Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tintin – Lovely bloke, lovely dress (I didn’t give back the prize, but I bought you a drink).
CF – dreadful condition, can’t agree it’s the ‘real you’ because in my head it’s not what defines you. I’m not qualified to argue, but that’s never stopped me.
Life – it can be a bastard sometimes . . . . .
Glad to know you.
Ringo looked like he wouldn’t nick your girlfriend, but he’d buy his round. He also looked like he was having the most fun.
Paul was the prettiest – but boy didn’t he know it!
John looked like the gang leader, who knew just that bit more than the others.
George had the prettiest guitars, the gentlest manner and the best cheekbones
Herbie had a mean streak that was overlooked because of his cheeky manner and chubby roundness.
I would perm any one of the Ladybirds meself, a lovely, versatile and talented bunch.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-ladybirds-backing-singers-on-benny-hill.255297/
Despite having an undisguised crush on Rosepetal, I don’t think booting Moon on sight is fair.
My observation is that Rose doesn’t actually boot Moon on sight, but that it doesn’t take too long for Moon to fall into the trap of saying something to trigger a boot.
I do think Moon gets picked on, and as with Claire, Thin and others before her the pickers on are just as bad in what they say.
I also don’t pay enough attention to what goes in the room, so I could be dead wrong but I really wanted to declare my crush on Rosepetal in all her guises . . . .
Charities have to account for their costs and their methods to the Charity Commission. Terry Wogan creeps me out, but then I’m not who CIN are after impressing so my opinion doesn’t matter.
Don’t trust any of them. Google seem to do a good job of making Chrome accessible and uncluttered, but they are a major corporation just like Microsoft.
Having used Firefox and seen it deteriorate, I think the smaller browsers are equally untrustworthy and given growth would probably become the same as Explorer or Chrome.
I use Chrome, and I like it’s functionality. Not keen on some of Google’s business methods, but it is a business. I don’t trust big car firms either, but I do drive.
@j_in_france wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@toybulldog wrote:
. . . . Could someone please explain to me why the Society of Black Lawyers AREN’T scoring a huge own goal, while creating enormous damage to the whole racism debate ? . . .
Busy weekend coming up and I don’t expect to be online, if nothing’s been said, I might have a go later. In the meantime,
Many of the societies of black lawyers etc developed prior to the 1990s. As has been acknowledged here times have changed. The fact you’re only just becoming aware of its existence shows that any ‘own goal’ is probably far less significant than the organisation’s raison d’etre.
I’m would hope there would be something on the history and purpose of the organisation on its website, which might explain more. I mean, if you really want to know what a person or organisation is about you’d have to go beyond the name, or you might think the Labour Party was all about digging holes in the ground while wearing a silly hat and UKIP was all about facilitating naps,
Words I appreciate you may not see this response for a few days but……
Peter Herbert representing black solicitors is a good thing but when he tries to move into a different area and try to make himself a representative of black footballers is a different thing. But when Clarke Carlisle who is a very erudite spokesman for footballers and someone who during his playing career was a very good player and who has also appeared on ‘Question Time’ has today questioned the position of Peter Herbert then it does become a bit difficult to understand why Peter Herbert feels he has to create a black footballers association, also as there are a great many nationalities from many different continents playing football in the UK
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? Nahhh
I’m being kept up by certain aches and pains tonight – botheration!
I’m not here to bury or to praise the Society of Black anybodies. No society is perfect and if a bunch of lawyers – black or otherwise – can’t present a specific case for their existence on their website then they really should stop being lawyers.
I have too little interest in professional football, I’m not in a position to speak for Peter Herbert and don’t know who Clarke Carlisle is. Great name though.
It seems the SBL does not restrict its membership on the basis of colour, but allows anyone that supports its aims and ethos, seems fair to me. It would seem churlish to draw a line on a map or colour chart beyond which membership is not allowed, so I imagine that the term ‘black’ is being used in a wide political sense as racism often lumps Asian, black and anyone else considered not ‘white enough’ together.
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? I think some of the comments in JC aimed at J and Helen because of the ‘in France’ tag show that where you come from can make a huge difference to how others see you and treat you. As can colour.
It has been said in this thread and others that context matters. Toybulldog is very right in saying that something is very wrong here: what is wrong is that even in the legal profession a context existed and seems to exist in which a society for black lawyers is felt to be justified. Perhaps you have to be there to understand what it’s like. However context alone can make it too easy to dream up excuses for poor behaviour.
It has also been said that intention matters. The SBL clearly has no intention to stir up racism or score any ‘own goals’. However intention alone is nigh on impossible to verify. “I didn’t mean it” is an easy excuse to fabricate, as any infant knows.
However Toybulldog’s reaction (and trust me this is not a criticism of TB as it’s perfectly understandable) to the existence of the SBL was not “I wonder what the context for Black Lawyers is” or “Let me see what their website says about their intention” but “something here is very wrong”. This would suggest that regardless of, or at least in addition to, context or intention, the impact of what has been done should be taken into account. However the impact alone doesn’t allow for mitigation, as results can be far beyond what was intended, the context for the affected person can be very different and impact – especially emotional – can be nigh on impossible to assess with any accuracy.
In my opinion something is very wrong here: racism itself is a proven nonsense, but even highly educated, very ethical people can perpetuate it.
Because it is nonsense, responding to racism in a consistently effective and obviously reasonable way is harder than trying to reason with a 5 year old. Some responses – whether arguments or tactics – can work well, but make no sense to outsiders. For me the SBL fits that category.
@toybulldog wrote:
. . . . Could someone please explain to me why the Society of Black Lawyers AREN’T scoring a huge own goal, while creating enormous damage to the whole racism debate ? . . .
Busy weekend coming up and I don’t expect to be online, if nothing’s been said, I might have a go later. In the meantime,
Many of the societies of black lawyers etc developed prior to the 1990s. As has been acknowledged here times have changed. The fact you’re only just becoming aware of its existence shows that any ‘own goal’ is probably far less significant than the organisation’s raison d’etre.
I’m would hope there would be something on the history and purpose of the organisation on its website, which might explain more. I mean, if you really want to know what a person or organisation is about you’d have to go beyond the name, or you might think the Labour Party was all about digging holes in the ground while wearing a silly hat and UKIP was all about facilitating naps,
@mrs_teapot wrote:
So now we have Jimmy Savile, Freddie Star, Dave Lee Travis and a member of the top of the pops production team can’t remember his name all involved in Child sexual abuse.
I watched a report that suggested the number of allegations has already run into 1000s and will rise significantly and there will be more arrests…..hmmm well I think Im the only person out of step here in that i don’t think there was abuse of the kind the word Child Abuse conjure’s up in the mind.
I cannot believe that 1000s of kids were being abused and were “traumatised” and too frightened to say….. Im not including in this the terrible cases of the care home abuse…. that’s different and the people concerned in that need to be brought to justice.
I know I will be castigated for saying this….. but truly if this isn’t a witch hunt or hysteria I’m not sure what is.
Mrs T, you’re almost certainly right in that it is highly unlikely that much at the BBC will conform to the grotesque “slavering old man fiddling with young child” image that the words “child abuse” conjures up. However the BBC wasn’t the sum total of the abuse.
The age limit for Top of the Pops audience was 16, in the days before universal ID it is probable that 14 or 15 year olds and yes, perhaps 12 year olds got in as audience and I should think quite a few of us have young teenage sexual – romantic, clumsy or abusive/bullying situations we shouldn’t have got ourselves into. (Had to phrase that carefully in these days of ‘No regrets it made me what I am’ – I’ve got a few . . . ).
A lot probably would fit the kind of behaviour which has provoked “if a __ year old man came near my ___ year old son or daughter I’d have his bits off” responses in JC chatroom conversations. But under-age sex is under-age sex, consenting or not. Few would remove our current safeguards for people working with children and young people they know and care about.
What I would caution against is minimising the amount of child abuse that went/goes on. Mathematically, the reference to ‘thousands’ would work out over a 20 year period to a tiny number per week/month even if only 3-4 adults were involved, but the numbers add up. I think it’s likely that a good number of the people being named will be innocent, but that other, more obscure, adults were involved.
It’s a mess, how much truth is at the heart of it we’ll probably never really know.
@momentaryloss wrote:
. . . . . golliwogs. Nice doll – potentially dodgy word. . . . .
I’d say dodgy, freaky looking doll, definitely dodgy word.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Go into the office armed with a Linx Deodorant spray in one hand and a Gold Spot breath freshener spray in the other…..using the element of surprise pounce and hold down your boss (you might need Kenty to help you here…. shes a black belt you know) thoroughly spray the offending parts ..and with a wild look in your eyes ….chant the end is nigh.. the end is nigh…
Might not get you certified but its certainly worth a round of applause from your colleagues :D
Lol :P
I was actually wondering whether pretending to be a teapot would do it.
I could sing that song as well:
“I’m a little teapot short and stout
Here’s my handle, here’s my spout
When I see the the tea cups hear me shout
Tip me up and pour me out!”:shock:
Nah…. wont work… I’ve tried it :D
Does anyone know a Panda song?
