IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

314 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

On the edge
Posted on: Today, 06:48 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Andy1 @ Oct 18 2018, 07:15 AM) *
Maybe because she doesn't live with her pedants anymore. You only have to look at the faces of the public, here and abroad when they see the new Royals. Or maybe they've be ordered at pain of death to pretend.


Yes, agree about the faces of the people when they see the Royals; exactly the same expression as those who stand outside theatres etc. to see their favorite entertainment stars.

Almost to prove the point about Bucklebury, there are popular Coach tours around the districts where even quite old TV shows were made; Last of the Summer Wine, Dads Army, Coronation Street etc, etc.

Still, it's a bit of fun, but let's not pretend the Monarchy is a massive economic benefit.

  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #122485 · Replies: 24 · Views: 348

On the edge
Posted on: Today, 06:05 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


If our Royal family did really deliver the claimed numbers of tourists it's rather surprising that Buckebury is still undisturbed and no one has had the nouse to run coach tours from Newbury.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #122483 · Replies: 24 · Views: 348

On the edge
Posted on: Yesterday, 05:49 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 17 2018, 04:31 PM) *
Isn't that the point of having a test though?


Yes, of course, BUT surely you test the basics off line and if you really can't you have a full team standing by to put things right. There are a good few very serious questions that need to be answered here because at first sight it would seem some serious foreseeable errors have been made.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #122466 · Replies: 666 · Views: 78,098

On the edge
Posted on: Yesterday, 12:15 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (gel @ Oct 17 2018, 11:20 AM) *
This morning's chaos courtesy of Hitachi apparently; from BBC News.

"The cable damage was caused by a class 802 Hitachi train which was being tested
between London and Bristol.

The train, which was empty at the time, ripped into the overhead wires, bringing them down."

The Hit in Hitachi being the operative word.


Nothing to do with our railway managers then, phew!

Just one thing, do you know any other organisation that would permit anyone to run 'tests' on mission critical systems, plant, or machinery without it being thoroughly checked elsewhere? Or did our highly paid, professional, very competent managers simply 'forget'.

We really are a class act aren't we? International sales here we come..... laugh.gif
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #122463 · Replies: 666 · Views: 78,098

On the edge
Posted on: Yesterday, 08:44 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 17 2018, 09:06 AM) *
Not exactly an excuse is it?
Anyway you have made clear your anti rail feelings and that neither you nor your family use the railway so why comment?

All the time the government dole out subsidies I've every right to comment. I'm a citizen of this Country keenly interested in our international competitiveness, so continued failures in major projects also means I'm justified in making comments.

I'm just as surprised by your consistent support for this shambles, even in spite of the Government agreeing the whole thing is a mess and setting up a special commission.

tongue.gif
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #122460 · Replies: 666 · Views: 78,098

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 24 2018, 08:19 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 24 2018, 07:15 PM) *
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...sts-2013-speech

If you vote for this man NOW, you're either.

A, Antisemitic.

B, Racist.

C. Just don't care.


Rhetorical question surely? Very few of us will have the opportunity to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, we still don't have a presidential system. And anyway, why should I care? No one else seems to, my 'vote' will do nothing.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121866 · Replies: 539 · Views: 58,957

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 20 2018, 08:03 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (James_Trinder @ Aug 20 2018, 04:33 PM) *
It could be worse. You could be living across the border in Hampshire where you only get two sacks and no bin for £35 per year, plus £17.50 per additional sack:

https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/gardenwaste

All other local districts/counties/boroughs have a similar charge for a similar service so really we should be grateful that we are one of the last areas to implement this and have therefore managed to avoid paying this charge for longer than most. Of course you can still dispose of green waste yourself for free at the tip so you are paying for the convenience of not having to do that.


We aren't supposed to notice 'harminisation'. It will take a wee while but nationally, all refuse collection arrangements are slowly being harmonised. Bit of a debate about 'wheeled bins v plastic sacks but that's being sorted. Round here, the sophisticated inter authority accounting methods between councils to pay for dumps have been stripped out. We then get a basic arrangement, same nationwide that gets put out to a central agency......even less reason for WBC to exist!
  Forum: Newbury News · Post Preview: #121840 · Replies: 92 · Views: 6,266

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 20 2018, 06:13 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 17 2018, 11:21 PM) *
Predominantly Muslim country in 20 years time?


Hard to dispute that, so it's worth considering exactly what that means; in terms of everyday life. Like it or not, our present governance, legal system and ethical outlook are all based on Christianity - 'by law established'. So, things will be different and one of the first differences will be that tolerance of other views and creeds won't be tolerated at all.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121826 · Replies: 317 · Views: 13,251

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 19 2018, 08:13 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



I certainly agree that a debate, indeed any debate, would be interesting, but that's all, interesting.

Those of us at school since 1944 at least were taught that we live in a democracy. Many of us still believe that's true.

The sad reality is that we don't and actually never did. We used to live in an aristocracy which since 1979 has morphed into a plutocracy.

What we think or say makes no difference at all.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121821 · Replies: 317 · Views: 13,251

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 18 2018, 07:52 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 18 2018, 07:09 PM) *
A lot of the danger is with social media. People surround themselves with people they agree with and block anyone who has a different view. This polarises opinions further and instead of debate you inevitably get violence. All people should be listened to, even if you disagree or find the opinions they have objectionable. If you don't you end up being brainwashed.


To some extent, but not strictly true. For me, Tommy Robinson's message was drowned out by his previous unpleasant and violent antics. Indeed, in exactly the same way as Arthur Scargill's credibility was shot in exactly the same way.

The real issue is those who, for whatever reason, already accept these views and opinions, but do very little calmly and practically to feed into mainstream debate.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121806 · Replies: 317 · Views: 13,251

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 18 2018, 02:56 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 18 2018, 10:23 AM) *
It was the giveaway question from an insidious and dangerous man. That being said, there does seem to be a Ďblack outí in the media and it does seem due process wasnít followed by his imprisonment.


Difficult to disagree with that; dangerous times we live in.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121801 · Replies: 317 · Views: 13,251

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 16 2018, 08:00 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 16 2018, 08:42 AM) *
Bit biased there TDH!
What about Catholic priests? rolleyes.gif


I must admit, unpleasant it might be, but TDH is right to sign this up. The issue we face is that we've hidden our principles for far too long under a blanket of political correctness.

What about Catholic priests and the rest. BBC disc jockies, school teachers, Scout leaders, Football trainers, children's home workers, etc, etc? They all belonged to groupings who have wholly accepted the wrongs and are now at great pains to prevent a reoccurrence.

So, why are some groupings totally immune to censure or criticisim and indeed left even to support the deviants? Why, even when the evidence is overwhelming are Asylum, Muslim and Traveller/Gypsy groupings treated with such deference?
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121785 · Replies: 317 · Views: 13,251

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 13 2018, 12:43 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 13 2018, 10:15 AM) *
Thereís been a huge problem among catholic priests but we donít blame Catholicism though. Thatís the difference.


Well done; that's exactly the point. The sexual impropriety issue is a problem with Catholic Priests.......scout masters, disc jocks, school teachers, children's home wardens, TV stars, football coaches, step fathers, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The issue with coerced wearing of facial covers and the co-erced wearing of predominantly in just what is clearly sect of one faith group.


Took me long enough to see this but I'm old; you are supposed to be young and so understand facts. Glad you've got there though!
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121763 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 12 2018, 07:08 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 12 2018, 06:26 AM) *
Where do you get your belief that they donít? And as I said, I would be against anyone being forced to wear anything. I could point you to interviews of women not forced to wear a burqua but itís just anecdotal. If I believed it was forced I would oppose it. For you lot itís just another excuse to attack foreigners.


Except that no one has mentioned foreigners!

There is a body of evidence collected by Social Workers which backs up the abuse of females in these circumstances which has been supressed and hidden for quite some time because of wrong inclusivity direction. Didn't you realise that's what much of the fuss is about in Rotherham and such places?

The choice isn't the one the genteel middle class adolescent girl usually has, 'should I wear this to stand out, or not? More, 'should I wear this, or just take the punishment (physiological or otherwise) instead?'.

Ironically, even the religion in question does not demand these things are worn!
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121750 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 11 2018, 07:57 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


The operative word is 'choose', some Muslim girls 'choose' to wear these things. Umm, a bit like their 'choice' of husband isn't it? Choice, but not as we know it.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121742 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 10 2018, 06:43 AM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 10 2018, 01:37 AM) *
Should we therefore mock and ban the curls of Hasidic Jews? Ban turbans?

It seems to me that the only legitimate argument is a security one. Things like airports, banks and so on. Talk of assimilation is just prejudice. As I said, given a choice between looking at someone walking around with their undercrackers on display or a woman in a bureau, Iíd be less ďoffendedĒ by the burqua.


Yes security is a legitimate argument, even if its the only one, but its legitimate still the same. Your example of someone walking around indecently dressed is dealt with by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 along with a body of other case law.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121726 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 9 2018, 09:02 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 09:18 PM) *
What are you wittering on about?


A response which indicates your points are as bogus as the 'offence' Boris Johnson is supposed to have caused.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121721 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 9 2018, 06:50 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 9 2018, 06:44 PM) *
Allegedly; The reason women must cover themselves is so they do not seduce a man.

So then; If a man catches a glimpse of her ankle, and he becomes seduced, then he isn't responsible for his actions. He might rape her, accidentally of course, and it'd all be her fault. Traitorous, adulterous witch. She should've covered herself up! That poor guy! She seduced him. She must be punished.

You can see where I'm going with this, right?

The burka is not a religeous garment. It is a gender enslavement tool, and 100% away from what our country has been fighting to overcome for the last 100 years.

But here's the rub: We agreed that a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she likes, right? So if she wants to cover herself from head to toe, we have to let her!

Now why would she want to do that?

Well, since a woman isn't trying to seduce anybody while out buying her dhania, atta and haldi then she won't mind covering herself, particularly as she's already married. After all, who needs to see her anyway? Only her husband has any interest in being attracted to her, so it should be 'no skin of anyone's nose', right? Why do you even want to look at this man's wife anyway. She's private property.

So ... this leaves us with a dillema:

Either we must enforce our belief that a woman should be allowed to express herself any way she chooses. This will mean accepting the burka as a fashion garment, and a legitimate choice of self-expression. This means we'll have to ignore the surrepticious gender/social constrictions to the women involved.

Or we must accept we were wrong, and that some clothing really isn't suitable or acceptable. Bikinis, miniskirts and hot-pants might well fall into this category. Which means we might have been wrong all along! Maybe these burka people have a point? Then we're forced to adopt it.

There are no winners in this. Somehow the logic betrays us. And now we see why religeous fanaticism has such a firm grip in the 21st century. The control methods run so deep they're practically invisible.

So if anyone can unpick that little thorn-in-the-side-of-equality, because I can't see a route out. I think the burka is here to stay, because our liberal society prevents us from enforcing liberation. Thus, these women will remain victims to a regime which is beyond criticism, and the controlling behaviour this silly garment permits will remain unspoken.


Dint think anyone much would object to the dress other than the face cover. Eliminate that as other EU nation states have and that solves the problem. I can't remember this fuss being made when the same disquiet was voiced about full face hoodies?
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121718 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 9 2018, 06:48 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 05:39 PM) *
Well Iíd be staggered if a member of the government referred to a nun as a penguin. It makes me laugh at how people like you moan about our culture being ruined by immigrants yet you donít see that for a person of high office to insult members of our population is totally alien to our culture.


Err, in many other areas, it's quite common for persons of high office to insult members of our population. Been going on for years. Nye Bevan called Tories less than Vermin, then we had the attacks on the unemployed and trades unionists in the Thatcher years, I'm sure we can all come up with examples.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121717 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 9 2018, 06:44 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 9 2018, 04:58 PM) *
How on earth can any normal person be offended by the dress of another unless they have a hatred for the wearer. And therein I think lies the problem.


Of course I don't hate the person, I feel it's offensive and actually very rude for people to deliberately keep their faces covered in public and in particular when transacting with others. It's not something our society had ever condoned.

Taking your twisted example. In the UK people do not hold the physical national flag as any more than material. Try doing that in the States, where by your reconing Americans must hate people who burn or deface their flag.

  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121716 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 9 2018, 12:46 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 9 2018, 01:21 PM) *
In my opinion the problem with Boris is that he is a senior politician, representing our country and our government. If he is against the Burka then that's his position and fair enough. But he should be able to engage his opponents through interest and reasoned debate, he should have a level of understanding for other views, and he should be able to say what he means without pi55ing off thousands of people. Basic skills.


Thatís exactly the issue. You canít say anything today without offending someone no matter how good your skills.

Has anyone spared a thought for those who are genuinely offended by people wearing these things? Or is that another group that doesnít count these days?
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121706 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 8 2018, 06:57 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 07:17 PM) *
He didn't speak plainly. He was deliberately insulting.

Am I ok to use the term "rag head", or instead of looks like a letter box, how about looks like a monkey?


I didn't mean Johnson spoke plainly, clearly he didn't but then no one does these days that's the problem. I actually meant we all should speak plainly - without fear or favour.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121695 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 8 2018, 05:49 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 05:56 PM) *
Thereís nothing wrong with the debate. You have your view and thatís fine. I on the other hand am not bothered if someone wants to wear a veil. Itís a debate and there will be differing views. Thatís not the issue. Borisís outburst was deliberately offensive (many Muslims have described it as such) and the talk isnít about the issue, but about Boris. Itís about keeping his profile up. However, whilst it played well with people like you, most people will see Boris for what he is.


People 'like me'? Ah, same as the majority of the UK's population, so thanks for the vote of confidence.

I can't see how Muslims would find what Boris Johnson said is offensive.

I can find no trace of any religious reason as to why anyone would wear a full face cover in their writings. So, perhaps it's down to deliberate misinterpretation - like the techniques the hate preachers use.

No matter what anyone says these days someone will be 'offended' - Cliff Richard wins his libel case, Head of News at BBC 'offended'. Time we all grew up and spoke plainly.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121693 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 8 2018, 04:27 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 04:31 PM) *
And FGM isn't a Muslim thing either but I'll bet the alt right won't be able to separate THAT from being a Muslim.

Shall we start making jokes about Hasidic Jews too? Can you see Boris doing that?

As I said, he's done that to be divisive. It was no accident. And for that reason alone he's an A R S E.


The FGM laws are nothing to do with religion. They were put in place to protect women from dangerous mutilation which results in severe disability in later life.

Hasidic Jews, Nuns, Air cabin crews, etc.etc. all wear 'different' clothes, but don't cover their faces. That's the issue; again not a religious issue but one where for the proper functioning and safety of our society, an individual's face needs to be seen. However, the most virulent objections to any attempt to stop face covering come only from a religious group. Oddly, this group cannot justify their objection!

I agree Boris Johnson's intervention here was no accident. It was a main stream press column he wrote, which doubtless was carefully thought through. It also passed the Newspapers legal team. Yes, it's worth asking why he mentioned it right now, particularly where there is much more obvious low hanging political fruit. Rather than thinking up more insults; a good test would be to think objectively; why? I some how doubt if you'll like the answer.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121691 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

On the edge
Posted on: Aug 8 2018, 01:02 PM


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,828
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98


QUOTE (newres @ Aug 8 2018, 12:51 PM) *
Ridiculous comment. His remarks have caused offence and he's been told to apololgise by both the leader & the chairman of the party. He's deliberately courting the right following his meeting with Bannon.


What a sad state our politics are today then. You are implying that all MPs must be simply pawns and certainly must upset no one. Do you honestly think David Cameron should apologise for the offensive remarks he made about Nigel Fararge, or Mrs May for being offensive to Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps you'd like us to follow the EU member states that are introducing prohibitions?

Demanding apologies and then even penance for bogus offences is a classic way to divert attention from the real issue. That then festers and gradually erupts with significant consequences. Why are you and your peers so afraid to engage in meaningful debate?


QUICK ADD
Have just spent time with a Muslim couple I've known for ages, yes, they are incensed by the Johnson issue ..... but mainly by people who aren't Muslim being offended in their behalf! As they said, how can you be offended by something that isn't true. Their religion does not require any women to dress, other modestly, that's essentially covering private parts; the face is not specified. In fact, their view is that the noise being made about this is very unhelpful indeed.
  Forum: Random Rants · Post Preview: #121688 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,703

314 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2018 - 11:27 AM