Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well Day 1 has passed off as expected (and anticipated).
The politicians have all posed in front of the cameras for the usual photo opportunity and gone through the inevitable pre-communique posturings. Tomorrow will simply be an extension of this expensive international ‘gab fest’ with even more posing and posturing for the folks back home.
The motley collection of so-called protestors have protested – and much good may it do them. As always, there has been a collection of the usual suspects intent on causing trouble; damage to property; injury to Police; etc etc.
Interesting how the ‘legitimate’ protestors all seem a rag bag of assorted people, waving their banners and placards and playing musical instruments – much to the annoyance of uninvolved members of the public who simply want to go about their daily business.
The anarchists etc all seem to be in this year’s uniform of charcoal hoodies & trousers with black masks disguising their spotty faces. So far it has only been iron bars / scaffold poles used to attack the Police – maybe tomorrow they’ll bring out the more serious weapons.
Oh well …. another £7 million or so spent to keep them in order, but who’s counting, this is democracy in action …. right???
@(f)politics? wrote:
Or is this PB April Fools post ??
Well I wonder ???? ( :lol: :lol: :lol: )
On the upside, there may be a lot of happy poofters today with free hugs …. or maybe not eh?
@pete wrote:
birds sh*t in their nests
Strictly speaking they don’t …. they point their little feathered bottoms over the edge and do it over the heads of passers by.
But leaving that aside for a moment – the news tonight has shown vast areas of central London with buildings being being boarded over to protect them from the ‘peaceful’ protestors.
Anybody care to hazard a guess as to how many will be broken into and looted …. all in the name of world peace of course.
Apparently you only need to hug one homo each tomorrow Jen-Jen – not all the homos in Brighton., although I must admit you’d be a bit spoilt for choice.
The organisers say that it’s symbolic and a show of ‘solidarity’ with the ‘GLTG’ community so to answer Melody’s point – hugging a homo doesn’t imply condecencion or patronisation, simply public (or even pubic) acceptance of their lifestyle choice.
Anyway hugging a homo tomorrow is probably going to be more productive than a street demo against the G20 meeting. Better to prance down Piccadilly kissing queens than chucking bricks at The Queen.
So who is up for it then?
@pete wrote:
Anti Daily Mail and Labour eh :shock:
The problem with politicians is they are politicians, if one party cured cancer the other would say well done but under our party we’d have cured it sooner thus saving many voters lives.
You missed out the BBC – I’m anti them as well!!!
As for your general point – I entirely agree with you. However, I also think that there is a widely held view these days that we are being lectured to and browbeaten into submision by Gordon Brown’s constant hectoring coupled with his total inability to accept that he played a major part in our current national demise.
Remind me …. how long ago was it that he was boasting that HE’D brought an end to “boom and bust” …. almost every speech he’d constantly refer to the “end of boom and bust” – and here we are in the worst recession since the 1930’s.
I think that Daniel Hannan, Conservative or not, spoke for a lot of ordinary people who have had enough of Gordon Brown …. a devalued Prime Minister in charge of a devalued Government.
I’d agree with you Pete ….. except that the lovely Gordon Brown had just been addressing the EU Parliament and Daniel Hannan’s 3 minute speech was in direct response to it.
You probably didn’t notice Gordon sitting there smirking.
Oh and well spotted for noticing that Hannan was a Conservative MEP – which probably explains why he was ‘attacking’ Brown rather that the usual sycophantic rubbish that Labour MP’s and the BBC come up with.
The anonymous female in the case was said in Court to be a solicitor (no pun intended) and was relying on a case last year in which a Judge ruled that for a female to give “full” consent to sexual intercourse, she had to be capable of giving the consent.
In last year’s case, a female was judged to be so drunk as to be incapable of giving full consent and the male was duly convicted of rape – in spite of having what he thought was consensual sexual intercourse with her.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular case, it does seem to me to be totally unfair that the male should have his identity and photograph plastered all over the media whilst the female retains her right to anonymity.
Fair enough IF he was found guilty of rape ….. but he wasn’t – and in an almost record time.
Surely the fair thing in sex crimes would be to protect the identity of BOTH parties unless there is a finding of guilt.
@woohoo wrote:
Because that’s just the way it is.. Everyday people are going to be critiscised, not only for their weight, or appearance, but how they live, how they speak, how they walk..
….. or how they waddle !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lots of focus on “celebs” …. but what about ordinary everyday people?
I have the daily delight of seeing an enormous female (mother of 4 children) who waddles her way across the school playground with her brood in tow. I gaze at her with an awful fascination and wonder how on earth she manages to climb stairs unaided, ….. or even how she managed to conceive her children in the first place – her husband is a small bloke who is utterly unassuming and actually quite a nice guy.
Equally, there is the total opposite – a painfully thin lady in her late 30’s I guess, who dresses in figure hugging clothes – such that you can almost see the bones sticking out.
Neither are “celebs” but both could do with either feeding up a bit ….. or, for the porker, a session on the bacon slicer.
Is it ‘genetic’ I don’t know for sure, but my instinct is that their respective sizes are due in no small part to their diet.
The Daily Mail a newspaper??? I don’t think so. More like a tabloid rag.
