Freedom of choice & Liberty

[Curvey_Brunette]

I often ask myself what sort of freedom and liberty we have in the UK with the "nanny state" we currently live in and why the world is in the rut it's in.

Eat more of this, it's good for you
Eat less of that, it's bad for you
Don't smoke
Don't drink and get drunk
Don't climb tree's, you might fall
Don't play with conkers without eye protection and gloves
Don't sit under a fruit tree, the fruit might fall on you.
Don't confront intruders in your home, if you do they can sue you and you'll get arrested.

The only real "liberty" we have is the right to sue someone but then only if you're a criminal otherwise legal aid won't fund the costs.

In our "modern day living" we seem to live in a world where everything and anything you want is on tap and is often available at the touch of a button.

If you want drugs, well, someone you know will either be able to get them for you or will know someone who can get them.

Want a hand gun? Not a problem, now they've been banned they're more common than they were when they were legal.

Want sex? Not a problem. Anything from £20 for 10 mins to £1,000 for the night will get you the time and attention from a 'Lady of the night' of your choice.

If you're married and want a divorce, not a problem. Fill in the forms and you'll get one, it'll be rubber stamped so you can move onto your next failed relationship.

Just what are we doing to ourselves and each other? Where have our morals and standards gone?

Where's our drive and ambition gone? Our search for the life we want as opposed to the existence we're given?

This biggest culprit for this mass lethargy is the Internet.

I read a piece in a paper which said:

{Quote}
For centuries access to information - and the ability to communicate it - has been controlled by the wealthy and the well educated.

The Internet changed all that. It has broken down the barriers that exist between people and information
{End Quote - Reference Eric Schmit CEO Google}

I personally remember a time when computers were expensive, the Internet cost money to use, you had to pay for the phone call, the ISP and an hourly rate. At this time the Internet was inhabited by articulate, intelligent and rational professional people who didn't use it to jerk off on a webcam, they didn't use it to find a date, they didn't use it to get laid, they used it because it was fun to use.

Small communities were founded, people didn't know each other, they knew of each other but that was it. Chat rooms were full of people chatting, people were having conversations by text and would never dream of using "short hand" text. After all, if you look down at your keyboard you'll find the letter for the word "you" are closely grouped together and are on the same line, so typing "u" instead didn't actually save any time at all, it simply showed that person to be too lazy to move their fingers.

And this is what I'm getting at, we've gone from a time where people would take the time and make the effort to make their written messages as clear and as easy to read as possible to a time where everything has to be instant. A time where they go from "Hello" and end up in the bedroom in a matter of days, (sometimes, hours)

No matter who you are you CAN afford a 2nd hand £100 computer, you CAN afford £15 a month for Internet access and because of this, it's no longer important how you project yourself, it's no longer important what image you create because there will always be someone out there willing to put up with you, be it for a few minutes or a few hours, or even a few years!

Basic, yet fundamental, social skills are no longer the "norm" What's "normal" is to type in phonics, have gone nowhere, have done nothing and to type using phonics so "you" can get from A to Z as fast as possible without any effort at all.

People no longer have any pride, any self respect, any dignity because it's easy to sit at home in front of a computer and type utter bollocks in the search for that jerk off session or perhaps that new bedpost notch.

It's easier to play the lottery and hope for that jackpot win then it is to get out there and actually earn a living.

It's easier to steal the things you want rather than work hard and buy the things you want.


It's easier to trip over a paving slab in the street and sue the council rather than pick your feet up and walk like a human being.

Everything is done for us, everything is on tap for us, so it's easier to be a sheep rather than a predator who has the cunning and intelligence to get what he/she wants, to make his or her life into the life they want it to be.

It's easier to get divorced and find someone else rather than work at your marriage and make it work.

It's easier to get drunk or get high and dream about the life you want rather than make your life the way you want it.

Just what are we turning into???????

[Ady6970]

Curvy Brunette. I absolutely agree with everything you've said there. Who needs a nanny state?

On the subject of what to eat/not what to eat, there's a health scare a week. Frankly I don't take the slightest bit of notice of any of them. The national (or rather media) preoccupation with obesity (a horrible clinical term) is never out of the news. Too often fancy diets and/or dodgy pills are hailed as the solution and I haven't got time for either. Recently I discovered I was carrying a stone more than I thought and decided to do something about it, chiefly by cutting out cakes, chocolate and biscuits. Ten days down the line I'm actually feeling the benefits and it hasn't been anywhere as difficult as I'd imagined, proving the point if proof were needed, that fancy diets aren't necessary.

[Observer]

I'm not in the UK but understand what you are saying.

But to blame it on the internets isn't correct, IMO, because it's just a tool.

PERMISSIVENESS and the permissive society would be more to blame.
Especially with how you describe it.

The government is more like a nanny than an adult parent.
And in a permissive society the government can only recommend to you what to do and what not to do.

For if they had balls... permissivenss would not prevail and they would put their foot down instead of letting the ones that make more noise get away with things.

Basically we are a society of spoiled chidren (interest groups) that scream for what they want.
And since the ADULT parents (real government) are absent, you have the nanny bending over backwards for the brats!

Because all a nanny can say is...
Eat more of this, it's good for you
Eat less of that, it's bad for you
Don't smoke
Don't drink and get drunk
Don't climb tree's, you might fall
Don't play with conkers without eye protection and gloves
Don't sit under a fruit tree, the fruit might fall on you.
Don't confront intruders in your home, if you do they can sue you and you'll get arrested.

[Curvey_Brunette]

Curvy Brunette. I absolutely agree with everything you've said there. Who needs a nanny state?

Not me

@ Nanny State

I have to say I'm very glad to be one of the few who managed to stop the world and get off.

OK so I've created my own little "cocoon" here, but at the very least I have people who actually want to share that cocoon with me because of me not because I have something they want.

On the subject of what to eat/not what to eat, there's a health scare a week. Frankly I don't take the slightest bit of notice of any of them. The national (or rather media) preoccupation with obesity (a horrible clinical term) is never out of the news. Too often fancy diets and/or dodgy pills are hailed as the solution and I haven't got time for either. Recently I discovered I was carrying a stone more than I thought and decided to do something about it, chiefly by cutting out cakes, chocolate and biscuits. Ten days down the line I'm actually feeling the benefits and it hasn't been anywhere as difficult as I'd imagined, proving the point if proof were needed, that fancy diets aren't necessary.

I've never been one for watching my weight, the kids and hubby do that for me

If I go up a size I buy bigger clothes, if I lose weight I buy smaller clothes

[Curvey_Brunette]

I'm not in the UK but understand what you are saying.

I'm glad it's not just me then

But to blame it on the internets isn't correct, IMO.

The Internet is a massive part of it though.

From the comfort of my own home I can:

Transfer money from bank to bank or account to account.
Pay my bills
Do my weekly shopping
Talk to strangers
There are millions upon millions of porn sites that'll cater for my every whim and if I want the real thing, I can look up a prostitute on line and perhaps send him/her an email.
I could furnish my home via flat pack
Buy any DVD or film I want to or download it and watch it on my computer.

The list is endless, people are even going into work via the Internet, they're having office calls put through to their home and they're logging into their office computers as though they're sat in front of the machine.

One of the shareholders meetings I "attend" is on the Internet

Everything is gear for staying at home and sitting in front of a machine.

PERMISSIVENESS and the permissive society would be more to blame.
Especially with how you describe it.

Human beings have always been permissive, it's in our nature to be permissive. I've done it myself, I've had one night stands, I've had quickie sex with someone who I'd only just met in a night club.

It hasn't done me any harm, I was careful enough to always insist on a condom and I've been married to the same guy for almost 20 years now.

I grew out of the "I must be this" and the "I must give a sexual performance like that" a long time ago and when I started to let go of those rather unrealistic expectations, I found I was a lot happier both in myself and in my sex life.

Some of the women I've happened across over the years on the net have seemed to have thought they have to be like a porn star to get a guy and if a relationship failed it was because they weren't any good.

It's the same with the guys I've talked to, a lot of them seem to think all women operate on the level of a porn star all of the time and we all lust after a "big C***"

Well, the truth of the matter is that any guy with a C*** bigger than average size (5 to 7 inches), isn't a better lover than someone with a smaller C***. In fact, I'd go for the smaller C*** every time so long as it knows what it's doing. After all, there's no point in having a Ferrari if you can't drive.

All these expectations of "sex" are unrealistic. I'm sure many of the women on this forum will agree that someone who actually knows what he's doing can give a hell of a lot more pleasure than someone who just rams it in there until he cums.

So it's not permissiveness per se that's the problem, it's the complete inability to settle down. The inability to compromise, to be rational, to validate a point of view without ranting, raving and screaming ones head off in frustration and anger just because someone doesn't see things from that point of view.

The government is more like a nanny than an adult parent.
And in a permissive society the government can only recommend to you what to do and what not to do.

For if they had balls... permissivenss would not prevail and they would put their foot down instead of letting the ones that make more noise get away with things.

I'm not being funny here, but would I be right in thinking you don't get laid often?

It's just that you seem very "anti-sex" and it's not sex that's the problem, the problem is the expectations people put in themselves when it comes to sex is the trigger because they simply can't perform to their own expectations.

Basically we are a society of spoiled chidren (interest groups) that scream for what they want.
And since the ADULT parents (real government) are absent, you have the nanny bending over backwards for the brats!

But the nanny isn't bending over backwards, the nanny comes out with "sound bites" and then shuts up.

The majority are confused and follow blindly the daft rules because they've been taught never to question anything but to accept everything they're told.

[Observer]

I'm not in the UK but understand what you are saying.

I'm glad it's not just me then

But to blame it on the internets isn't correct, IMO.

The Internet is a massive part of it though.

From the comfort of my own home I can:

Transfer money from bank to bank or account to account.
Pay my bills
Do my weekly shopping
Talk to strangers
There are millions upon millions of porn sites that'll cater for my every whim and if I want the real thing, I can look up a prostitute on line and perhaps send him/her an email.
I could furnish my home via flat pack
Buy any DVD or film I want to or download it and watch it on my computer.

The list is endless, people are even going into work via the Internet, they're having office calls put through to their home and they're logging into their office computers as though they're sat in front of the machine.

One of the shareholders meetings I "attend" is on the Internet

Everything is gear for staying at home and sitting in front of a machine.

PERMISSIVENESS and the permissive society would be more to blame.
Especially with how you describe it.

Human beings have always been permissive, it's in our nature to be permissive. I've done it myself, I've had one night stands, I've had quickie sex with someone who I'd only just met in a night club.

It hasn't done me any harm, I was careful enough to always insist on a condom and I've been married to the same guy for almost 20 years now.

I grew out of the "I must be this" and the "I must give a sexual performance like that" a long time ago and when I started to let go of those rather unrealistic expectations, I found I was a lot happier both in myself and in my sex life.

Some of the women I've happened across over the years on the net have seemed to have thought they have to be like a porn star to get a guy and if a relationship failed it was because they weren't any good.

It's the same with the guys I've talked to, a lot of them seem to think all women operate on the level of a porn star all of the time and we all lust after a "big C***"

Well, the truth of the matter is that any guy with a C*** bigger than average size (5 to 7 inches), isn't a better lover than someone with a smaller C***. In fact, I'd go for the smaller C*** every time so long as it knows what it's doing. After all, there's no point in having a Ferrari if you can't drive.

All these expectations of "sex" are unrealistic. I'm sure many of the women on this forum will agree that someone who actually knows what he's doing can give a hell of a lot more pleasure than someone who just rams it in there until he cums.

So it's not permissiveness per se that's the problem, it's the complete inability to settle down. The inability to compromise, to be rational, to validate a point of view without ranting, raving and screaming ones head off in frustration and anger just because someone doesn't see things from that point of view.

The government is more like a nanny than an adult parent.
And in a permissive society the government can only recommend to you what to do and what not to do.

For if they had balls... permissivenss would not prevail and they would put their foot down instead of letting the ones that make more noise get away with things.

I'm not being funny here, but would I be right in thinking you don't get laid often?

It's just that you seem very "anti-sex" and it's not sex that's the problem, the problem is the expectations people put in themselves when it comes to sex is the trigger because they simply can't perform to their own expectations.

Basically we are a society of spoiled chidren (interest groups) that scream for what they want.
And since the ADULT parents (real government) are absent, you have the nanny bending over backwards for the brats!

But the nanny isn't bending over backwards, the nanny comes out with "sound bites" and then shuts up.

The majority are confused and follow blindly the daft rules because they've been taught never to question anything but to accept everything they're told.

I'm not talking about how the internet made things easy for the lazy. Nor do I think that's what the original poster was implying!

And as for the sex you talk about... permisiveness also goes for the special interest groups that yell and scream till they get their way!

For instance the global name they have given the UK calling it the new middle east for terrorist's... (or something to that effect. Dont ask me for specifics, I missed the name). Basically the news commentary stated that the british government was so busy bowing down to a particular religious minority that they put the rest of their citizens in harms way!

You have a nanny government... not a governemnt of responsible parents that put their children first.
I see it happeneing over here too.

[Curvey_Brunette]

I'm not talking about how the internet made things easy for the lazy. Nor do I think that's what the original poster was implying!

Perhaps not, but at the end of the day the Internet has not only given encouragement to those who simply can't be bothered.

And as for the sex you talk about... permisiveness also goes for the special interest groups that yell and scream till they get their way!

I didn't talk about sex, I spoke of the perceptions and the attitudes of many people towards sex. How they think they should be this, and do that, be like this, etc but without the real realisation that sex is an aspect of a relationship, it's not the be all and end all, it's not what life is about.

For instance the global name they have given the UK calling it the new middle east for terrorist's... (or something to that effect. Dont ask me for specifics, I missed the name). Basically the news commentary stated that the British government was so busy bowing down to a particular religious minority that they put the rest of their citizens in harms way!

The British . once had control over around 70% or 80% of the planet. This is how places like Hong Kong and Jamaica were classed as "British", it's also why places like the Falkland Islands are classed as "British soil"

But all that has been lost because of a few soppy liberals who think the world is a better place because of a few stupid rules.

A long time ago I read Enoch Powels "Rivers of blood" speech, (the one that got him sacked), and yes it was a very harsh, very racist speech to make. But at the same time he was 100% spot on.

We can't fly the Union Jack any more because it might be offensive to someone of a different culture! WHAT????? I dunno about the rest of the world but when I go to visit someone I'm a guest in their home and if they think it's perfectly acceptable to hang upside down from the rafters stark naked and covered in jam then that's their right.

I went to see them knowing they do those sorts of things and so I have no right at all to object to such activity. It's the same with going to live in another country, you adpat to the country and the lifestyle there, not it adapts to you.

You have a nanny government... not a governemnt of responsible parents that put their children first.
I see it happeneing over here too.

The government shouldn't have to be a parent to anyone. It shouldn't be a parent to anyone. The whole aim of government was to make sure that the things the country have to offer continued to be offered.

But instead of building on the foundations of what's there, those in charge deem it appropriate to destroy that and try to build a fresh.

[Abraham]

..

[Curvey_Brunette]

Hello Curvey Brunette,

Hi Abraham

We do have freedom and liberty in the UK. You are not restricted from voicing your opinions so long as you do not attempt to incite racial hatred or violence. Try China, Burma or North Korea for lack of freedom. And how is the world in a rut?

Do you honestly believe that?

I don't consider it racist for someone to say "I don't want an Indian/Asian/Pakistani/Mexican/Black in my home"

But saying that sort of thing will have you arrested for "racial hatred" which it isn't, it's a personal choice on the one place we're all supposed to feel safe.

I recall a similar case a year or so ago, (it could be longer), where a lone woman had a visit from two council officers. She wasn't comfortable being alone with 2 men in her home so said only 1 could go in.

The senior man went in while the junior man waited in the car. Within a few hours he junior man had made a complaint to the police, she was arrested, charged and convicted for "racial hatered" because that junior member was black.

If you watch things like "Crime Fighters, Police Stop, Sky Cops, Traffic Cops" and any other "cop reality show" you'll notice that someone who doesn't speak a word of English and doesn't have a UK driving licence, or has no road tax will be "reported" for those offenses whereas the English speaking people get their cars lifted.

Also, watch the way that none UK nationals are treat with "kid gloves" and comapre that the the drunk white people who get leaped on by 6 or 8 police officers and pinned to the floor.

Legal aid is not a device intended for criminals but a means of providing access to justice for the financially disadvantaged. That seemingly undeserving cases make use of the legal aid scheme points to a failure in government policy. It is not the product of liberal social attitudes.

But clearly that system isn't working and its continually reported that some criminal has legal aid to sue the home office or whatever because his TV has been taken out of his cell while some poor family who has suffered a great injustice has to continue suffering.

I've seen it professionally, I've seen 'ethnic minorities' given every service, every facilitiy there is going while national families go on wanting and their situation grows worse and worse.

No one I know, but then I have had a sheltered upbringing.

I'm sure you'd be surprised if you asked the question of your friends. Someone will know someone who knows someone, it won't be a direct route I know, but it'll lead to what you want with a bit of persistence.

The use of handguns has always been illegal. It is their ownership that has been recently outlawed. Anybody using a handgun to commit crime is unlikely to give any thought to the legality of possessing one. I would doubt that ownership of a gun has much to with the knowledge that it is illegal.

What I was getting at was the fact that there are more shootings and there is more criminal activity involving guns than there ever was when they were legal.

The irony is that with the exception of self loading shotguns which have been banned, most armed robbers used a sawn off shotgun back in the days handguns were legal. These days the handguns are out there and available to anyone who wants one so long as they know who to ask.

Never tried this.

But the option is there if you ever wanted to.

Divorce is an instrument to end unnecessary matrimonial suffering. In past centuries, when Church law prevailed more considerably than it does today, getting married was more difficult. Certain sections of society, most notably the poor, were effectively excluded leading to widespread discrimination. Making divorce difficult does not necessarily solve the reasons for wanting one. The original theory was, in my opinion, correct. Make marriage, not divorce, more difficult. Keep it available to all.

So shouldn't marriage and divorce be more difficult anyway?

In 1972 the national divorce rate in the UK was about 12%, in 2005 it was 70%

So in essence, marriage no longer means "I want to spend the rest of my life only with you" but means "You'll do until I get bored"

The fact you can get married so easily and can get a divorce so easily devalues mariage. A bit like £1 million would be completely devalued if the entry level price for a house was £1 million.

The life we have is the life we agreed to live. The majority of us cannot reliably blame others for our condition.

But that's what people are doing.

I don't often go in chat rooms but occasionally I do. Sometimes I get approached and I'm asked if I want to chat. Then I'm asked what I'd like to talk about????

Of course I'm the one to blame because I have nothing to talk about with them despite the fact until their message appeared on my screen I wasn't aware they even existed!

And you can apply this to everything else, "I'm mentally ill" because the person has "problems" and can't form relationships with anyone or anything.

Badly parented children being labelled as "adhd" when the core reason the child behaves like that is because it doesn't know where it's at. I do not accept that adhd even exists, to me it's an excuse used by parents who simply can't control their children or teach them how to handle their emotions.

And these kids will grow up and one day they might be in charge!!

Do you like the idea of a 40-year-old adult whose finger is on the button for a nuclear war having a temper tantrum because things don't go his way and nobody will do what he tells them to do?

I agree with this quote. The problem here is that you are using it in a context that is the polar opposite to the way it was intended. Your assertion being that the Internet is responsible for the breakdown of social cohesion. Eric Schmidt is infering that a non-Internet society controlled by a few priviledged information brokers breeds ignorance. In this way, a nanny state becomes an imperative - all must be told what to think and do.

I know I turned around a positive statement into a negative one, but at the end of the day a good 80% of the people out there using the Internet haven't a clue how their own computers work let alone how the Internet works.

The majority of them might type a letter on it, play the odd game or two every now and then, but the primary aim for them is as a 'chat interface' an easy way to 'meet new people' without having to make any effort what so ever.

The use of phonics in order to "make it easier" but it's not easier, it's all their attention span can cope with. Back in the days when computers were expensive and Internet access had to be paid for it was a laugh on the Net, small on line communities would build up and people would know of each other.

There would of course be arguing and fighting, but the majority of the time it was chatting about what people had been doing, all the 'normal stuff' you'd chat about with your friends over a drink, a meal or a coffee.

These days it's become a cess pit of PM trolls who make unwanted advances of a sexual nature with typing in that horrible "Morse code"

How can that benefit mankind?

So do I. Those with sufficient funds and knowledge were permitted access, the rest were not. Would you use these two simple metrics to differentiate the desirable and undesirable ?

Yes I would.

As I've said, small communities built back then but these days it's a sea of strangers with silly names and odd ideas how to interact.

Similar sentiments were expressed about videos and VCRs back in the 1980s. It was only when the pornographers got involved that these items were deemed to be useful. To a very large degree the same has happened with the Internet. The activities you describe, however distasteful, are not new to human nature. Just that the technology has improved. Nothing else.

I've seen it myself in clubs and pubs, complete A-holes who think they're gods gift trying to chat up women and getting knocked back. I've been called all sorts in my time, (most of it true too, but then I never was a very "good girl" ) but that was it. After a few seconds it was over.

But these days they're going on and on and on and on, even if you don't respond they persist. The last time I was in a chat room, I had one moron who spent the best part of 3 hours talking to himself. I never gave a single response, (I was away from the keyboard most of the time and left the computer "running" on that server), but there he was describing what he'd do to me when he found me which was a really odd thing to do given he hasn’t a clue where I am or what I look like.

It's easy to threaten people when you're hiding behind a keyboard.

Have secretaries not used shorthand ?

Yes and with good reason! To keep up with the dictation of the letter which is why they have their "own style" of short hand, reporters have another form of "short hand" and you'll find people in meetings often develop their own version of "short hand" so they too can keep up with what's going on.

I fail to see the need for speed when typing something, perhaps you could explain?

I accept that the Internet engine has provided considerable means and impetus for those engaged in the pursuit of casual relationships. However, nightclubs throughout the land have always provided such a forum for the likeminded.

Yes and in a night-club you're experiencing actual social feedback from real people who can see your eye contact, your facial expressions, they can hear your voice tone and look at your body language.

All you have on the Internet is a really crap webcam feed, (which in reality is just fast Jpeg file sharing), and text.

You are linking together two disparate themes. Namely, the availability of inexpensive computer hardware and unhappy human relationships.

How can anyone be truly happy trawling chat rooms or forums such as this for someone, (anyone), to chat to?

How can someone be truly happy if they can't express themselves articulately, coherently and rationally? It takes a hell of a lot of effort to project all of that into simple and emotionless text because the bulk of what is read is read how the reader feels it should be read. Sometimes that and the intent hits the mark, but more often than not, it's completely lost because either the authour can't put into words what they want to say or the reader simply can't decipher what the author is trying to say.

Does that mean using a computer and typing a message - as I am now - somehow implies that I do not have any self-respect ? Just because it is easy to do does not mean we all do it.

No, not at all.

What I'm getting at is that the majority of people who use the chat rooms do so because it's easier to sit there in dirty clothes, not having had a wash and tapping out a "h r u" message than it is to make that effort to make yourself presentable and go out with friends.

Globally, the lottery is not a new phenomenon although it is in the UK. Is it . you are objecting to or just the lottery lifestyle that is heavily marketed ?

I think the lottery is a part of the instant gratifacation society we've become. It offers the promise for instant wealth for very little effort and if you watch any of the lottery shows, (not the draws, but the ones where they examine the impact on peoples lives), you'll find that the biggest players of the lottery are those who are too lazy to get out there and work for a living.

It's easier to sit at home and hope it's going to be your lucky Wednesday or Saturday than it is to get up at 5 am, be at work by 6, do a 12 hour shift and take home a decent pay package.

And if you look at the lottery winners shows, you'll find that very few actually enjoy the money, they haven't a clue what to do with it and in many instances they lose it .

Many say they thought it would be a dream come true but the harsh reality is that it's a 1 off payment, so if you have £3 million and spend a million on a house, you'll find yourself spending about £1.2 million because of the fee's and taxes involved.

They find that a lavish and extravagant lifestyle is expensive and after a few years they start putting the cars and houses they bought on the market because they're out of cash. And when that cash is gone they're back to where they started.

Instant wealth from a single payment, (unless it's a huge amount, say £50 million plus so you'd have to really push it to spend just the interest on such a sum let alone dip into it), has far more drawbacks than it has advantages.

Credit card fraud is certainly too easy.

All forms of electronic transaction are easy frauds and people are stupid enough to habd over finanical details to any stranger. The "street surveys" who aren't "selling you anything" frequently end in some sort of financial transaction. And people hand over their details without thinking about what they're doing. So many now operate on "expected response"

Again, your conclusion contradicts your earlier reasoning. Here you are telling me that the nanny state makes us lazy, unthinking followers. But the examples you have quoted seem to suggest that the level of empowerment granted to the individual is now too great. Far easier to get what we want, when we want it and how we want it.

It is too great because the nanny state had bread a section of the human race which doesn't think, doesn't feel, only acts and gives the responses expected of it.

The fact that everything is so easily accessible does empower those who are unable to function as a meaningful and intelligent human being but allows them to be of the "I want" mentality because they're always being given by the state.

A few years ago my husbands workshop was cleared out, every tool, every screw, even sandpaper was take. When the police came round he mentioned if they came back he'd give them a good hiding.

One police officer suggested it wasn't worth his life or being arrested over a few grands worth of "stuff" but seemed to have missed the point that:

A) That was my husbands stuff he'd paid for with his money
B) By saying he'd be arrested, then he has no right at all to protect his wife and children against intruders who were not supposed to be there.

As I have written previously, my preference would be to make marriage more difficult. Maybe it would be valued more.

I think we agree on this point.

Never tried that.

Lots have and lots have failed to meet their own expectations.

[Abraham]

..

[Curvey_Brunette]

Yes I do. The UK is not a Utopia but it does have a functioning democratic process, an independent judiciary, a free Press, freedom of religion and association, a Human Rights Act and Armed Forces that do answer to Parliament. Also, criticising Government policy does not result in the speaker being hunted down by the secret police. Do you know differently ?

Lets examine your points 1 by 1

A functioning democratic process

More and more people have abstained from voting in the last 2 elections.

The choice is there but what's on offer isn't worth voting for which is why less and less people have voted. A functioning democratic society would have a better choice and would allow the people to make the decisions, not Europe.

An independent judiciary

That will always side with the person in authority.

Innocent people are being convicted and put into prison for crimes they didn't commit based on hypothetical and circumstantial evidence.

And when those people are found innocent, they're A) Not entitled to any compensation for the time they've lost and if they are lucky enough to get compensation, they are "charged" for their stay in prison even though the "justice system" put them there.

A free Press

The press is the puppet of the politicians which is why most of the political parties have a "spin doctor"

freedom of religion and association

Wicca & Duridism are not 'legal religions' Wiccan's and Druids have no rights under the law to practice their faith or belief.

When the Census was done in 2000/2001 people got into trouble for naming "Jedi" as their religion.

If you want to be religious to have to pick a religion that's recognised.

A Human Rights Act

An act which works in the favour of the criminal because he/she has been 'deprived' as a child.

Honest and hard working Brits who live in their own country have any complaint continually rejected if they dare to speak their mind.

Armed Forces that do answer to Parliament.

The idea behind armed forced was to protect the freedom and liberties of its fellow countryman. To protect the country and to resist any hostile acts.

These days they're out there getting blown up and snipered over oil.

They're poorly equipped and badly managed.

Also, criticising Government policy does not result in the speaker being hunted down by the secret police. Do you know differently ?

I can't say how I know this, but I assure you I do.

Many "political prisoners" are sectioned under the mental health act as lunatics.

One case was of a man, (who I had contact with), who told me stories of his "adventures" and I have to confess even I thought he was a lunatic because his accounts were worthy of James Bond.

It turned out that the authorities were looking for him and when they fond him he was 'spirited away' Nobody knew where he had gone or who had taken him but the fact is he was taken never the less.

When I attempted to follow up where he had gone I was told to "Shut up and not ask questions" by senior management who had very little to do with the actual running of the psychiatric wards but deemed it appropriate to intervene.

Now that's just one instance I was personally involved in, so if it's happened once, how do we, (the people), know this sort of thing isn't happening all the time?

Racism is not about how one thinks, it is about how one acts. Try adding the word "Jew" to that list and then change "my home" to "Germany". Check the history books circa 1933. Genocide is an ugly word.

I'm not suggesting for a second that any person of a different creed or colour or even religion should be attacked in any way shape, or form.

But, I see nothing wrong with flying the Union Jack, a St. George’s flag or the English flag, but plenty of football supporters were threatened by the authorities for doing such a thing as it might upset someone.

I read in one instance during the last world cup, a man was charged, (later the case was dropped), because a Muslim complained he was flying the Union Jack.

You have the right to admit or not admit anybody to your home. It becomes an offence if you try to enforce this in a public area. This would seem reasonable, unless of course you believe that 1980s South Africa or 1960s deep South America are social models by which to live ?

No you don't, not any more.

As related, that woman was charged with some race crime because she wouldn't let 2 council officials into her home.

Had the other junior offical have been white, do you think she would have been arrested? I don't, I think the officer would have been told to grow up and stop behaving like a cry baby.

Without seeing a transcript of the trial/investigation it would be impossible to comment. There may have been some racial motivation or it may be, as you say, an example of local authority madness.

That's the sort of thing people have to deal with day after day.

When I was with BT Internet as my ISP, I was threatened with legal action and even had a telling off from the police because I couldn't understand a word the Indian call centre worker was saying. I explained this and politely asked to speak to someone who spoke 'better English' (not unreasonable I thought since I wasn't making progress and couldn't have made progress with the initial person I spoke to)

I was told that was a "racist thing" for me to say!

Is this your observation or a stated fact?

It doesn't take much observing when it's in both pictures and sound and is on the television.

I related what I have seen many times.

I have yet to see a non-UK, (drunk or not), treat in the same way as a white person. I have yet to see a non-white pinned to the floor by several officers but I've seen it plenty of times happen to whites.

So at the end of the day, what I have seen, (all be it on television but in a documentary style program), is supposed to be a real account of what was seen by the film crew.

And if there are non-UK out there being attacked by the police in such a way, why are all the non-white clips of those events never shown? Is the suggest here that white English males are more prone to violence than an a non-UK person?

The UK has the second highest intake of refugees/asylum seekers/economic migrants in the Western world - behind the US. The UK is the second highest exporter of weapons to the world - behind the US. Weapons = Wars = Dead People & Displaced People. What goes around comes around.

I agree entirely with what you're saying. I do believe that if you make a mess it's up to you to clean it up. That's fair enough, but at the end of the day any immigrant into any country, (so this statement would also apply to me if I were to go live in another country), should not be given preferential treatment over the natural residents of that country.

I'm not suggesting they should be treat harder or dismissed more easily, or that the natural residents should get preferential treatment, but I am suggesting that giving everyone a fair chance is essential.

While many natural UK residents - adults and children - live in poverty and depravation, many immigrants are treat very differently.

A friend of mine is a professional landlord and has made a killing packing immigrants into his housing stock. The housing benefit system pays him triple the rent he was charging when he had UK people staying there.

According to the fair rent assessor, one house he rents out is worth £62.43 a week in rent, he's now paid 197.23 a week. That's for just 1 house he has.

In short, they moved out, the immigrants moved in and he's doubled the rent. His justifaction for this is because his Landlords insurance has doubled due to the fact that may of his houses have been trashed.

He moans and groans about it to the authorities and yet rubs his hands together at the money pouring into his bacnk account each month. What he pays out in insurance amounts to around a single days worth of rent from all his houses.

Marriage and divorce were once administered by Church law, both were difficult to achieve. As social attitudes matured, these human interactions were removed from the remit of the Church and placed into the domain of the civil courts. The first thing Parliament looked at was divorce, particularly how to make it easier. This they did although the new laws tended to favour men - women did not have the vote after all. 1n 1923, this discrimination was ended - women were also allowed to sue for divorce on the same basis as men. Today marriage and divorce are common place. This evolution was intended, it was not accidental.

Although the history is fascinating, that does elude from the question of why does marriage no longer mean for life? Why is fidelity and commitment such a rare commodity these days?

Before I got married, (and a couple of times since, but never on my own. My husband has ALWAYS been there), I had my fun. I screwed around a lot and had a few one night stands, (in the sense we went on a date a few times, we went to bed after several dates then parted company and never dated again), and on a few occasions I may have given someone a BJ or a hand job.

I'm not shamed of what I did and I was always particular enough never to have caught anything, not even crabs. But once I married I made a decision, the second I said "Yes" when my husband proposed I was saying to him and everyone else that I want to spend the rest of my life with him and only him.

We have our up's and downs, we fight, we argue like everyone else and on one occasion I threw a coffee cup at him because he pissed me off that much. Life and relationships aren't a bed of roses all of the time and despite that, I have no want, need or desire to divorce him and since the divorce papers haven't been served on me, I'll assume he feels the same way.

I'm not packing my bags and leaving, he's not either. Whatever problems we have we work through and to me that's what marriage is all about. But a lot of people seem to expect it to be some sort of fluffy, soap opera type of thing that's always perfect.

And before you suggest I've never been really pissed off with my husband, there have been times I've actually plotted his death, what I'll do with the body and how I'll explain his absence. Yes he can piss me off that much

Men have little imagination.

If they weren't so personal, I'd invite you to have a look at the imagination of my husband via 600 hours of edited footage, (probably 1,000 unedited), and over 300,000 photographs.

And men do have an imagination when it comes to hurting others. Look at some of the torture devices and techniques used by medieval man when someone was accused of being a witch.

From that man has had the imagination to follow his quest for blood by creating nuclear weapons. I doubt anything the witch hunters and torturers of medieval man did compared to the slow agonising death of radiation poisoning.

What a shame "man" can't apply himself to something as simple as a neutral conversation

I fully agree. ADHD is a convenient contemporary label used to cover a multitude of ills. In addition to this, pumping children full of ritalin is a barbarism that should be consigned to history.

Don't be silly! Consigning Ritalin to history would only confirm that we have become a nation who cannot control their children.

My eldest son was funny the other day, we were in a shop and a boy of about my sons age wanted something. His mother said "No" and he kicked off big time. He punched and kicked her, screamed at the top of his voice and when this didn't work he bit her.

My son asked the woman if she had taught him, (her son), to do that? I added that if he tried such a thing with me he may as well be dead because both and I his father would make his life a misery.

My son knows if he behaved like that he'd lose his computer, game cube, play station, DVD, video, television and other toys and he'd have to earn them back 1 by 1

We don't have to hit our children, it's very rare that they push it that far, but when they do they get a single hit on the arse, (otherwise known as a "Dad smack), which is very painful. My husband does this flick thing so it's like a towel flick only much smarter.

Now, if we can instil discipline on our children, why can't other people deal with their children?

Are we special or something???

There is no profit in nuclear war - unlike conventional conflicts where it is possible to sell guns to both sides. Currently China is doing this in Sudan.

If you don't control anything there's no profit anyway. So if you have the means to hit that button and basically end all life on earth, why not do it? You're not going to be any worse off are you?

The UK used to do it in India. I do not believe that any one person could ignite a nuclear exchange as the result of a tantrum. Too many of the people around him - or her - would likely mutiny, if only to protect their own financial interests.

Did you see that film with Densel Washington and Gene Hackman in it? The one about the nuclear sub which lost contact after it had been given the order to commence a nuclear strike?

Well, that film was sort of based on truth.

Menworth Hill and Filingdales in North Yorkshire have, several times, had us all within 20 seconds of a launch. At Menworth Hill it was a component that cost just 10p that had failed.

At Filingdales someone had left a "battle tape" running.

Regrettably men have always harrassed women. The technology has improved, allowing them to partake in this activity more efficiently.

cient unless your goal is to get on as many ignore lists as possible.

I've had my fair share of guys who won't take no for an answer and who have got pushy. One night after work I met my husband in a pub we owned, (the manager we had was ill), so he, (my husband), was working behind the bar.

I was sat alone and a couple of lads came up to me, one of them told me I had beautiful eyes but they didn't reveal what I was thinking. I told him I was thinking I'm happily married to the man behind the bar.

For some odd reason they put down their half drain pint glasses and left.

I get the feeling that the less intelligent males who infest chat rooms looking for a wank are similar to those two lads. When a man was involved they scarpered. Yet when hiding behind a computer it's easier to hurl abuse.

Indeed, the Internet is a good example of technology outpacing the law designed to regulate it. That men can behave in this way without fear leads me to believe that the law, in certain areas, is becoming irrelevant.

To be honest I think the Net should be opened up completely with the exception of kiddie porn which should be stamped out.

But there's another 'liberty' removed from us and a type of 'enforcement' which isn't needed. A lot is put into "child protection" issues relating to the Internet.

So now just talking to anyone under 18 could be construed as "grooming"

I freely admit I've talked to some kids as young as 12 in the past. I saw nothing wrong with it and I treat the conversation in the same way I've talk to my son's friends or children of my friends.

I do feel a bit of appropriate adult interaction with children is a must for their development. How can they relate to any adult who is constantly talking at them, talking down to them, shouting and screaming at them, telling them what to do, how to do it and when to do it?

But these days society in general has become a nation of PedoFinder Generals (reference Monkey Dust which is no longer shown sadly)

I too query such vernacular when I encounter it though I believe that this new text short-hand is the product of youth culture spilling over into the mainstream. Is there really a difference between "h r u?" and "how are you?". Both appear to be rather banal opening statements.

Well yes there is a difference.

To me, "h r u" reflects the person at the keyboard has a low attention span.

However, "How are you" is easy to read and is well set out.

I know it's a banal question, it's a hand over question really which is supposed to produce the expected response of "Fine, how are you?" to which the initiator can say "Fine" and then 'hand over' the lead of the conversation to the person approached.

I always answer "Fine" which deliberately increases the pressure the person approaching me puts himself or herself under. In 99% of cases the pressure is too much and I'm told I don't want to chat so they'll leave me to it.

In a nightclub - which I have not attended for several years - I would not have approached you and spoken. Here my meaning can be clearly expressed without both the awkwardness of body language and the danger of misinterpretation.

Well, in my experience of being chatted up, what usually happens is I'm stood there with a couple of friends. Either I or my friends notice someone looking at me. If I see them and I smile at them and hold eye contact for a second or two to give an indication I'm interested.

In about 80% of cases, the person smiling at me comes over and says hello.

However, if it was someone I didn't like the look of I wouldn't smile and I would deliberately look away.

If I've bneen approached by someone who hasn't been noticed, if I liked the look of them I'd accept a drink, if I didn't I'd decline.

It really is so simple

It is the difference between reality and fantasy and the blurring of the demarcation between the two.

Too many people are trying to be what they think they should be rather than what they are.

Therein lays the problem me thinks.

That would not surprise me at all. Just a necessary expense, a bit like the pub, the betting shop, Sky TV, McDonalds etc.

There was a local news item on the other day, basically it was asking if the lottery was .. Out of 1,000 people surveyed, 78% played the lottery and 92% didn't, (that's DID NOT), consider it ..

The problem with instant wealth is simple: it will not be valued because it was never earnt. Therefore it is likely to be spent - on the usual nouveau riche accessories. The parallel can be drawn with marriage. If it is easy then its value is diminished. In fact, this principle can be extended to all human endeavour.

But are we really growing and developing when we have such an attitude to life in general?

Everything has to be easy and disposable otherwise it's not worth the effort.

Is that how it should be?

Reformed confidence trickster Frank Abagnale (catch me if you can) once commented that something like 8 out of 10 people will happily provide you with enough financial information to rob them - if asked. Street surveys prove this point all the time.

And why do a lot of people just hand over personal and private details like that?

Are they putting something in the water so we'll all repsond like little robots to asked questions just because someone is wearing a uniform or carries a clip board?

I like that "Real Hussle" on BBC3, they had a piece on recently where 2 guys dressed as security men and were doing "security checks" on people in some place or other.

I don't care where I am or who it is, if I'm stopped and someone asks to search me then I want to know why and what I have done to cause their attention.

If it comes to it, they can escort me off the premises, but if they touch me I will make a complaint to the police and their seniors. I may even take civil action.

Unless you are entering a building where you're going to be searched before you go in, as far as I'm concerned nobody has the right to look through my pockets or my bag.

But many people, (as the Real Hussle proves), don't have the confidence to assert themselves, they are subservient and compliant instead of questioning.

The nanny state will be required whilst individuals want to sue tabacco manufacturers for contracting cancer, whilst others reach for their solicitors because eating McDonalds three times a week has made them obese, whilst some see it as their public duty to profit from connecting their big toes with every raised paving stone in the locality.

Isn't passing off all responsibility for your actions in that way immature and child like?

Nobody is made to smoke, smokers smoke because they choose to to begin with and then become addicted and so find it hard to stop.

I'm sure nobody on the planet has ever been forced to repetedly eat Big Macs at gunpoint.

If you look at residential streets built since the late 70's, the footpaths are on the whole are tarmac to prevent flag stones being an excuse to sue.

It doesn't matter the person suing wasn't careful and wasn't watching what they were doing, it has to be the councils fault so they're going to pay.

The "I want" mentality can't figure out that while they're taking a grand plus in compensation, that money was allocated for something else and now to pay for that something else the council tax has to go up.

They don't realise that for every £1 they take in compensation, that's a £1 away from the buget to put the roads right, to light the streets, to empty the bins, etc.

I believe Lincolnshire council are running £3 million in the red at the moment and government funding of £18 million has been allocated for next year. And where does that £18 come from??? Us! The tax payer, so taxes go up, things get more expensive .........

And all because someone couldn't be bothered to pick their feet up!

You have my every genuine sympathy. When tackling an intruder in your home, the law allows for "reasonable force". In centuries past, killing the intruder was an approved sanction although more recently - in the 1960s - a duty of care was provided to anybody breaking into your home. Criminals have righs too. Tony Martin - who shot and killed an intruder - was given a life sentence and jailed although later released on appeal. The trial served to highlight a contentious issue, namely the futility of arguing legal theory when the police are 45 minutes away and unlikely to respond.

In my opinion, Tony Martin is a bad example because he shot someone in the back while they leaving through the window.

As far as I'm concerned, should we find someone in the house then he or she is dead meat.

If I'm alone I have access to firearms and I won't hesitate to use them to protect myself and my children. I have no idea at all who that person is or what they are capable of and so I would genuinely fear for my life.

In such circumstances I would probably be considered as "justified" in my actions.

However, my husband is a martial arts instructor and full contact tournament fighter on the mixed martial arts fighting circuits.

What do you think would happen if he killed someone in our home?

Do you think he would be given the tea and sympathy I'd be given or do you think he'd be arrested, charged and put before the court on a murder charge faster than his head could spin?

The law should be changed to allow everyone to protect their homes by whatever means available. If someone you don't know is in your home in the dead of night and wasn't invited there, then, in my opinion they have lost every right they ever had.

Going back to Tony Martin, I watched the program they did on him and the shooting. I understand why he did what he did.

However, the one thing that stuck me was an interview with an ex-burglar who was now reformed and helping at some sort of youth centre. He said that the Tony Martin shooting scared the crap out of him and if people were armed or able to beat the living crap out of intruders in their home, he'd have given up his life of crime many years before he did.

The trouble is, if an intruder trips over and hurts himself in your home, he's got the right to sue you for every penny you have even though he had no right at all to be there.

Curvey_Brunette

Chatter

 

Posts: 298

Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:35 pm

Location: North Yorkshire

Top

[Abraham]

..

[Curvey_Brunette]

Hi Abraham

Choice is the principle. Whether you like the choice you are presented with is quite another thing. Certain strata within the Council of the European Union are very undemocratic. I am referring to the grouping called COREPER

(Permanent Representative Committee). These guys wield considerable influence yet I cannot vote for any of them. My own view is that tighter European integration is inevitable, therefore the UK would do well to look more favourably upon it - and seek to take a bigger role influencing it.

But how can you or I or anyone have any 'choice' while unvoted people in charge have so much influence and dictate what is and what is not?

So who would you believe ? An arresting officer or somebody caught breaking and entering the property next door ?

It would have to depend on the evidence.

It's well known that Magistrates very rarely go against the word of a police officer.

About 15 years ago my husband was convicted for driving a car on a MOTORCYCLE ONLY licence. A licence which you cannot get!

On appeal the matter was more thoroughly looked into and it was found DVLA had made a mistake and my husband did in fact have a full motorcycle and car licence and his HGV Class 1 entitlement was given back to him.

For the last 12 years, (when we moved to our current house), my husband has been driving on a provisional car licence because when he got his licence back after changing address DVLA issued a provisional licence.

When DVLA was challenged he was threatened with the police as no record could be found of him ever holding a licence previously and no record of a him passing a driving test could be found.

He has been stopped several times on this licence and the thing is, the police have never bothered to check, all they were interested in was 'Is the car taxed? Is the car insured? Is the car MOT'ed?'

I myself have lost my full bike licence in the same way.

So given the mess that the DVLA database is currently in, there is reasonable doubt and so no conviction shoud be made. However, people in similar situations are beoing convicted every day for licence offenses.

That's just 1 small aspect of the mess the UK is in. The whole point of the driving licence has been defeated by the inaccuracy of the databases.

We've all done it, hit a wrong key on a keyboard, deleted something we didn't mean to delete. It happens but that doesn't stop the justice system from convicting innocent people.

Our criminal justice system is very far from perfect. But until somebody shows me a replacement that makes more sense, I will maintain my allegiance to it. I accept that innocent people have been jailed and also hanged for crimes they did not commit - the Guildford Four and Timothy Evans, respectively - are prolific examples. I do not subscribe to Capital Punishment therefore do not have to defend the latter example. However, I do not believe mistakes to be widespread. Most are correctly charged, convicted or acquitted.

The principle of the justice system is sound but over the years it has been turned on its head.

Even though the law states that you are innocent until proven guilty the fact remains you are treat as guilty and will never be proved innocent.

A "Not guilty" verdict may allow freedom, but it doesn't mean you are innocent, it means you PROBABLY are innocent.

I believe you are referring to one of the alleged Bridgewater killers ? This is a single example, you cannot apply this reasoning to every miscarriage of justice that has ever occurred.

Why not? The Birmingham 6, the Guilford 4, etc, miscarriages of 'justice' are to be found all over the place and the fact is, it doesn't take a lot of digging to find such instances.

Magistrates, Judges, Clerks to the court, the police, all the authorities have seen too much.

I have been involved in child abuse cases over the years. Although I'm not a child psychologist, my qualifications specialise me in behavioural psychology and a massive part of this training deals in forensic psychology which addresses behaviour patterns, voice tone, body language, eye contact and such like. It's a whole series of patterns that can be seen and recorded.

One case I was involved in I was asked to view the interview tapes and assess what the accused was saying. What I saw was a 3 hour interview without any breaks that was more like an interrogation than an interview.

The police officers involved went into that interview with the firm and fixed view that the accused was guilty.

On the day of trial I was asked to attend and after 5 hours of waiting around I was told the case was over and I wasn't needed. The outcome was the little boy who was "abused" had fallen off his bike while his dad was teaching him to ride it and because he had brittle bone disease, (which had never been noticed until the time of the "injury"), the allegation of abuse was unfounded and so the case was dropped.

The accused still lost his job, his wife, his children, his family and all of his friends. His life was destroyed because of a stupid allegation made by someone who has simply seen too much, saw an allegation and based his/her opinions on what they had seen in the past.

Every single genuinely abused child comes into their minds, (I point out I'm not saying child abuse doesn't go on, it does but it's nowhere near as rife as the NSPCC, social services and the police would have us all believe), and that is that whole foundation for the accused guilt, not the evidence before them.

He may have been discharged as "not guilty" but he's still serving a life sentence for something he did not do.

And what about the more recent cases? Angela Cannings and the others, all mothers accused by a single man with enough power to rival god who shredded documents that countered his opinions.

We also are now in a situation where the police do not need a reason to arrest you, they can arrest you at any time for no reason other than they're bored with nothing to do.

And you think this is justice?

Just because a case isn't reported in the papers or on the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Often cases are seen as so "normal" they're not worthy of news reports.

Quite often in cases involving children the family court seal the proceedings, this is often followed by reporting restrictions being imposed in the Magistrates and Crown courts.

You have to ask why it's such a closed arena and where the justice is for families that are accused of some sort of abuse?

Is that not contradictory ? Having a spin doctor would indicate the opposite was true, that politicians are keen to keep the Press on-side. Think New Labour, think Rupert Murdoch's News International titles and, of course, not forgetting the Daily Mail.

As you say, the politicians are keen to have the press on side and most of the time they have the press on side.

It's a question of benefit and manipulation. How can the press be manipulated to the benefit of the politician or the party?

Sleeze sells newspapers and it's of course in a papers best interest to have "exclusive sleeze" where those in charge can be "seen" to be doing something about their renegade.

The fact is, it's all for show and it's all about getting into the news as many times as possible.

The majority of votes go on the 2 main party's, why? Well, because they're the ones most prominent in the news. You might get the odd mention of another party, but the coverage of them is nowhere near the amount of coverage the two main ones get.

It's a sort of subliminal pre-programming. When people rad or watch the news, they've usually been doing something. It doesn't matter what they've been doing. If it's a good thing they'll be on a high and feeling good about life. So, if you can get yourself in the news enough and create the association with those feelings then you're onto a winner.

It's like music, everyone has a favourite track that brings back happy memories, the news is along the same lines only on a different level.

Do you know of individuals practising Wicca and Druidism who have been persecuted in the UK ? The legal right may not exist (I would have to check but not at this late hour), but I am certain there is no law actively prohibiting it.

But some of the practices are prohibited and neither 'religion' is legally recognised.

I do not believe anybody got into trouble for this. "Jedi" was a very popular choice in my part of the world, as I recall. I am not a Jedi by the way.

I'm sure around the time there was a piece in several of the daily newspapers about "Jedi" being put as a religion and because of this those who put it were 'threatened' with legal action as it was considered they had failed to fill out the form.

Do you have an example of this ?

Yeah, read any offical document that lists "religion"

I can't say I've ever filled out a form where Wicca and Druidism were listed among the options for religions. Have you?

The HRA 1998 was the UK's long awaited ratification of the Treaty of Rome 1950 that first introduced the notion of Human Rights. The UK was one of the first signitories but found many excuses not to integrate it into UK law. Even today, the complete list of articles is not fully recognised in this country. For example, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights grants you - as an EU citizen - the right to respect for your privacy. The UK has no UK privacy law, therefore the free Press often quote this, together with Article 10 allowing them free expression, as justification for any scurrilous headline that they wish to print.

How does this change the fact that quite often it's the wrong people who are able to 'implement' the HRA to their own advantage and those that have a genuine right are often denied?

Certainly there are some unusual interpretations of what is, and what is not, acceptable. I see in the news tonight that a BA employee has been censured for displaying the emblem of a cross. As a practising Christian, living in an essentially Christian country, I find this a very unusual stance to take, bordering upon insulting.

But this is what I'm getting at.

Why are flags, crosses, or even words so offensive to some people?

My husband has a lot of friends 'Up West' in London and often goes to see his friend Allen at his club. My husband is the ONLY white guy in there, if any white dared to show their face they'd get torn to pieces unless they were with someone known.

I've been to the club with him and I have heard my husband called "Honkey, Snowflake, Mighty White" and other such "racist" names and he's called them "niggers, black bastards, coons, etc"

It's the way they talk! It's how they show affection to each other. But if they go on the street or to another club it's always first name terms between them because how they normally talk to each other normally is offensive to someone.

As someone who was does not support the various military adventures in the middle east, I fully agree with your point. Certainly the body count was a lot lower before with the previous regime. The legal evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq just does not exist. One can only draw the conclusion that there were other motivations.

The single motive is oil. Nothing more, nothing less.

I read somewhere they're currently patting themselves on the back because they have found an oil field in Norway that they estimate will last 200 years.

The fact is fossil fuels are called fossil fuels because they take millions of years to evolve into a substance that can be refined to make the oil based products we use, motor oil for engines, petrol, diesel, etc.

They appear to have forgot the maths.

I believe the term is "section". You are suggesting that this is a mechanism used to confine political subversives ? I find that difficult to believe but if you know this to be true then it is indeed a source of considerable concern.

Under section 18/28, (I forget which and I'm too lazy to look it up), of the mental health act 199? a CPN can hold you for 48 hours for "assessment" if that person deems you as a risk to yourself and/or others.

Before that, you needed the signature of the 'patients' GP, a social worker and a psychiatrist to get a section order.

You wouldn't believe the number of times this act is used on people who are understandably upset over something or other.

Once you're in that system it's incredibly difficult to get out of it and as with alcoholism you're never "cured" of a mental health illness, you're always being "managed"

In 2004, there was talk of giving this power to psychologist. I retired in 2002 so didn't keep up with that. But if people like myself are now able to section people so easily, why is it so difficult to believe that on occasion when the wards get someone who claims to work for the government actually did work for the government?

98% Of claims are of course untrue, but what about that 2%?

Football fans have been a special case in recent decades. Unfortunately a vociferous minority have adopted an agenda of violence, racism and extreme nationalism as a means of demonstrating their "support" for the players on the pitch. A typically English problem. The Union Jack is not necessarily being targeted, just that these chaps have used it as their emblem.

I do agree that some will use whatever to try and incite racial hatred. But there's a huge difference between some tattooed, crew cutted member of the NF flies the flag and accusing some pub landlord of the same thing.

That's the thing these days, 1 moron spoils it for the rest.

You are correct. My earlier draft of that response did include a list of exclusions that you quite rightly allude to.

And to think you lost it

Sorry to persist on this point, but without knowing the details I cannot give an appropriate answer. The official may have been racially abused. Or he may not.

During interview, she said she did not want 2 men in here home as she was a lone female and felt threatened. She also said this during the trial.

The race card was played because the person complaining was black.

I am sorry to hear that. I use BT Internet and find their customer service operatives helpful and attentive. But you were not guilty of any racism.

Maybe BT has improved. We've run a satellite Internet connection for the past 3 years so we don't need a BT phone any more and don't have any land line telephones.

When you see a black man, are you more inclined to feel threatened than when you see a white man ? It is a common perception, but not well founded when you consider that white males are responsible for most of the violent crime in the UK.

To be honest, no.

I couldn't care less if someone is black, white, Asian, Pakistani, Indian, Greek, Mexican or whatever.

I have no real reason to fear anyone who is different to me therefore I have no reason to treat them any differently to my own nationality and race.

But the police know if an immigrant made a brutality complaint it would be taken a lot further and looked into more seriously than if a white made the same complaint.

In my opinion, when arresting people and when 'interviewing' people the police use far more brute force against natural UK residents then they ever will an immigrant.

Probably, if Home Office statistics are anything to go by.

I've never been one for "government cheese"

Absolutely. And this is much to your credit.

Yeah, but it won't get me anywhere

Poverty and deprivation has no colour nor culture nor creed.

It does when it comes to living in the country you were born in. A country that is supposed to be civilised, a country that is supposed to give a Godo quality of life and decent living standards.

I am starting to see a computer as a basic home essential. So many companies are turning to selling their good on the Internet at a much reduced price to what it is in the shops.

Millions of people have "bad credit" and so cannot get access to credit cards, debit cards or even bank accounts. OK so it's their own fault because they spent beyond their means, but this is a product of advertising.

You must have this, every home should have that. You must wear this, etc

People aren't being educated properly, they're not being taught how to manage money, how to live a decent life, how to be a productive member of society. They're spending from the age of 3/4 until 16 in a school being told what to do, when to do it, how to do it. Any suggestion of thought, independence and imagination is stifled out of them.

The UK at this time is run completely on debt. Mortgages, car finance, catalogues, credit cards, loans, over drafts, massive amounts of debt and all because the basic weren't taught from an early age.

And yet someone who is from another country appears to be more 'deserving' than someone who was born and raised in their own country.

That sounds daft but I completely believe it.

The really stupid thing is if he cleared out the immigrants and when back to UK folk, he'd go back to getting the lower rent payment!

The reason for my history lesson was to illustrate the point that the ease at which marriage can be entered into (and exited) is not an accident. The law has progressively sought to reflect changing social attitudes - not shape them. For example, civil partnerships are now a legal commodity, introduced largely because a very significant section of society was being excluded from a marital construct. This is discrimination. But I do agree with you, marriage should be for life and divorce only found as a last resort. It is only my opinion.

But the law itself shapes our social attitudes because of its direct influence.

An example of this would be in the late 180''s to the early 1900's it was legal to have sex with a 12 year old girl. You could marry her and have her as your wife. She could bear your children and not an eye would be battered.

Then the law changed and the age of consent was put up to 16, and so we now find ourselves reading with disgust the stories of "paedophiles" who have sex with 13/14/15 year old girls.

So if they raise the age of consent again to 18, in 50 years our social attitudes to sleeping with a 16/17 year old will be the same as they are today over sleeping with a 13/14/15 year old.

That takes integrity, and I salute you for it.

I'd call it more of a sense of personal responsibility and commitment myself

I have witnessed this in others. But the sin is not having the thought, it is how one acts upon the thought.

We all feel like we want to kill someone at times. I feel it's OK to feel like that, but never OK to act on it. Not even play act on it or go so far in setting it up.

Yes, you have a point there. But then hurting another is very easy to do. That men are so good at doing so does not necessary require any imagination - quite the contrary.

Oh it does!

Women these days are way stronger than most men. We're used to the abuse, the comments and such like that men can give. They've got to step it up a bit and come up with something original to stun us

I agree with you. Nuclear weapons are an abomination and a strain on the public purse. I prefer the Swiss model for self-defence. No nuclear weapons, train everybody with some form of National Service. If any nation state wishes to invade this alpine sanctuary then the Swiss government can marshal an army of 10 million men to defend. Maybe the
nuclear option is a demonstration of international manhood ?

Now there's a scary thought, a mass hard on!

I really do believe that someone will be screwed up enough to one day push that button and get his rocks off.

Give us a chance, we are simple folk who cannot hold more than one thought in our heads at any given time. You know, multitasking and all that ? Men have no aptitude for this at all. "Neutral" would involve holding a second thought in our minds. Not going to happen.

I'm soooooooooooooo glad I have the husband I have lol

Well, I do not believe in hitting children at all. UK law is moving towards defending this although still has some way to go. Sweden and, I believe, Germany have also outlawed the practise. From statistics I have seen, violence towards children has fallen accordingly in these countries. The UK has one of the poorest records in this respect, routinely attracting critistm from UN bodies charged with maintaining the rights of the child. I have never felt the urge to hit mine. "Violence is the last word of the illiterate, and also the first".

I would agree with you if smacking was always the first resort.

But with us it is the very last resort and it is rationalised with them as to why they have been smacked.

I think in the smacking debate, this is what's missing. A lot of parents go for the smack without any explanation as to why the child has been smacked.

With us, we go through why they have been smacked and that if they continue to behave as they have, then we will smack harder. We have never yet had to re-smack any of our children after that initial smack.

And as I pointed out, they lose toys and privileges before we get to the smacking stage.

But how would you discipline an out of control child without resorting to smacking as a very last resort? There has to be some live threat, something the kids really don't like that WILL happen if they continue to misbehave.

Because there is so much profit still to be had by those in charge. If that were to change, then the status quo could easily change as well. Granted, the human impulse appears to be heading for nuclear armageddon - but - I do not believe it is in anyway part of God's plan. So I remain optimistic.

Optermism is fine for those who don't realise that everything that has a beginning has to have an end.

The human race will die out eventually, how of when it a matter of time.

Crimson Tide. I liked that film and did, coincidently, view it just a couple of days ago. It is a conflict between the unquestioning follower in a position of authority and the chap who applies reason and logic to the unknown quantity. In my opinion it also challenges racial stereotypes albeit in a rather heavy-handed way. Particularly the reference at the end to the white spanish horses - if you remember that ?

I think you missed the point I was getting at. As a result of a similar incident with the US navy, now only the president can launch the missiles. This means he pushes a button and away the missiles go to their targets and the subs themselves have no real control over the missiles they carry.

That is very, very troubling. However, I would hope that diplomatic channels provide an important safeguard.

Don't you find it alarming that because of a 10p component failing or because someone had left a tape running that missiles were prepared, silos were opened and the whole of the armed forces were mobilised to within 20 seconds of the first strike launch?

I thought you viewed the internet as a primary source of social decay ? Deregulating it - which it mostly is anyway - would surely expedite that process. On the subject of children, it is one reason I use BT Internet. They have a particularly good record of addressing the problem, more so than many other ISPs who would do well to shoulder their responsibilities more deliberately.

I do think it's a primary source in the decay of basic social skills, arming people with the basic knowlege of appropriate things to say and what is inappropriate to say.

The problem with the Internet is the inconsistency.

For example, I've written a story on here loaded with sexual content. That's fine and acceptable. Here, if I say "F***" it's starred out, on other forums it's left in place, on other forums even using the word starred out is worthy of a ban.

So there is the potential to learn through experience what can and cannot be said from one site to another. But the majopity of people are so unsure, they justify what they say and how they behave on "We'll it's OK for me to do it there and they don't mind"

Some sites go OTT, other sites leave members to it. It's these swings and round abouts that drag the Internet down.

No, but then I am a purist and see too many distractions in this world to diminish character and responsibility.

Where's the character in walking out on your marriage & children? Where's the sense of responsibility in that?

(That's not a "you" specifically by the way, that's a "you" the general public)

Easy I can live with. Disposable - no. Would you really want to live in a cave instead of your home ? Would you want to forego your creature comforts in favour of a life of austerity ? Me neither.

That's fine and dandy if you're willing to work for what you have. But when it all comes too easily there's no challenge, there's little purpose and so people get bored.

Then they lose what they had and realise what they had was brilliant.

Yes, you hit the nail squarely on the head. It is a trust thing. We identify authority in certain ways. A uniform might be one example, or a happy smiling personality could be another. An assertive voice. Once our trust has been won, we are inclined to be reckless and do as we are told.

I'll never understand why trust is given so easily to strangers. It's like "instant friends" they're only your friend when you have something hey want.

Friendship and trust takes years to build, not minutes.

I never carry my driving licence or any other form of secure ID.

If I go to a restaurant for a meal, or I buy something from a shop on one of my cards I want to see my card all of the time. I'm not stupid enough to hand it over for someone to swipe.

I'm the same with my personal details. Happily our drive is about a mile long, (we have over 800 acres of land), so it's rare we get unsolicited visitors but I have been stopped in the street before and before I utter a word about myself I want to know who the person is, why they're asking, why they need my details. In short I'll ask about 100 questions and I will interrogate that person.

Sadly, not many will, the majority submissively comply.

A friend of mine was describing this program to me earlier today. I do not yet have the additional TV channels so have not seen it. Sounds very interesting though.

If ou do get the chance to watch it, I sugest you do. Of course having the advantage of knowing what's happening is a con maks what they're doing all the more transparent, but it doesn't change the fact their "vitcms" (who always get their money back), haven't a clue and it's not until they asked "Why did you do that?" it occurs to them how stupid they've been.

I confess to being guilty of this myself at times. Being assertive may also lead to greater cynicism. It is what age brings.

You don't have to be cynical. Without going on a long and no doubt boring lecture on the subject, people are basically in 1 of 3 catagories, Absolutist, Evaluative and conformist.

An absolutist will basically hold their own opinions and values no matter what evidence is put before them. Obviously they're very argumentative because they tend to belie.

I'm an evaluist because I question everything. I want rational and logical evidence to support what I am being told.

Then the conformist believes everything he/she is told and is very fond of "government cheese"

The label on the front of the packet "Smoking Kills" does it for me. Maybe it is guidance that only I can see because most smokers I watch take no notice. I have never smoked by the way, so am preaching from an ignorant soapbox on this one.

I'm one of those annoying people who can take it or leave it when it comes to smoking tobacco and 'herbs'

I have a choice if I want to smoke or not. Nobody makes me smoke, I do it because I make that choice. A "Smoking kills" warning doesn't have any impact on me. It's a great one for the anti-smokers to bleat, but to anyone who smokes full time, it's just part of the packet.

Not that I know of, but I do not eat big Macs either. Aren't I good ?

So you don't eat "junk food" and you don't smoke. Perhaps your vices are in the bedroom and down the pub?

I wish a few more people down here would take your advice.

It's not really advice, it's forward thinking.

Throw a pebble in a pond and eventually the ripples with reach the sides. And if the pebble and ripples are big enough, you'll cause the pond to collapse .... No more pond!

Yes, and I hear also that there are plans to surcharge us for the collection of refuse as well.

Well, we are producing so much rubbish that it's thought that 2 bin rounds a week would have to be looked into.

It is the economics of inflation unfortunately.

It's not inflation, it's wasted financial resources. Mainly on those who think it's worth a few quid to sue the council because they can't be bothered to pick up their feet.

The costs of such cases don't stop at the cost of the pay out to the "victim", the lawyers have to be paid, all the admi staff, if the claim is successful, the 'victims' solicitors costs have to be paid, court costs. A £1,000 claim against the council will eat into their budget by as much as £25,000.

I know, and his lying about it ultimately convicted him. He was not released because of a charge-of-heart, more due to diminished responsibility, albeit temporary.

Tony Martin had simply had enough. The fact he went out and got an unlicensed shotgun was his main downfall.

I would not count on it. It would depend upon the interpretation of the words "reasonable force" when applied to the scenario that transpired. Justifiable homicide is a difficult legal point. You would have to prove that your life was in danger and that killing the intruder constituted the only viable means of defending yourself. The Tony Martin case is interesting for this reason. The court ruled, as you correctly point out, that his actions - however "justified" - were excessive.

The proof I feel my life is in danger is on the facts that:
(This is based on me being the one to kill an intruder)

1) I am alone with my children in the house.
2) I am in the dark
3) The intruder is unknown to me. For all I know he could have a gun, a knife, he could be a martial arts instructor, he could be army trained, the intruder is a total unknown to me and given this day and age it is not unreasonable to fear for my own life.

He would require a very good barrister. Jail time for certain.

If we ever get into that situation I'll let you know what happens. As for jail time, well given the current numbers crisis I doubt he'd go to jail though I do think probation, community service and a fine would be a certainty

In the 13th century this is exactly what the law allowed for. Since that time, the right to kill intruders in your home has been taken away. And not without good reason. It does depend on what type of society you want to live in. Effectively you would be making the act of trespass an offence punishable by death. Would you really want that ?

Why not? It's the ultimate deterrent isn't it?

Look at "thrill seeker" personality types. They want to get as close to facing death as they can without really risking death. The chance is there but it's a risk that's both managed and minimised.

Now, as a burglar, what would be more of a deterrent than knowing if you go into that house to rob the owner he may find you and kill you?

Would the risk really be worth £20 for a £600 DVD recorder against your life?

Of course matters would have to be different for someone you knew in your home that had been killed. But a complete stranger who has no business being there?

Theoretically I do, but I do not condone killing in any way shape or form.

I don't condone it, but I do understand it.

Well, he likes to think he would in hindsight. From my understanding of the subject, opportunist criminals intent on committing crime rarely consider the consequence of their actions beforehand.

But if it were a daily report in the papers and on the news, "Intruder beaten almost to death" or "Intruder killed" don't you think that would give them pause for thought?

You are exaggerating but I take your point. The law cannot be all things to all people.

But the law is an ass, it doesn’t protect anyone its supposed to protect.

[Abraham]

..

[Curvey_Brunette]

Hi CB

Ho Abraham,

Since these posts are getting longer and longer I'm gonna snip your comments

If everyone put themselves forward for public office the whole system would collaspe.

The voters activity keeps the country ticking over because it keeps a party in power, but it's not really making a difference because the people being voted for are running riot and doing as they please.

The driving licence issues both my husband and I have suffered is just one small aspect of the system that's in place at the moment.

Everything is so reliant on technology that the dweebs at government offices such as the NHS, the police national computer and the DVLA can't find you, then you don't exist.

There is a lot to be said for pens and paper.

Jurisprudence cannot be determined because the system is so over clocked. New laws are being pushed through at a rate of notts so some of us go to bed crime free and wake up criminals, probably because we farted in our sleep without permission.

But there aren't 2 states. In the laws eyes there are, but the law doesn't live next door to you, the law doesn't work with you, the law doesn't refuse to serve you in shops because you were found not guilty last week of r****, or child abuse, or murder .........

Our family solicitor is a very good friend. He still charges the earth for his professional advice and he has got me out of more than 1 speeding ticket before today.

Ask him if there's any miscarriage of justice and he too would say "no" because he is of the belief the justice system is very strong. And yet he's 'got me off' speeding tickets on technicalities when I am as guilty as sin.

I trust you take my point?

Some people out there shouldn't be left alone let alone left in charge of a child be it their child or not.

I have interviewed and assessed complete psychotics in handcuffs while being closely guarded by several police officers on several occasions.

My point was, it's the extreme idiots like that, (of which there appears to be more and more of. It's not rare for someone to be put in prison for killing a child that wasn't theirs these days), that tranish all parents.

Child protection is now so OTT that ANY child admitted to hospital for any injury other than a sports or traffic accident must be referred to social services for "risk assessment"

One day a friend of mine was out and my husbands dog got lose. He didn't bite my friends daughter, he pushed her over and she had a huge paw mark on her face.

Naturally we took her to A&E to be checked out. 4 Days later social services were knocking on her door and the same afternoon they knocked on my door to ask me what happened.

Now what do you think would have happened if I hadn't paid any attention or I'd have said "It was her own fault" (which really it was for sneaking up on the dog as well my fault for not checking the dog was away), what kind of injustice might she have undergone?

I don't believe it is wrong. From what I have observed, there is no open mind during interviews. From my own point of view, as an observing professional, all I have seen is a presentation of evidence to confront the accused from a point of view of "this proves it"

I do know that some of what the accused says is checked out, but the majority of any explanation is usually dismissed as a lame attempt to plead innocence.

As for being tasked with upholding the law, once a policeman became a policeman because he genuinely wanted to help people. These days it's a status symbol of "Ain't I great? I have a uniform and a gang of mates to help me out"

The instances of misconduct are on the rise in forces, police officers abusing their authority, heckling and abusing lone females on trains, being accused of having sex in their cars or while they're supposed to be on duty, driving at more than double the maximum national speed limit, the list is endless.

What sort of a police force is that?

I could tell you a story about the NSPCC but I'll resist from doing so in any great detail because of the confidentiality aspects.

In short, a couple were accused of harming their first child. The NSPCC was asked to 'assess' them to see how the risk to their second child could be managed.

The child was removed from the parents 6 hours after the birth and was never returned to their care because the NSPCC said until they admitted what they had done top the first child. They were a risk to all children.

6 Years later they had another child in secret. When that child was found it was happy, healthy and thriving. There was no case to answer so legal proceedings were dismissed and now they have 4 very happy, very healthy, very bright and very socially switched on children.

And yet the NSPCC said they were a danger to all children...... Go figure

Child abuse is not rife! Out of the 20+ million children in the UK today, only a few thousand will be genuine victims of abuse. That's a very small percentage.

To me its not abuse to give a child a good hard smack on the bum, what IS abuse is smacking and smacking and smacking.

Expert witnesses are so called because they're looked up to within their field. The trouble with 'expert witnesses' is they can make a very lucrative living from being an expert witness.

I personally used to charge £3,000 per report, for about 20 top 35 hours work in all. From that experience, I know that the law has one set of expert witnesses and defendants have another set. The two hardly ever cross over.

If you have a prosecution witness who has over the years been handed abuse case after abuse case after abuse case, and there are some truly terrible things that happen to children at the hand of some 'people' it will get to you. It will turn you and make you very "This is child abuse" when in fact it isn't.

Well, if they did try to arrest you without reason you'd find yourself being accused of some "terrorist act" in order for them to hold you.

Did you see the news tonight and the report on the 'Control orders' and the way they're being abused? People being held, (some on psychiatric wards), without much reason?

Justice in general is failing all of the time. There is no such thing as justice any more.

A tenant of ours who moved in a few months back sued his old landlord because the house he was renting was, (and this was determined by the council), unfit for human habitation because of the state of disrepair caused by the landlords negligence.

So off he went to court, asked for his rent back, (£15,000), and came out of court owing to the landlord £1,200! The landlord has claimed the tenant had not paid the rent and counter claimed this.

How can that be justice in any form?

The point I was making about reporting restrictions is that because they're closed proceedings any miscarriage of justice is hidden away from the public.

From my experience, in permanent removals of children from natural parents, only 60% or 70% are justified. That means 30% to 40% of cases that go through family courts and end in the permanent removal of children from the family homes are either unjustified proceedings or they are very borderline cases.

It can't be fair that a child is torn away from his/her mum and dad because the system has failed can it?

When I was a kid at school, one of my teachers was a reporter and ran his own news paper. He sold everything and got this paper off the ground. After 6 months he went bankrupt because the paper wasn't selling. Why?? Well, because it was a "good news" paper, nothing bad ever got reported so nobody wanted it.

I wasn't thinking of sacrificing children or animals in relation to religion, I was thinking along the lines of the more 'herbal forms' of meditation

Vegetarianism is hardly a religion, but, in prisons and police cells, vegetarians are catered for which is more than the Wiccan or Druid will be if he/she asked for their bag of herbs and their pipe

The problems aren’t the Statute laws, the problem is the people who sit in power and enforce them. Such as the boy who has been convicted and sentenced to 12 years for killing an 11-year-old who supposedly spurned his sexual advances.

12 Years for taking a life? That’s just 1 more year than the victim lived for. And with remission for good behaviour he’ll be out in around 8 years to continue on with his life. And if public feeling against him is as strong as it was the Huntleys ‘girlfriend’ and the Bulger killers, he’ll more likely as not be offered a “new life” and a change of identity.

Yes I do remember the “Satanic verse” ‘riots’ and the protests. That’s all well and good as far as I’m concerned, (well, not rioting, but certainly protesting peacefully), but where the line should be drawn is when such protests start to hurt people.

I think people have to actually experience what it’s like to truly be a minority to know what it feels like. I personally don’t and didn’t feel threatened and intimidated by my husbands friends because I was with him. Had of not been with him …. Who knows?

The film “Soul man” about a student who gets a scholarship by taking a pill to become black was funny but also had a very accurate piece in it. The principle, (James Earl Jones), said “Now you know what it feels like to be black” to which the student replied, “No sir I didn’t, if I dind’t like it I could change back. Wise words for a film I thought.

You didn’t really seem to get the point I was making, which was, he calls them black and they call him white. They say it as it is and it’s not offensive to anyone, it’s a sign of true acceptance and being comfortable enough with someone to actually say what you’re thinking. If that sort of interaction offends others, so be it. If it offends the people involved that’s a very different matter.

The oil companies will always comply to the whims and wishes of whichever country they’re drilling for oil and producing oil based products. The tax breaks are worth it because the more money the company makes, the bigger the executive bonuses are.

Well, my take on oil running out is rather simple

My husband and I have several cars, he’s got his sports cars and a “super car” or two, we also have a gas guzzling Mitsubishi Shogun which does about 12 to 18 miles to the gallon.

If we’re going someone really nice we’ll use a Jag, if we’re going somewhere with the kids we’ll use the Shogun because it’s got 7 seats. But, if only one or two of us is going out, (say shopping), I’ll use my little 1.3 Single point injection Escort Encore and hubby will either use one of the bikes if he’s popping out alone, or he’ll borrow my car if I’m not using it.

So although we may have a “lavish lifestyle” when it comes to the cars, they’re more of a matter of choice rather than a need though I must say I would never turn up for a speaking engagement in anything but the Jag

Out home is run about 12% on a diesel generator, around 25% on the solar panels as direct energy and we have 30 submarine batteries, (which are slow charged by the solar panels), which power the house and the grounds.

We’re off the national grid for electricity, water and sewerage instead having septic tanks and a rainwater collection system.

We put all this in place about 10 years ago now and so far it’s never let us down. It’s run the house, (though it does tend to trip out if we leave all the lights on and all every electrical item we have), and provides power for ‘normal use’

It’s not an inexpensive option, but it’s now starting to pay for itself given our annual electric bills were in the region of £4,000 to £5,000 per year.

Now those sorts of components are coming into their own, the costs of installation will drop dramatically though I understand that now planning permission has to be granted for the installation of wind generators and solar power.

To be honest I actually do think psychologist should be given the power to section, but only if a psychiatrist who is outside of the remit area agrees to the section order being made.

However, section orders have been abused since they were introduced. I don’t think a lot of people realise what a knife edge it is to balance on when going to see a mental health professional. There is so much open to interpretation and the wrong word to the wrong person at the wrong time could very easily result in a section order being made and you finding yourself force medicated with things to “clam you down”

Age laws, race laws are all subject to open interpretation, which is why they create more problems than they solve.

Why should we cease to use racial descriptions when referring to others? If someone is black thy are black, if they’re white they’re white, if they’re Indian, Asian, Pakistani, Chinese, Japanese or what ever, that’s what they are. Ignoring it doesn’t change them but it does make them very sensitive to it when it’s mentioned

I don’t believe everyone is owed a living, but I do believe everyone should have a fair chance and for everyone to have a fair chance they have to be able to access whatever they need to in order to be given that chance.

I’m not suggesting that people don’t get themselves into debt, but getting into debt is so easily. The fact is lots of people don’t forward plan, they think “Oh this is good, I’ll have one. I have £1,000 to spend and this is only £50 …..” then they see something else, and something else, etc. Suddenly they have 50p left and a lot of stuff they don’t need but were easily lead by the advertisers into believing that “must have” thing will change their lives.

The thing is, once you have a bad credit history it stays with you and it is very hard to build up a line of credit anywhere else.

School isn’t the answer to good financial management. Myself and my children are far better than my husband at managing money. The difference between us and him is he never got pocket money so didn’t learn from an early age the value of money.

Does the ‘UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees’ also mean that refugees should also be better paid in benefits than a UK national?

My friend who rents out houses get more rent for them and once a week they are collected by a coach, taken to a race track and are given money to gamble with. Also, when they sign on, they are collected in taxi’s paid for because none of them can drive even though many of them have cars.

It’s this sort of thing that’s going on all over the country and to be honest, I’m sick to the back teeth of it. There are plenty of UK nationals who live in poverty, who struggle to get by and are far more deserving than someone from outside of the country. Finance and resources are for the immigrant these days, not the natives.

I don’t believe laws do reflect society, I think the law tries to shape and change society for the better but often fails because it’s implemented in the wrong way.

A good example of this is a “Dispatches” program on bailiffs. These officers of the court were breaking into peoples homes, taking things that they shouldn’t take, lied to people and basically bullied and harassed people into paying other peoples debts.

They told homeowners that the debt was against the address and not the person so they had a right to enter and take what they wishes. They said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had changed the laws to this, the reality is the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it easier for people to wipe out debt.

Now, if you’re in over your head you can declare bankruptcy and 3 years later you apply to have the order discharged. Once that happens all debts are wiped and the credit history is completely cleared. No bad debts are recorded so, you can start again.

One guy I know ran up over £500,000 of debt on credit cards using gaming websites. He’s not bankrupt and in about 2 years he’s going to do it all over again. He has a very nice house, (it’s more of a show house), a very nice car, nice clothes, he still eats in expensive restaurants ……

So now we have a 2 tier debt system, the first consists of the genuine who lost their job and couldn’t afford the repayments yet struggle each day to put food on the table while the others live like kings.

Geeee! Isn’t this a great country we live in?

Why would you change the sex laws to 18? I know it makes sense because you can’t drink or vote before you’re 18, but at 16 you’re pretty much able to do almost anything, smoke, get married, have children, etc.

I still consider a 16/17 year old to be a child and so I’m not advocating sex at that age. But, it’s legal at the moment.

But my comments on raising the age of consent to 18 were to illustrate the change in social attitudes as the law is changed which gives cause to my suggestion that the law shapes the people, the people don’t shape the laws.

On the issues of paedophiles, we’ll there’s only 1 way to deal with them and that’s the lock them up and keep them locked up. I personally don’t understand why someone, (male or female), would find a child of 13 or under sexually attractive.

One girl in the local village to us is 15 going on 30. Even my husband has passed comment on her and was very shocked to find out she was so young as he would have put her at between 18 and 20.

So what suppose I’m saying is for a guy, (or a woman), to sleep with a 14/15 year old is far more ‘understandable’ than it ever would be to target someone who is pre-teen. With boys it’s very easy to tell their age, so for a woman the path is perhaps smoother in making the choice and the consequence much harder.

For men, I do feel sorry for them. Even I have seen young girls out and about dressed in next to nothing and I would say they’re 20+ when they’re only 14/15. I keep saying 14/15 because I do feel 13 is pushing it. Most 13-year-old males aren’t mature enough to act older and it is a proven fact that girls develop faster than boys.

So at the one extreme of the paedophiles who ‘groom’ pre-teen & younger kids which do have a problem. But with the older girls, it is kind of understandable that they unwittingly become paedophiles because of the way the law is.

"Get his rocks off" – AKA Give himself the first hard on he’s had in years because he’s such a pathetic little man.

I have to admit I do like non-parents, they are very funny and know oh so much about being a parent hahahaha

I honestly don’t see smacking as an abuse of trust or as bullying in the respect of I’m bigger than m children. A smack for no reason and without explanation is exactly that and it’s not something we do.

We always rationalise with the kids why they have been smacked. We make them answer such questions as “Why were you smacked?” and going through the process as to why they have been smacked.

Both my husband and myself as big believers in limits. We set limits and stick to them, our children know what happens when they cross the line, they start to lose privileges, favourite toys, they get grounded and finally, when they push it that far, a smack.

We perhaps have to resort to smacking once or twice a year so it always has that “shock value”

It really doesn’t matter what the human race will be replaced by, we’ll all be dead

Abraham, let me say it again! We were 20 seconds from a first strike launch

That means for 40 seconds, (everything is ready to go within 2 minutes, all you need to do is push the button), someone sat with their finger on the buttons. Launch codes had already been put in, all it needed was the go, the push of a single finger or thumb and that was it, WW III – Armageddon!

The idea is that the missiles will launch 30 seconds before the radar and computers say the first ‘ground strike’ will be in order to ensure a counter attack is successful.

The fact someone stuck their head out or noticed something is irrelevant to the fact the PM had already authorised a counter strike.

Your apology isn’t needed lol, it’s par of the course and I’m a big girl so I can handle myself thank you

But what does annoy me is when I’ve got a good argument going, some dippy mod or chat room controller comes along and stops what’s happening. I’ve always held the opinion if you don’t like what’s being said or if what’s being said is total bollocks, it’s simple. Either use the off switch or don’t read it.

Most forums and chat rooms have an ignore feature anyway so what’s the point of it being “controlled” by someone who applied to be the “Internet police” for that particular service.

I’m not having a go at any mods anywhere, but some of them are really OTT in how they police things.

And there is always a clique somewhere, some people are “in” and get away with anything. On one forum I used ot be on, (I left in disgust), the administrator has a little “pet” who gets his wrists slapped by being banned from a part of the forum but never completely banned. Whereas others who commit very minor infractions of the rules get banned for life without much reason.

Censorship should be practised in the home. My children have computers in their bedrooms but chat services, porn and forums are filtered out. They can’t access them.

They don’t have access to the guns in the house, they don’t have access to my private files on my computer, or my husbands computer ……… They are our children and it’s up to us to make sure they not accessing material they shouldn’t be, not some stranger on the other side of the planet.

Kids get groomed in chat rooms because they’re let loose on the Internet and they’re not supervised. Their parents aren’t interested at all in what they get up to on their computers. Therein lies the problem.


It’s nice to know you wouldn’t walk out on your wife and children. I would hope you can be true to your word. But what I was getting as is that people want it all to be a bed of roses and easy, as soon as they hit a problem one of them is storming off to find someone else to see if its different with them.

But how long will you continue to get away with letting the waiter walk away with your card?

One particular effective ‘scam’ is to bring the card reader to the table, of course the pre-programming of most people dictates that the waiter/waitress is the one who knows how to use the machine and will guide them in making the transaction.

The waiter comes with the machine, you give him your card and he drops it. Oops! While he’s picking it up he could easily swipe it and read the information. He comes back up, pops the card into the machine, you put in your pin number and Hey Presto! He’s got everything he needs to clone your card, the number off the back for telephone transactions, your name, address, account details and you’ve given him your PIN number when you put it into the machine.

A month later, you get a huge bill in and wonder when you went to Barbados and spent $2,000 on a meal.

My advice to anyone with a card, never hand it over to anyone! Now with the PIN and chips systems in place, there’s no reason to hand your card over is there?

Out of the 800 acres, we have 250 acres woodland, the rest we either have for the horses, as gardens, (my 12th greenhouse is almost up!! Whey hey!!!!!), and the rest we rent out as grazing land.

The whole estate has several ‘gate houses’ on it, which is probably why we can trace our house staff back to the 1500’s when the house was built. Sadly we’re on our last generation of house staff, a couple of the staff’s kids have stayed on, but most of them have flown the nest to make their own life.

It’s easy being an evaluist, just ask questions and rationalise what’s going on. It’s simply a self awareness process, analysing what the situation is, how you’ve come to be there, where you want to go and finding the path to get there.

Perhaps I couldn’t “not disprove the existence of God to” you, but by the same token, you couldn’t convince me there is/was or ever has been a god.

May I ask, which way will you go when you qualify? Solicitor or barrister? CPS or Defence?

I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was about 7, after I walked in on him and my mother. I figured it had to be my dad dressed up because there’s no way dad would stand for Santa doing what he was doing to mum!

What herbs? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: You know which ones I’m on about :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: a well as tyme, rosemary, chives, lemongrass, sorrel, lemon balm, sticklewort, hazelwort, and about 300 other herbs.

I make a lot of balms, poultices and herbal remedies from a lot of the things we grow.

It’s very rare I smoke to be honest. I’ll maybe smoke a pack of 20 cigs over 2 years, I’ll have a joint more often than I would a cigarette. But sometimes, just sometimes when I’m out having a drink, it just “feels right” to have a cigarette.

Not justification, just a statement of how infrequently I smoke.

You’re a very good boy :p Too good! It has to be sex then, your vice has to be sex. Probably something involving Marmite, an industrial sized tin of Swafega, 4 blondes, 2 brunettes, a red head and a sheep named Colin

Homicide is wrong! It’s wrong to hurt other people, it’s wrong to kill them, it’s wrong to steal from them.

In an ideal world all I want to do is go about my business doing my own thing in my own time at my own pace. If someone doesn’t like what I do then that doesn’t give them the right to hurt me.

I do feel very strongly that anyone and everyone should have the absolute right to protect themselves, their family and their homes.

Well, if I ‘invited’ an intruder into my home then they aren’t an intruder so if I sold tickets I’d get arrested under the fraud act for gross misrepresentation and probably some deception charge, I dunno, obtaining money by deception.

I suppose I could spend the cash I make on a decent lawyer hahaha

Look at the population of the US compared to the UK, 60,000,000 in the UK, and 250,000,000+ in the US, (it could be considerable more, but I’m sure I heard Bush say something about 250,000,000 Americans mourn for 9/11), so crime is bound to be higher.

In the US alone, there are 17,000 drunken driver deaths, that’s more than 46 a day!

New York has a murder every hour, London has at least 1 a day. You have to account for size.

But I do think that if more burglars were killed by home owners then burglary would fall because it wouldn’t be worth the risks.