fact of life?
Posted: 4/21/2013 12:44:46 PM
I am guilty of doing this.
But I don't go and buy the stuff on-line,
I'm just "Tantric Shopping".
Sadly, small shops appear to be doomed. (-To be read in the voice of Private Frasier)
I used to own a video rental shop. (Yeah, I know, it seems ridiculous NOW!)
They were the first casualties. (Or was that "truth"...? -You can never be sure, can you..?)
When I finally closed, in 2006/7, they were shutting-down faster than pubs were.
You will eventually tell your grandchildren fondly, how when it was raining, on a Saturday night, you all used to go to the video rental shop, and choose (with help, from people who knew about that stuff) a really good movie.
Newspapers and magazines are also struggling.
Also 'terrestrial' TV stations.
Our time is split between so many different media, that the advertisers don't know where to spend their money now.
The big bucks were always spent on the most suggestible demographic, now, there's only football left for them.
Almost Christmas - when do you start cookng your sprouts/
Posted: 4/21/2013 12:24:06 PM
This is a dating site, right? So why are you asking about sprouts at Christmas in April on a dating site?
What are you playing at!!????
I bet Rhett and Scarlett ate them on a date????!!
Are you saying that's how the name of that film came about...?
I don't celebrate "christian" festivals, it would be hypocritical.
Particularly one which celebrates the myth of a deity impregnating some random pre-pubescent child, who had already been "given" to a middle-aged carpenter.
The Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans also had similar myths in their religions, I believe.
Apparently, shagging "gods" used to be very fashionable....
But I'm thoroughly in favour of all the "peace on earth and goodwill to all men", (Funny how they seldom mention women..?)
- and the ceasefires.
It's just a shame they can't extend that laudable ethos to the other 364 days.
Computer/Bikes for africa ?
Posted: 4/21/2013 6:53:51 AM
so why are we not prioritising uk schools and local children for the refurbished pc equipment instead.
AFAIK We are.
We pay for all the school buildings, all of the costs of teachers and support staff, and all of the costs of any equipment.
Compared to sending a few old PC's, which would have gone into land-fill, I'd say we were prioritising the uk.
Maybe it's because our kids don't have to walk 15 miles, for a drink of water...?
so anyway how about some explanation, of why we need to send the pcs, when most times local
uk schools can't even get the funding to supply their own classes with pc equipment,
The cuts are an abomination IMO., but it means they can't replace their older, existing IT, with iPads, or similar.
Many of the PC's actually sent to Africa so far, had previously come from UK educational establishments, who were upgrading.
Compare that with many African schools, where they don't even have chalk.
Sending older PC's to Africa, gives many their first chance to see such technology.
I think it's a great scheme.
Technology, one of the most expensive areas in schools, has been among the first affected by coalition austerity. One of Michael Gove's first acts as education secretary was to abolish Becta, the government's IT advisory body, and cut by £100m the Harnessing Technology grant, designed to help schools to pay for broadband connectivity and computer hardware.
In addition, schools are losing out through the scrapping of the Building Schools for the Future programme, which as well as investing in school buildings, also funded IT equipment.
Michael Gove is a cnut of the highest order IMO
(Apologies ladies, but in this case, it's the only apposite word)
I don't care if he is Pob's identical twin brother.
Sleepless nights - how do you cope?
Posted: 4/21/2013 5:32:16 AM
It is normal to feel depressed after these events; drugs shouldn't be given to anyone because of feelings that are completely normal.
Is it also "completely normal" to consider ending your own life, with or without justifiable reasons...?
People also get depression, even when there don't seem to be any 'justifiable' reasons for it. When they appear to 'have everything going for them'.
The brain is probably the most complex organ in the human body, it gets ill, just like all the other organs can do.
I'm no 'fan' of AD's myself, but they can help to "re-balance" some of the known chemical deficiencies (for want of a better term), eg. lack of serotonin etc. Which enable people to feel less bad, and give them a chance to begin the road to recovery, possibly with CBT etc.
I agree Polly. I think that some people take the "poor me" attitude to having a few problems and find comfort in moaning to those who will humour them about it and drop pills at the drop of a hat.
What do you suggest..?
Remaining stoically silent...?
For some people, reaching the point where they feel they need help, and asking for it, is made all the more difficult, by the kind of 'social stigma' about "weakness" etc., which the above post seems to display.
I only hope you never find yourself having to say "Why didn't he/she talk to me, or someone else, about their problems...?"
After it's already too late.
The last time I couldn't sleep, I got up, made some hot chocolate, and wrote a poem.
I ended up getting about 3 hours sleep, and felt like shit all the next day, which involved 7 hours of driving!
I probably shouldn't have gone in, but there's lots of pressure.
I slept well the following night though! - A good 8 hours!
Is our future mapped out or do we have freewill?
Posted: 4/20/2013 12:50:06 PM
Be still and know that we are infinite fragments of God, energy that can never be destroyed. Just living in the now, living in perfection. You accept that true reality, everything takes care of itself. Your psyche becomes calibrated/syncronised with the universe, what in Ancient China they called the Tao....Suddenly you start to create your future, not just exist in it.
John Lennon said/sang: "Life is what happens to you, when you're busy making other plans"..
There is no "destiny" no "plan", or "reasons" for the things which happen to you, it's just life.
We're just not as important, as we might like to imagine.
If you're alive, it could be said that your "destiny" is to die, it's just a question of
There are still many areas of the world, where 25% of children don't survive to see their 5th birthday.
About 200,000 people lost their lives, in that tsunami, no reason for it, (despite what some religious people might claim), just bad luck.
Nature/life can be cruel, and random.
Some things are just out of our control, and can't be "foreseen".
We all try to do our best, with what we're dealt with, that's all you can do, and to try to enjoy it, and to try and make the best, of what sometimes seems like a shitty deal.
That doesn't mean we can't change things, we can.
There have been lots of changes in my lifetime, not all of them for the better, but I hope there are lots more.
Now a real forumite
Posted: 4/20/2013 6:41:11 AM
The edit button's always been there (AFAIK).
Sometimes, you get "logged-out" very quickly, (these seems to happen quite arbitrarily), the "edit button" only appears when you're logged in..
(You can tell if you're logged-in, by whether you get the "thumbnails", at the top of the index page, when you're logged-in, they disappear.)
(I am using 'Firefox')
Racist or just rude?!
Posted: 4/18/2013 2:12:21 PM
On here a liberal is not a liberal, it's far more fun to call someone a bleeding heart liberal than a bleeding heart left winger.
Calling anyone anything, is a forum offence. Don't do it (again) would be my advice.
It also shows a very weak argument, simply resorting to 'ad hominem' attacks are are a sure sign that someone's already lost the argument.
In my book a liberal is someone who is open minded enough to accept all points of view without applying prejudice.
I strongly doubt that you've got a book, and if you have, I strongly doubt that you've
A true liberal would not have double standards or make sweeping generalisations about South Africans or any other group of people.
I thought a "true liberal" would be in coalition with the tories.
Look up "No true Scotsman fallacy"
A true liberal would not have double standards or make sweeping generalisations about South Africans or any other group of people.
I might be anti-immigration but you'll never see me attacking someone because of their race, ethnicity is an important part of someones identity.
You are always complaining about "immigrants" specifically, not "immigration".
They are a "group of people", and you're always making "sweeping generalisations" about them.
Also "ethnicity" is a relatively recent term. It came about (IMO) because people realised that the way a person
, their customs and practices etc., doesn't seem to correlate with what had previously always been referred to as "race".
It caters for such ("inconvenient") facts as the existence of "white" rastafarians, and "black" "jews" etc.
In other words, there is far too much physical variation, within "races", for their " rules" to apply.
"Ethnicity" is largely cultural, and to that extent, could be said to be a choice, although obviously the tendency will be to 'embrace' whatever is the default culture, in the place you were born in, and live.
However, as in the examples of British people converting to "Islam", race and ethnicity often don't "match".
Jews like to claim they are both a "race",
an ethnicity, some even claiming to be "secular jews", an oxymoron of the highest order IMO.
The fact that *YOU* are now using the word "ethnicity", and claiming it to be "important", shows two things IMO.
1/. I feel I'm making progress.
2/. You haven't quite got your head around the fact that "ethnicity" isn't a fact, it's just an erroneous collection of beliefs.
Sorry you had to go through that Sparkly.
The guy was an arsehole, (and his wife, for having such bad taste!)
Eventually, someone with impulse-control problems will overhear his bigotry, and job done.
Yes, ethnically speaking, he is a racist.
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/16/2013 12:44:43 PM
Agree with most of your points Dave.
At the time though, there really WAs a 'press conspiracy', to turn the workers, against.... erm... the workers!
And it was very successful. The unions were crushed.
The end result; last year, director's pay rose by 12%, on average, worker's pay, by just 1%.
Inflation is currently about 3%.
It's been like that since the 'banking crisis'/bankruptcy of the banks.
That's because *altogether now* "We're all in this together"....*
(* It's just that some are more deeply "in it", than others. Terms and conditions apply)
I see that "minimum wage is going up, by 12p/hour, in October.
2/3 of the people claiming benefits, are working.
The state pays them, because they can't survive on their wages, they mostly work for massively profitable, private companies. I'm fairly sure that the directors of those companies, won't be on minumum wage, they will instead, have a tax cut, because, apparently, the "very best people" need such incentives.
The unions have been defeated, now we have the state subsidising poverty wages, and private profits instead.
I don't see that as progress, for anyone but the very smallest percentage of people, at the top of society.
I feel that since Thatcher, innequality and poverty and permanent unemployment have increased.
I don't think our society is better with such polarisation.
Assuming that there is at least some correlation, between status, and intelligence, (well they at least get the best education, that money can buy) I would hope that the wealthiest realise this, and do something about it, voluntarily.
Before it's too late.
I think they've pushed the masses too far, this time.
Guess why my next and first new car after that was a BMW?
I used to go to Germany a bit, (late 80's/early90's ), and the odd thing was, the two blokes who worked at the company that I used to visit, were both keen car enthusiasts, one had been a former-pro, and they both 'marshaled' at rallies etc.
Anyhoo, I was gobsmacked to discover that they (and presumably many other Germans too..?) had a very high opinion of Rover cars, regarding them to be "high-class, quality imports", (sound familiar..?) and they were quite disdainful about Merc, Audi, BMW etc.regarding them with the same contempt with which we viewed rover's products.
In their opinion, merc's were "good taxis".
Presumably, this had some bearing on their eventual decision to own the mini, which is still made here, on the former BL site, but now, made for BMW.
My Dad's first car was a 1957 Morris Oxford.
If you could choose what type of society to live in.....
Posted: 4/15/2013 1:33:01 PM
You've completely changed your tune,
No, no I haven't.
I thought you was an advocate of multiculturalism?!
That's because it's clear that you struggle to understand what I'm saying.
You probably also think I "stick-up for muslims", but actually, I think all religions are equally ridiculous, primitive superstitions, which have become "institutionalised".
"Culture" is everything we do, and it's always changing. Any social interactions between any two allegedly different cultures, will change both of them, new technology changes culture, science and new information changes culture.
The word "multicultural" is a misnomer IMO. We (and every other society) have always been "multicultural"
We absorb elements of culture (if we like them) and they become part of our culture.
"Christianity" is a "foreign religion", also 'imported' from the middle east.
More recently, tea, coffee, christmas trees, writing, potatoes, plumbing, firearms, mathematics, and reggae.
As well as many, many more. (Speaking of Moors, the Morris Dancers are thought to have originated there too!)
Now you are saying that everybody should be the same?
No. I'm really NOT.
We can't ever all be the same, we are each unique.
Not only genetically, but also in our life experiences, and the things which have 'shaped' our 'personalities'.
The beliefs in "tribe" and "race" rely on a certain amount of stereotyping, or "grouping" people together in some way, according to similar tastes perhaps, or shared languages or 'cultures', etc.
I believe these views to be a mistake.
A person's (often erroneous) self ascribed "race" or "tribe" or your, or others' opinion of that, based on what they might look like, really tells you nothing about them.
In a few more years, these facts will sink into the collective consciousness of societies, and people will think it really weird that we ever ascribed "races" to people, based largely on the shade of their skin.
In the same way that evolution has replaced "creation", in our accepted beliefs. (-In all, but the most obdurate of theists!
Human cognition is biased and thus so is our views and thoughts, even if you took away race and religion we would just find something else to judge people on.
How about merit...? Just a thought....
There is a recognised phenomenon, called "Status Quo Bias" (not the group), which you, and a large proportion of the population, seem to suffer from. (IMO)
I prefer to think of it as an irrational fear of change.
Change is coming, whether people like it or not, the world, and it's inhabitants, are constantly changing.
I like change, and embrace it, but I've always been very confident in my own abilities, to cope, with whatever life throws at me.
Lying about your age.
Posted: 4/14/2013 11:51:48 AM
Don't take it all so seriously OP (Opening Poster), no-one else is.
People lie all the time, I'm doing it now.
Say you're taller, say 9'2"... talk about fish more...
If challenged, on your height, when you meet, point at the sky, and exclaim "is that a heron!!???"
Or pretend to faint.
Other than that, you'll be fighting them off.
(* Please read instructions)
and my weak bladder
Ahhh, PMSL...? ??
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/14/2013 11:30:13 AM
What I object to Dave, (and this is very much a part of Thatchers 'legacy'), is the demonisation of ordinary, hard-working people, who are continually blamed for the demise of manufacturing here.
What you say about the bike industry, is correct.
The same for the car industry. The Austin Maxi was still being built at Cowley, in the mid 70's, and then there was the "Princess"....
The people in production, only build what the company tells them to build.
The problem was with the owners, the shareholders, and the management.
But it's always the workers who get the blame.
When they were massively profitable, they didn't re-invest in plant and machinery, new buildings, or R & D., they spunked it all away, on yachts, and hats, and fast living.
You can say what you like about Yvette Cooper, at least she's got Balls!.
And Tax havens..?
Most of them are "British Protectorates", or some other vestige of colonialism.
"Call-me-lord-david" thinks he was taking his family for a lovely weekend break, at the Angel-Merkin residence, (sp?) to talk about some sort of 'pick'n'mix' EU., but she wants to talk about British-controlled tax-havens!
Whatever he does to the financial sector, and banks, and insurance, or the media, he always has to keep one eye on their donations!
Posted: 4/14/2013 10:56:52 AM
Jo Van, the definition of proud, or pride for that matter, is not perfect. Are you really saying that in order to feel proud of something, or someone, then something you or they do has to be perfect?
No, I'm not saying that, really. Just that I struggle to find the exact 'line' , between 'adequate', and worthy of self-congratulation.
When I was suffering from depression, I congratulated myself on going out, or just getting up, or remaining alive, it's all relative.
I don't think there's any harm in trying to remain objective about things, or at least trying to remain rational about their 'perspective'.
So your son/daughter gets 5 A levels, but only achieves between 94 to 98% in them, you would berate them for not being perfect, instead of being proud of them?
No, of course not, I would never 'berate them', for doing something good.
My son got three, I can't remember the grades, but good enough to get into uni', I was very happy for him, it was what he wanted to do.
I'm just not sure that what I felt was "pride", or that, if it was, it was justifiable. It was, after all, due to his hard work, not mine.
I don't really 'subscribe' to the notion of feeling personally "proud", of other people's achievements, I realise that this puts me in an extreme minority, but I don't care.
Pride is an odd word, maybe it's because, apparently, it "comes before a fall", that I'm reluctant..?
But if it is "justifiable", (which I'm not entirely sure about), then surely that's only if the "result" has been due entirely to your own efforts..?
Otherwise, you get people claiming "pride" and 'taking credit' for all sorts of things, like the weather, volcanoes, or comets, or sun-spot activity, or the way that Red Kites circle. . (Before anyone says it, yes, I'm aware that
already do this!)
But it's JMO.
Posted: 4/14/2013 8:30:23 AM
I have always struggled with the notion of "pride".
I've done lots of things, which other people have told me that I should be proud of, but IMO nothing I have done, has been "perfect"..
So sometimes, it seems like saying "jolly well done, you've tried your very hardest, it wasn't quite perfect, but it's still pretty good".
I should be proud of my sons, but their lives are their own, and my own contribution to their existence, was (probably) quite small, and (probably) quite enjoyable, so hardly a sacrifice, on my part.
I've certainly "contributed" to their up-bringing, and consequently, perhaps some of their views, but I can't claim any "pride" for their autonomy.
I could say that I'm proud that I've "done the right thing" on occasions, stuck to my principles, and ethics and (self-imposed) morality, but if it was the "right thing", then why should I congratulate myself, for not being a shit..?
As far as "national pride" goes;
"Vicarious delusions"...... -don't even get me started!
In conclusion, and, in the spirit of the thread; I have sung "What have you done today, to make you feel proud...?"... -In the style of Vic Reeves' "Club Singer", -and it was "pretty good", IMO...
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/14/2013 7:43:24 AM
and who created margaret Thatcher?
Ooh! Ooh! I know this.....
I'm pretty sure it was either Gerry Anderson, or Fluck and Law....?
As Polly said, there's been 23 years in between. If it all was her fault then the rest have had plenty of time to make the necessary changes and they haven't.
That's slightly disingenuous IMO Dave.
They can't re-open mines, once closed, they can't re-open the ship-yards, the steel-works, and the state could hardly re-nationalise all of the industries sold-off during Maggie's garage-sale years, nor 're-possess' the properties of people who had once been glad of the social housing, which they availed themselves of, when in their hours of need, but are now voting tory, because they bought their pre-fab cheap.
Nor could they have attempted to put any financial regulations back into place, (like the Glass-Steagall), because they would not only have had the opposition of the tories to this, but also their paymasters, the entire banking and financial services sector, as well, and due to the deliberate running-down of all forms of industry, and manufacturing, the financial sector was now much more important to GDP and taxes.
The reason we are still living with her 'legacy', is that we don't make anything here any more, (except 'arms' apparently...) we now import almost everything.
The reason Germany has a relatively healthy economy now, is that they still
There are still lots of "British Companies" , but they choose to get their manufacturing done, where it's cheapest, so that they can make more profits for the board, and the shareholders.
-Which, of course, they won't have to pay tax on, what with being an "international company", and all....
Hence people like Sir Phillip Green, were able to pay himself a £1.2 Billion "dividend" without tax, in just one year, because his wife now "resides in Monaco".
As long as it makes money, anything goes.
Thatcher's 'legacy' was an arms trade, with whoever has got the money to pay; Sadman Hussein, The Shah, the 'Mujahadin, aka The Taliban. ("Come Mr Taliban, Tally me banana! Indeed...)
The Thatcher 'legacy' is greed , selfishness, and dishonesty.
All evident in every painful (to us) moment, of the collapse of the banking system, LIBOR rates,
mis-selling scandals, and the "Phone Hacking Inquiry",
and evident in her own "Al Yamamah Arms deal", and the corruption which instantly made her own son a millionaire.
And these are the very same people, who still fund the
and in who's best interests, "policy" is decided.
The people partying to 'celebrate' her death, are also "Thatcher's Legacy", they're "selfish", they're just glad it's not them.
They're not-so-much celebrating
death, as celebrating their own survival, of her lifetime..
The "witch" might be dead, but this isn't "Oz", it won't all suddenly become technicolour,
because she left us a monochrome world, where money rules everything, and everything is "shades of grey".
The witch might be dead, but we continue to live in the bleak economic mid-winter, which is her true 'legacy'.
-And all done, for her "principles", because she considered Trade Unions to be a socialist conspiracy.
History, IMO., will show her to be a completely delusional idiot.
Posted: 4/13/2013 9:19:29 AM
This thread is a bit
Relocating to UK
Posted: 4/13/2013 9:02:21 AM
I'm a little surprised that no-one's yet mentioned their feelings towards "immigrants".
Or that the north has much higher unemployment than in the south,
and that was
the current "triple-dip-recession".
*Please hold the line caller, someone will be with you as quickly as possible, your call is important to us*...
How can i believe that i am real? Please help.
Posted: 4/13/2013 8:42:14 AM
A good place to start is the mental health charity Mind,
I find it impossible to read this, without a Geordie accent mind.
I heard a 'thing' on radio 4 this week, saying that "expressive writing", putting your feelings, and what's really bothering you, into writing, (So presumably, even a forum would 'qualify'..?) seems to have been beneficial to health, in some recent study or other. ( I think it may have been cancer patients..?)
A 'control' group also wrote, for 15 minutes, but they only wrote about superficial things, like "describe a tree" etc., but those that 'confessed' their innermost feelings, and fears etc, seemed to have had better outcomes, and fewer return visits for medical problems.
(I can't be bothered to try to find a link)
So it's official, getting things off your chest, does seem to have benefits to health, and general mental well-being, apparently..
please review my profile! where am i going wrong :)
Posted: 4/13/2013 8:24:17 AM
I remember punk, the first time around, I was already too old for it by then,
but many of us had younger siblings, who were disaffected just enough, enough, to be thus affected.
Besides, I had realised by this time (early twenties), that fashions change about every three years or so, and I'd really become too philosophical about it, to bother trying to 'keep-up'
Nonetheless, I understood their angst, having only recently become slightly less than completely angst-ridden myself.
Real punks didn't have "goals and dreams", they had disillusion and despair, it wasn't a 'fashion', it was anti-fashion, anti-fascist, anti-establishment,
It hadn't been "done before", the whole point of it was change.
Also, "Punk's not dead" should have an apostrophe, unless it's saying "Punks, not dead", in which case it should have a comma.
Though I liked the bit about blue-eyed dog.
Say you've got at least seven, very-tall children.
Say you're interested in the occult,
and fishing, (of course)
"Drummer", isn't really an "interest".
could be said to be an interest, but if that were the case, it would perhaps be better to say
otherwise people might get the wrong impression, and think that you're interested in any old drummer.
"Drumming" is what I think you meant...
Although, even then, you see, listing "drumming" as an "interest", might lead a person to suspect some sort of "OCD", or something which you have a tendency towards, in moments of otherwise peaceful contemplation, or even episodes of extreme stress. That could become irritating, IMO.
So perhaps add some sort of disclaimer, like "Not
Other than that, you're a shoe-in. Guaranteed*
(* Not a guarantee. Contents may vary, Artists impression only. Always check sell-by dates.)
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/12/2013 1:46:20 PM
I think the way the tories are using her death, and the attempts to beatify her, shows how low Mr Cameraman, and his cronies are prepared to stoop.
It took them 13 years to "air-brush" her memory from the collective consciousness, with barely a mention of her, in an attempt to "de-toxify" the "Con-Party".
Mr cameraman went to great lengths to suppress mentions or references to her, or those days.
"Ironically, it was from Gordon Brown, once he became prime minister in 2007, that Mrs Thatcher received the sort of treatment she might have expected from her own party.
Brown was being mischievous when he publicly invited her to No.10. His aim was to embarrass Cameron, and he succeeded. After this, the Cameron camp suddenly became anxious to stage a similarly warm encounter for the cameras. So she obliged."
(From the daily wail)
She was the greatest prime minister ever, now, apparently.
Yet she was removed from office, by the very same people, who now eulogise her.
I've never seen such a display of abject hypocrisy in my life.
To Mr Cameraman, her death represents nothing but succession of "Photo Opportunities", and guaranteed air-time.
she squealed, when over 300 Argentinians lost their lives, in the sinking of the Belgrano.
Did she ask us to "consider the relatives", then...?
NO, she took delight in those deaths.
Those were young men, with their possible lives ahead of them, not frail, old people, full of bitterness and regret, at the way her own people, her
had treated her.
If they all loved her so much, then why didn't they tell her that, while she was still alive..?
She 'got what was coming' to her.
She got what is coming, for all of us.
But I'm glad I lived long enough, to see her go, before I have to.
And to get the chance to do this:
ITV news question time with David Cameron
Posted: 4/12/2013 1:44:52 PM
You can't get out of bedroom tax by calling a bedroom a prayer room,
This part of your post is correct.
So well done for not being one of the foolish sorts, who gets outraged and indignant based on what is essentially a
I'd ask David C , How will you cope if no one pays your bedroom tax? What if we all said No thanks.
It's not a "tax", although that's a catchy short-hand, used by the media, and those who oppose it.
It's actually a removal of benefits.
So you can't "opt-out".
They will simply pay people less, if they consider them to be "under-occupying" their properties.
This will cause enormous hardship for people, especially the disabled.
I would ask him why a millionaire, like him,
a mortgage at all, on his constituency home, and has he only got one, because the public pays the £20,000 pA...?
Secondly, I would ask why he gave the public assurances that Coulson was honest, and that there was only "one rogue reporter", in the 'phone-hacking scandal', when there had already been a string of other 'high-profile', out-of-court settlements, which showed that it clearly wasn't restricted to
the "royal correspondent".
I mean, Max Clifford might like to
that he's royalty, but he's really not.
And how could he have believed that the
of a newspaper, didn't know the sources, for the stories he was running.. let alone expecting us to believe that...?
In short: Why are you: A/. either so stupid, or B/. such a terrible
, Mr Cameraman...?
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/10/2013 10:46:14 AM
I wouldn't ordinarily say something bad, about a person who has just died, if I simply didn't like them.
I just wouldn't post, as in the "Jade Goodey" thread.
But Thatcher spread misery, and despair, and unemployment, and who knows how many suicides, as a result of that...She did it all without the slightest hint of any emotion or empathy.
The decimation of the manufacturing base, coal, shipbuilding, iron and steel etc etc., was all done for "ideological reasons."
She objected to 'collective bargaining, she objected to the strength from unity, which working people had, through the unions.
So she made 'secondary picketing' a crime, and used mounted-police, and literally thousands of others, to 'break' strikes in the private sector, as well as the public sector.
Notably, the "Fortress Wapping" dispute. She wholeheartedly approved of Mr Murdock sacking his entire workforce.
Murdoch later admitted that he couldn't have done it without her, and there wasn't another country in the world, which would have given police-backing for his actions. (They were actually illegal in many other countries!)
Mr Cameraman continued the 'tradition' of those close links with Murdoch, until he (nearly) got caught.
The public lies he told about Coulson, will emerge, in due course. (Maybe at Coulson's trial..?)
Her death, and the state funeral, which "isn't a state funeral", which is being paid by the public, is a disgrace IMO.
Particularly as Mr Cameraman, and all of those currently claiming she was the "best Prime Minister ever", and wanting to "honour her achievements, are all multi-millionaires, and could well afford the costs themselves.
It's not "a fact" that she was such a great prime minister.
If she really had been "the best ever", then why did the tories themselves, get rid of her..?
This is sheer hypocrisy.
Cameraman is using this to spin the tories as always having had good policies.
I heard William Hague trying to justify the estimated £10 Million costs, by saying she had "won" us £75 Billion back from the EU.
But for every such example, there is another, like the cheap wholesale selling-off of council houses, how much did that cost..?
Or the sale of the state-owned monopoly utilities, all "undersold" to her friends in the city.
Or the £15 Billion that was spent in a single day, "Black Wednesday", when the bank-rate rose twice, 2.5% each time, ending that day at 15%
How many billions do we now spend each year, importing coal..?
Then there's the 1.5Trillion we've had to put into the banks, as a direct result of her "banking revolution".
£75 billion is about what LLoyds alone, cost us.
The reason there were so many strikes in the 70's, was that inflation was running at about 25%, so any "pay rise" offered at less than that, was actually a pay cut. People forget that.
It was a battle between working people, (to simply maintain their standard of living), and greedy bosses, and shareholders, who felt they were "entitled" to even more profits, for doing even less work.
Thatcher won the battle, by having the police 'break-heads' for her.
Her ideological opposition to unions, led her to believe that those people
such brutal 'punishment'. She was vicious, spiteful, and malicious. Anyone who didn't agree with her, was branded a "militant".
The end result, is that now, directors get about 70x what workers do, (compared to just 7x, in the 70's,) and the state is paying benefits, simply so that people on "minimum wage" can pay their bills, just to boost the profits of Sainsbury's, and others like them.
The end result, was the banking crisis, where those who caused it, have now "retired", on pensions which pay them more in a week, than 'minimum wage' pays people for an entire year.
It's no surprise that people are celebrating her death, she was widely reviled.
People also celebrated Osama Bin Laden's death, or Saddam Hussein's, but I didn't hear any cries for "respect" for their relatives, then.
Death is a great leveler. It happens to all of us.
IMO., the world is a tiny little bit the better, for her absence from it.
They will have to make her tomb-stone out of solid diamond, to stop the constant queue of people, waiting to dance on it, from wearing it out.
Good riddance, I say.
How can i believe that i am real? Please help.
Posted: 4/9/2013 10:51:16 AM
I haven't read any Freud, but from what I've 'gleaned', he was obsessed with sex, and had all sorts of parental fixations.
There is a objective "truth", and a reality
The world was in existence before I was, other people can verify this.
Similarly, it will continue, long after I cease to exist.
We are "biological robots", in a sense, but recognising the fallibility of our perceptions is an important aspect of 'self-awareness', IMO
Our senses can be easily fooled. Look at any type of "optical illusion", for evidence.
We all make mistakes, because we misinterpret the information, which we gain, from our senses.
But that doesn't mean that "everything you think is a lie", particularly if those thoughts are also shared by other, rational people, who have also come to the same conclusions, based on their understanding of "the facts".
Knowing that you're not alone, may not be of that much help, but it's a means of "checking" for delusions.
We're really not that important, in the bigger scheme of things, but clearly, our 'natural instincts' for survival, will lead us each to believe that "the world truly
, revolve around us".
I think the world is a fascinating place, though I often despair at people who don't
to think enough about it, or the speed at which primitive tribal instincts, can be invoked.
There are lots of things 'wrong' with it (IMO), and the changes are painfully slow, and sometimes, even regressive.
I still believe we only get one shot at it.
I think that belief may have kept me alive, at times when I'd considered the alternative.
Consequently, I try very hard to enjoy it all, even though it might not be exactly as I'd wish.
A lot of my friends have died recently, my 'best friend', for 40 years, last September, and another, (who I'd only just got back in touch with, after that funeral
) , in February. I compare my bad luck,
, that usually helps.
Try to see the funny side, there's a very thin line between tragedy and comedy, and it's often 'blurred' (To me)
Life's funny, and
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Try and enjoy the really bad parts, too.
"This too, shall pass.... "
as they say...
and it always does.
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/8/2013 10:31:27 AM
Whilst I was no fan of Margaret Thatcher and her policies and style of government, I would not go so far as to be full of glee at her death. Anyone's death is a loss to someone, and pain for them, so I wouldn't be happy at her family's grief.
Ordinarily, neither would I.
But in this case, her family, are Mark and Carol Thatcher.
I kept hearing various tories claiming she "was the best prime minister ever", and that "she
from the trade unions.
I'd just like to point out, that almost every
in the lives of 'ordinary working people", (ie., not the landed gentry, or the feudal aristocracy), were made as a result of trade unions, and their efforts.
The cessation of child labour, and the raising of the school leaving age.
Free (until recently) universities.
Holidays for workers.
Compensation for deaths and injuries at work.
Health and safety at work.
Votes for women.
The 'Welfare State".
State-owned and affordable utilities.
State-owned and affordable railway networks.
And lots of others.
Without the trade unions, the owners would have never made any concessions.
12-year-olds, would still be working in factories, (if we had any
), and workers would still be getting sacked for being injured, or just swept-up, if killed.
Thatcher, and her ilk, have been consistently opposed to all of these advances.
And are currently trying to reverse them.
She has done more to set back the march towards a fairer, less unequal society, than almost anyone.
"There's no such thing as society", she famously quipped.
The result now: no industry left, consistently high unemployment, gas, electricity, water etc -bills through the roof.
And "benefits" having to be claimed by people working full-time, for profitable companies.
Now you're "being held to ransom", by Scottish and Southern, or 'Kemble Water Holdings'.
And then there's the banks, and the lifting of currency exchange regulations, and the other banking regulations, which allowed the banks to gamble and lose, their customers' money, while the state picks up the tab.
Her changes, led directly to the collapse of the banks, and the public debt which that entailed.
Thatcher destroyed this country.
She used the police, to intervene in private, non-state matters, because she felt that the unions were a "socialist concept".
In reality, the only reason you can read this at all, is entirely due to the education which the unions 'won' for you, with their struggles, and the subsequent formation of the Labour Party, to fight for the rights of the vast majority, for the first time, rather than just for the privileged few.
I'm glad she's died.
My only regret, is that it didn't happen sooner, say 1979,
IMO we'd have been all be the better, for that.
Thatcher is Dead
Posted: 4/8/2013 9:14:41 AM
RIP The Iron Lady.
Rust in pieces!
Soon, she'll be "not-for-turning", -in her grave!
Vile woman, IMO.
I'm glad I can finally stop hating her!
Posted: 4/7/2013 3:46:23 PM
well angel,,most naturist have plenty of common sense
All the same, I strongly doubt that if you were standing in front of Sally there^^
and she was still riding that dog,
and you were stark nekked,
that you'd begin any sentence to her, with the words
Unless she was asking you the direct question:
"What will you be singing like, from now on, if I was to let him off his lead...>?"
He looks hungry.
Show ALL Forums