# WHAT IS GOING WRONG



## maltrout512 (12 Feb 2009)

Having seen via the papers and media of late a snow ball of political correctness gone wrong, here, there, left, right, and centre find it almost too hard to understand why, that a mother (who is a primary school receptionist) may well be given the sack, because her daughter had been overheard by a teacher discussing heaven and God with a friend. (don't tell everyone, but I heard there's a book about it). Now we where not their when it happened, daughter, friend, teacher where!! What my point is, I said a lot of things in the past to people when in conversation, at work and when out of work, just about any and everything. Should I now walkabout looking over my shoulder. By the way I am not religious, never have been and never will, but will listen to a conversation about anything and everything whether I think they are right or wrong. Big enough and old enough to make my own mind up without getting upset. WHAT IS GOING WRONG.

ps. have I missed something

oh yes, If what has been posted, that's the text above if you have not read it, I will not be liable if it offends any person. 

VENT OVER WITH.


----------



## smithrdn (12 Feb 2009)

still failed to understand what you are referring about.


----------



## Pete W (12 Feb 2009)

School receptionist faces sack after daughter talks about Jesus


----------



## maltrout512 (12 Feb 2009)

Yep thats right.


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2009)

Malcolm - I couldn't agree with you more. 

Blatant politically-correct b*ll*cks. 

Welcome to the country of double-standards where MPs and the Home Office will ban entry to one EU citizen (who was invited by the House of Lords) because they don't like what he has to say about Islam ...."sshh..sshh...musn't upset the muslims".....and yet they willingly let Imams enter the country who expound the death penalty for homosexuality and adultery.


----------



## Grinding One (12 Feb 2009)

Has everyone forgotten about Hitler then?? He had people reporting on peoples conversations..When you are not aloud to express your views you are no longer a free nation.
I could yell out the front door all day long whatever I believed here...and not worry about the police coming to collect me...but that can change when people get in charge and change the laws...


----------



## Steve Maskery (12 Feb 2009)

maltrout512":3vzdl7vz said:


> ps. have I missed something



Well yes, I think you have.

First of all I also agree with your central point about double standards and the idiocy of this story.

But IIUIC she is not being disciplined because of what her daughter said but because she "brought the school into disrepute" externally. Personally I think the Head has done a perfectly good job of doing that all by himself, but my point is that the two things are different.

Steve, who is VERY ex-religious.


----------



## neilc (12 Feb 2009)

maltrout512":3c88i8og said:


> By the way I am not religious, never have been and never will.


maltrout512
Never say never, I thought that once too.  
Neil


----------



## MikeG. (12 Feb 2009)

neilc":askts7tk said:


> maltrout512":askts7tk said:
> 
> 
> > By the way I am not religious, never have been and never will.
> ...



I'll happily say never to that. I am not and never will be religious. Never. But this could become a thread-hijack if we're not careful........


----------



## Rich (12 Feb 2009)

Mike Garnham":2k5nc493 said:


> neilc":2k5nc493 said:
> 
> 
> > maltrout512":2k5nc493 said:
> ...



No comment, 

Rich.


----------



## Digit (12 Feb 2009)

No comment is a comment Rich! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Rich (12 Feb 2009)

Digit":2q0x7dfd said:


> No comment is a comment Rich! :lol:
> 
> Roy.



I think you got my message. :wink:


----------



## Digit (12 Feb 2009)

Yeah! I'm clever like that mate!

Roy.


----------



## Maia28 (12 Feb 2009)

Today's paper seemed designed to irritate with stories about children being forcably adopted, bishops being arrested, dodgy MPs, bankers and public servants and new laws regarding our personal information as well as the two stories above. Probably a good day to bury bad news then :lol: 

And on top of that, our two beacons of hope have gone surprisingly quiet. I can't help but wonder if these events are somehow connected? 

Andy


----------



## Shultzy (12 Feb 2009)

Andy, you have forgotten about the breathalyzing of people in charge of canal boats :lol: .


----------



## MikeG. (12 Feb 2009)

Rich":1zc1cv47 said:


> Digit":1zc1cv47 said:
> 
> 
> > No comment is a comment Rich! :lol:
> ...



Yeah, but I didn't.


----------



## Rich (12 Feb 2009)

Mike Garnham":39keaoy3 said:


> Rich":39keaoy3 said:
> 
> 
> > Digit":39keaoy3 said:
> ...



Well Mike, I'm afraid that I'm one of those chaps that sees no "grey" areas, I see everything in black and white, I consider myself to be a reasonable chap and put my case accordingly at the same time as understanding others point of view and respecting them, but, I have been admonished in the past for voicing my opinions on somewhat touchy subjects such as politics and religion which I believe makes for healthy debate AND education in both directions, but at certain stages it got personal for which I have made my apologies but agreed not to enter into contentious areas again, which makes me sad as I believe I give a good and balanced view, but the mods felt differently, so I just read and hum to myself now.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## Ironballs (12 Feb 2009)

It is insanity and is not too far removed from the goings on in 1984. Like the thousands of CCTV cameras that were installed on the pretext of protecting us from evil invaders but are actually used by councils to extort money for grazing a bus lane by the width of a fag paper with your car tyre etc etc

When we have our Friday lunch pint we have a moan and set all these matters to right, consequently we have arrived at the Monkey Pit of Justice into which the head of this school would be place for a short period until he came to his senses.

PS - also a confirmed non-believer, despite the best efforts of a Roman Catholic schooling. Bloody nuns


----------



## Jenx (12 Feb 2009)

But there's a certain 'je ne sais quois' about nuns ...
Or am I just a colossal Perv ? :wink: 

People are far to touchy about everything nowadays...
In the old days, you took a couple of each others teeth out in the car park, and then went for a beer, a fag and a few whiskys together.

We've turned into a nation of 'don't diss me's ' ( what ever that may mean ) and don't mention the : 
Religion
Politics
Football
Homosexuals
Ethnic Bretheren
etc etc...
( delete as appropriate )

Healthy debate is exactly that HEALTHY... and for gods sake britain, hang a bloody pair on, and debate healthily.
And in doing so.. have the good sense to realise that not eveyone shares the same views. that is also very healthy. it maintains BALANCE !


----------



## andycktm (12 Feb 2009)

What about stopping people entering the country because they've different views?


----------



## Jenx (12 Feb 2009)

Dunno ... worth a debate maybe ? :wink: 

Depends on if they intend harm or not.. or support a barbaric opressive society or not.. lots of variables I guess !


----------



## RogerS (12 Feb 2009)

I think that a lot of this angst comes from people who complain because whatever has been said _might_ upset someone else. 

I have a simple message for them. 

Butt out. 

Mind your own goddam business. 

If 'someone else' might be offended then let them take up the cudgel....not you. Kappisch?


----------



## misterfish (13 Feb 2009)

RogerS":y4qh26ln said:


> I think that a lot of this angst comes from people who complain because whatever has been said _might_ upset someone else.
> 
> I have a simple message for them.
> 
> ...



I quite agree =D> =D> =D>


----------



## Blister (13 Feb 2009)

Pete W":126elnpw said:


> School receptionist faces sack after daughter talks about Jesus



Do we not have freedom of speech any longer 

are the days of standing on a box in hyde park ranting about anything now over ? :?


----------



## Jenx (13 Feb 2009)

Be real shame if they are, Allen ....
For one thing, its part of our british culture and heritage, and 
for another, as you say .. " Freedom of Speech ".
Something which should be _core_ to a democratic society.
But we don't have that freedom anything like as much as we should do, any more.  

This place isn't as much of a 'free country' as it once was, and as much as some people seem to think it is.


----------



## John. B (13 Feb 2009)

What 'newspaper' was that in?


----------



## maltrout512 (13 Feb 2009)

It was in the Telegraph internet. On Radio news yesterday. The girl in question is only five!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Digit (13 Feb 2009)

What is going wrong? Nothing! I thought this was what the 'workers' were supposed to be aiming for.

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (13 Feb 2009)

Blister":19967lsz said:


> Pete W":19967lsz said:
> 
> 
> > School receptionist faces sack after daughter talks about Jesus
> ...



No, we don't. There was a very good article about this in todays' Telegraph. Well worth a read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html


----------



## maltrout512 (13 Feb 2009)

Roger, just had a read of the article in the telegraph. There seems to be a problem in my opinion, that there is a group(s) of people that appear to be hell bent on making out that they can do and say whatever and where ever they like and f.. the rest of the main. Like it says in the paper why and how can they seem to get away with it!!!!!! I'm sure that you would have trouble having a sensible conversation with them without being a little bit on edge. Incase you said the wrong word or said something that offends. I am not raciest in anyway, but my temp rises when you get these Tw.ts giving it out in large portions. The Romans had a good idea. You would see the odd head or two stuck onto a spikes on a wall. Even emperors were not out of reach to this outcome. We are (most) a little bit more civilised these days, well in this country at least.


----------



## Jake (13 Feb 2009)

Strange - I don't recall the Telegraph complaining about Louis Farrakhan being banned - and I recall them screaming about some extremish Imam being allowed in.

I'm a bit uneasy about this (and it's obviously backfired) but one can't have it both ways.


----------



## Rich (13 Feb 2009)

What has become of Smudger? does anyone know? I have'nt seen him posting for ages.

Rich.


----------



## Jenx (14 Feb 2009)

He has been conspicuous by his absence ... hope all is ok ?  

Just a thought at an ungodly hour of the day, ok .....
Happened to catch a bit of Radio 4 earlier ... a Dimbleby "question time' type show... 
and one of the points related to bits of this discussion..

The questioner asked the panel : 

Where does one draw the line between the 
(a) Right to free speech &
(b) The Right not to be offended.

Universally - the panel of commentators / politicians / journalists etc
blew '(b)' completely out of the water.
there _IS_ no 'right to not be offended', and neither should there ever be.
All stated the right of free speech to be 'sacred' in our society.... one chap added, if ever such a mindset of a 'right to not be offended' became commonplace, then that would represent one of the saddest days in history, and would clarion the requirement to take the document defining 'freedom', and consign it to the nearest available incinerator.

Best 'sense' I've heard coming out of my car's tranny for many a month.
:wink:


----------



## Grinding One (14 Feb 2009)

Never say anything you would not say in front of your Mother
That is the Best way not to offend anyone(At least in my case) My mom was a special Lady (Esp. To Me)
Freedom to say your piece is nice if it does not land you in jail.


----------



## Rich (14 Feb 2009)

Grinding One":eaiatpue said:


> Never say anything you would not say in front of your Mother
> That is the Best way not to offend anyone(At least in my case) My mom was a special Lady (Esp. To Me)
> Freedom to say your piece is nice if it does not land you in jail.



It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
A tenet passed onto me by my mum (RIP) It's held me in good stead.  

Rich.


----------



## filsgreen (14 Feb 2009)

I've just received this in an e-mail and I think it is relevant to today's society. Apologies if you have already seen it or are too young to understand it  


CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL MY FRIENDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE

1930's 1940's, 50's, 60's and early 70's !
(You all are)

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.


Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright coloured lead-based paints.


We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.


As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.


We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.


Take away food was limited to fish and chips, no pizza shops, McDonalds , KFC, Subway or Nandos.


Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and didn't open on the weekends, somehow we didn't starve to death!


We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.


We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner store and buy Toffees, Gobstoppers, Bubble Gum and some bangers to blow up frogs with. 

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drinks with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......


WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!


We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.


No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.


We would spend hours building our go-carts out of old prams and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. We built tree houses and dens and played in river beds with matchbox cars.


We did not have Play stations, Nintendo Wii , X-boxes, no video games at all, no 999 channels on SKY , 

no video/dvd films, 

no mobile phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!



We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
Lawsuits from these accidents.



Only girls had pierced ears!



We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.



You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns at Easter time...



We were given air guns and catapults for our 10th birthdays,



We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

Mum didn't have to go to work to help dad make ends meet!



RUGBY and CRICKET had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!! Getting into the team was based on 

MERIT 



Our teachers used to hit us with canes and gym shoes and bully's always ruled the playground at school.





The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. 

They actually sided with the law!



Our parents didn't invent stupid names for their kids like 'Kiora' and 'Blade' and 'Ridge' and 'Vanilla' 




We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO 

DEAL WITH IT ALL !
I can see you all nodding your heads and saying "yes that's right"



And YOU are one of them! 

CONGRATULATIONS!


You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.


And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.


PS -The big type is because your eyes are not too good at your age anymore


----------



## Digit (14 Feb 2009)

We are survivors! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (14 Feb 2009)

Filsgreen ... I have seen it before, but its as true and valid now, as it was then, and it always will be.

For the drum-bangers here and everywhere, who think we've evolved and progressed... therein lies the undeniable testament to illustrate how very wrong you are.

:wink: 

A. ( Born in 1965, and stuck in about 1978, and 'stuck' there with absolutely no bloody regrets either. )


----------



## maltrout512 (15 Feb 2009)

Jenx, with your last comment, you said,

For the drum-bangers here and everywhere, who think we've evolved and progressed... therein lies the undeniable testament to illustrate how very wrong you are.

Who are you calling drum- bangers, leaders (government) or the general public.


----------



## motownmartin (15 Feb 2009)

I can relate to all of that apart from eating mud pies and worms


----------



## Grinding One (15 Feb 2009)

motownmartin":2auurlfq said:


> I can relate to all of that apart from eating mud pies and worms


And you guys had a hose?? I had to pump to get a drink....and bikes?? You were spoiled for sure....Walked everywhere or ran when older brother said the boogie man was right behind me....
As far as teachers goes,those nuns were real good with the rod.After i got hit there at school told Mom ,and Dad had another for making the Nun mad in the first place.(Note to self do not make mention of what happen at school)


----------



## Digit (15 Feb 2009)

The good old days eh! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Benchwayze (15 Feb 2009)

Grinding One":lua7lxa9 said:


> Never say anything you would not say in front of your Mother
> That is the Best way not to offend anyone(At least in my case) My mom was a special Lady (Esp. To Me)
> Freedom to say your piece is nice if it does not land you in jail.


 
Well if saying something is going to land you in jail, then you don't have the 'freedom' to say it. Next to Treason and Incitement, there shouldn't be any such restriction. We should all have the right to like or dislike anyone, for whatever reason we choose. As long as those reasons are based on experience and observation. But even then, there are things we can't say. 

The all too common F and C words are still outright illegal in a public place and the Police can arrest anyone they hear using those words. But who cares about that any more? And who, at my age, would say anything to someone using them? Not this oldie for a start! 

Maybe the threads are mixed here! I noted there was an omission in that list. 'Only girls and (?) had pierced ears.' (PC required the omission. Let's just say: 
'Only girls and pirates had pierced ears.' eh? )


----------



## Jenx (15 Feb 2009)

maltrout512":3t1gct74 said:


> Jenx, with your last comment, you said,
> 
> For the drum-bangers here and everywhere, who think we've evolved and progressed... therein lies the undeniable testament to illustrate how very wrong you are.
> 
> Who are you calling drum- bangers, leaders (government) or the general public.



General Public / Everyone everywhere... ( 'Politicians' hadn't entered my thoughts to be honest.. ) -- just 'general people' who profess that the world is a better place now than ever, at any point in our history.

Point I was driving at is .. the world is a worse place than it was.
As time passes, I'd have thought ( not an 'unreasonable thought, i believe.. ), that almost every aspect of life would improve, become better, "easier", healthier, more 'civilised' & more respectful towards each other, as a result of a society's evolution going forward... but that hasn't been what has happened.

"Politicians", I gave up on a long time ago. -- 
I wouldnt believe a word that came out of a politician's mouth, regardless of which camp his or her feet were in.
They'd ( to a man ) tell you anything if they thought it'd protect or save their own sorry hide's.
The last decent one I can think of was a bloke called David Penhaligon, he was a liberal ( not that that matters a jot ), down in the west country somewhere. He was a good bloke, he died prematurely unfortunately, but since him.. I can't think of ONE that I'd trust. So no.. they weren't part of the thinking.
Sorry Malc - I should have made myself more clear. good point


----------



## Jake (15 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":2ly1jx1i said:


> Grinding One":2ly1jx1i said:
> 
> 
> > Never say anything you would not say in front of your Mother
> ...



I agree, except that treason should be abolished. There are much better offences around,for those with duties to the government/country. I dislike the fact we have a 'royal' family, and that saying so is theoretically an offence is absurd beyond the wildest dreams of the most ardent PCer.



> We should all have the right to like or dislike anyone, for whatever reason we choose. As long as those reasons are based on experience and observation. But even then, there are things we can't say.



Apart from the classic "fire in a theatre" there aren't that many - unless you mean things that you will get criticised for saying by people who think you are wrong to say what you are saying?

That seems to me to the basis of much of the complaints about 'political correctness'.



> Maybe the threads are mixed here! I noted there was an omission in that list. 'Only girls and (?) had pierced ears.' (PC required the omission. Let's just say:
> 'Only girls and pirates had pierced ears.' eh? )



I think you are old.


----------



## RogerS (15 Feb 2009)

Jake":33mqk5nb said:


> Apart from the classic "fire in a theatre" there aren't that many - unless you mean things that you will get criticised for saying by people who think you are wrong to say what you are saying?
> 
> That seems to me to the basis of much of the complaints about 'political correctness'.



But what gives them the right to criticise? I suppose the same right that I have - to tell 'em to sod off.


----------



## Jake (15 Feb 2009)

RogerS":2mu3vq11 said:


> Jake":2mu3vq11 said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from the classic "fire in a theatre" there aren't that many - unless you mean things that you will get criticised for saying by people who think you are wrong to say what you are saying?
> ...



Uh huh. But they have the right to say what the hell they like about you too, so suck it up.


----------



## maltrout512 (15 Feb 2009)

Jenx, thanks for your reply back.

Quote Jenx:

Point I was driving at is .. the world is a worse place than it was.
As time passes, I'd have thought ( not an 'unreasonable thought, i believe.. ), that almost every aspect of life would improve, become better, "easier", healthier, more 'civilised' & more respectful towards each other, as a result of a society's evolution going forward... but that hasn't been what has happened.

"Politicians", I gave up on a long time ago. --
I wouldn't believe a word that came out of a politician's mouth, regardless of which camp his or her feet were in.
They'd ( to a man ) tell you anything if they thought it'd protect or save their own sorry hide's.
The last decent one I can think of was a bloke called David Penhaligon, he was a liberal ( not that that matters a jot ), down in the west country somewhere. He was a good bloke, he died prematurely unfortunately, but since him.. I can't think of ONE that I'd trust. So no.. they weren't part of the thinking.

You and I are of the same age in years. Fact. I have the similar opinion that you have in general life. And, you are quite right that there are drum bangers who as far as they can see incite their right to be the right. 

As far as I can see this situation going, it's not going to get any better.


----------



## Jenx (15 Feb 2009)

Agree Malcolm, absolutely.

Wish we had the answers, but then .. we'd be very wealthy men, and most probably the same cycle would then start all over again ! 

Common sense and rationale have seemed to have long since departed, and trust, hope, belief and optomism have got the suitcases packed and the taxi's on its way.


----------



## RogerS (16 Feb 2009)

Jake":154e9msm said:


> RogerS":154e9msm said:
> 
> 
> > Jake":154e9msm said:
> ...



I don't have any problem with that. All in favour of Free Speech. Apparently Secretary Smith does not.

However I reserve the right to get annoyed with those who think it's their right to rant on because '_it might upset someone else_'.... It's none of their damn business.


----------



## Benchwayze (17 Feb 2009)

I am old Jake, yes I am.. There is really only one alternative to growing old isn't there? So long as I am happy growing older, I don't give a monkey's muffin! :lol: 

As for Treason, it isn't confined to maligning the 'Royal Family'. It's a crime against the State. Most Republics too have such a law. And I believe that here it is still a hanging offence; although that might have been ammended!


----------



## Jenx (17 Feb 2009)

'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
'Experienced' and/or 'Wise' are far better and far more accurate.

_Many good tunes are played on *old *fiddles._

Experience cannot be bought ( much like manners and respect and a few other things besides). Its GAINED or EARNED.

Nobody should ever be referred to as 'OLD' in a disparaging sense.
*Growing Older is a priviledge*. Many are denied that.

Growing Older comes with a duty - that of passing one's wisdom and experience to the young. The young perhaps are not always capable of seeing and accepting that, but the duty is very seldom shirked or avoided.

"OLD" in the sense of applying it to a person, should be done so in a complimentary sense. Its not something that should have any negative associations at all. It's something that all of us should embrace and even aspire to.

'Old' will do for me , every time. 
When ( and it happens regularly ) I need advice, guidance or assistance.. I'll look for 'old' Every time.
& I look forward to being OLD myself ... if I am priviledged enough to get there, wherever 'Old' is or starts. 

:wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

So Jake, 

The next time I am in a theatre and I am the first to smell the smoke, I should leave without saying anything? (Okay, I am being facetious and/or sarcastic, so of course I do get your drift.) But wisdom would tell me to be at the exit, when I shouted! 

As for the other points, I will explain: 

I do believe anyone has the right to tell me* they believe my opinions are not theirs.* However, that's different from telling me I shouldn't do or say something, merely because they don't agree with me. 

(E.g. 'You realise you are eating a dead animal?') My usual reply is 'Really? Now I know why it isn't putting up a fight.'

Seriously, no one but my Doctor should criticise my diet; no one should insult me by implying that I don't know my steak was once a living creature. At the same time I respect the rights of others not to eat as they see fit. So is it wrong to expect the same consideration from vegetarians? 

Experience doesn't necessarily come with age, any more than manners or common-sense accompany a University degree. There are bound to be *some *post-graduates who feel they are intellectually superior to the herd and by definition, have a natural right to be obnoxious. Much like *some* pensioners feel they have the right to be ill-mannered. 

Heaven forbid I would behave like that! 

8)


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Jenx":1jfm3op4 said:


> 'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
> 'Experienced' and/or 'Wise' are far better and far more accurate.
> 
> _Many good tunes are played on *old *fiddles._
> ...



Oh I think I reserve the right to be rude to old people about their oldness when and if they make comments which i find offensive. 

Being old isn't an unqualified good - it is difficult to keep one's mind open and accept that in many ways the world improves and humanity and society gets better, and that means dealing with historic aspects of one's own thinking.

For instance, racism is much more prevalent amongst old people. I have no respect for racists or racist ways of thinking at all. No doubt if we re-wound a few generations, there would be a much greater proportion of old people who moaned and groaned about the passing of slavery, or female emancipation, etc, etc. I would have had no respect for those attitudes either.

It's too simplistic to say that old is good. In some ways, it isn't. As a middle-aged man, I can see that already in myself.

On the other hand, it is more understandable that old people will cling on to the prejudices which were much more common and acceptable in their youth. It is, in a sense, an excuse.

However, in this instance, and reading back - my comment was merely that John must be old if in his day only girls and what he coyly referred to as pirates (by which I assume he means homosexuals?) wore earrings. In my youth, ear-rings were de rigeur and even a bit tame (the odd nose-piercing etc) for any boy with an aspiration to be 'cool'. And I'm thoroughly middle-aged.


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Oh, and I'm confused - in the land of anti-PC, where everyone calls a spade a spade (no doubt) - is it wrong to use the word old? 

Would it be more acceptable to have said "I think you must be a Person Of Even Greater Advanced Age and Immense Accumulated Experience and Knowledge, who grew up at least one or two decades before me"? :wink:


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Jenx":39mua95a said:


> 'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
> 'Experienced' and/or 'Wise' are far better and far more accurate.



(this has nothing to do with the ear-rings conversation or John now, just your arguments, Jenx).

This man is old. Experienced, well yes - especially in being a very unpleasant man. Wise?







Wisdom is linked to age, but only to an extent. Ditto experience.


----------



## Jenx (18 Feb 2009)

There are 'extremes' in any sphere of conversation though, remember.
:wink: 

Nobody with a sane mind would contest that the fella there in your picture is an utterly obnoxious individual.. a despot, basically.
He's not the first, he'll not be the last.
But he is, by definition, an extremist.

Of course its not 'wrong' to use the word 'old' ! 
.. 'Old' is very often a very positive thing ... an old guitar for example, will 'play' far nicer than a new one of the same exact model..
Equally 'old' can apply to something which has served well, but has come to a time where replacing it would be a sensible option.
Your use of the word, whether you realised / intended it or not, _was_ a bit derogatory, don't you think ?
That 'call' is made by the reader, 100%

How do you conclude that Racism is more prevalent amongst older people ? Is that your opinion, or do you base that on some factual evidence... ? I'm not 'contesting' your statement with any basis of fact, ... because I don't have any - It's a genuine question as to how you would arrive at that conclusion.

Its my 'observation' that there's a kind of 'acceptable reverse-racism culture' in the world.. and I'll quantify that...
Have you ever watched TV and seen ( forgive my terminology here, its perhaps not the best ).. " Dedicated Specific Afro-American Stand-up " ? 
-- For example, comics like Chris Rock.
A very funny guy.. there's no doubt about it ... but a lot of the humour is very 'anti-caucasian', and very 'in yer face' in the process of being so. Check the panning shots of the camera, across the audience. It is almost always in every instance I have seen.. 100% coloured.
Not a problem, and I find the guy funny... but - and here's the kicker, reverse that, and have a white comic doing the same gags about coloured people, and the TV station would be shut down within minutes. Double Standards, see.
-- I'll continue with another example, noted when I was in Oshawa, where large automobile manufacturing takes place ...
-- A coloured worker was disciplined for a workplace misdemeanour. _Every_ other coloured worker in the plant walked out in support of their colleage. Admirable enough, one could argue.. until you heard the 'interviews', during which, without exception - each striker had walked out in support of their colleage, based entirely on the fact that he was a black worker.
The relevance of whether his 'crime' was defenceable, or not.. whether he was in the right or in the wrong, had gone utterly out of the window. He was a 'black man wronged' ( in the view of his colleagues ), and they came out the gate in unanimous support.
Again - reverse that same mentality to a white bloke.. and it all of a sudden takes on a much more unpallateable demeanour, dont you agree. ? Double Standards.

If at 'middle age' - you're somewhere approximating the same age as me ( I'm 44 .. born 1965 ) ... we were fortunate enough to have missed the atrocities and horrors of WW2, by a margin just about big enough for it to have 'faded from memory' in relative terms, of the common culture that has prevailed since. -- However, there are still to this day, people who remember it all too well, -- I can cite an example of an older lady, sweet old dear she seemed, in whose house I was working + who had just collected her new spectacles, and brought them home. All was fine until she saw that the spectacles were 'made in Germany'.. at which point all hell broke loose. She told me why.
At first.. I found this to be 'incredible'. ... beyond my understanding.
She explained what had happened to her family members during the conflict. Horriffic. Did I understand then , why she detested the German race so strongly, that she was going to return the Spec's and insist on an alternative. ? Yes. That _defines_ her as a racist. Do I have any discriminatory views - no. But can I _understand_ hers ? yes, of course I can.
But again.. this relates to what we can know to be 'extreme' circumstances. Commonplace at the time, granted.. but War, by definition is extreme. In the widest stretch of my imagination, I couldn't say I felt her reasoning to be 'an excuse'. It may indeed have been very alien to me, but these scars ran very deep with this old lady - to the point where 'forgiveness wasn't, and would never be, even considered. Justifiable ? possibly... bordering on 'probably'.

Nations have done terrible things to each other over the centuries.. that is a fact of life. Thats history, and as we know, you can't change that.
Should you or I be 'publicly apologising for Colonial Slavery', which was 'demanded' by a gentleman on a radio interview a few months back ? 
Of course we shouldn't. what an utter 'crock' - the buffoon demanding it had no more knowledge of slavery, than I do.. which is Nil.
A band-wagon jumping silly person, that should not have been dignified with air-time. But that sort of lunacy continues to propagate similar nonsense as time rolls on. That will ensure more than anything, that racism is something that won't disappear in any great hurry.

If i may quote you : " Its too simplistic to say old is good ".
-- Just how far out of context of the original comment would you like to take something ? :wink: 
-- I'm not an educated fella, by any manner of means. In fact, to look at me, I look like I'd struggle to string a sentence together, ear-rings, tattoos, shaved head yada yada yada.. but 'simplistic' is perhaps not a description that I'd say was one that I'd been linked with all that often.
The use of the description, in context is anything but simplistic. - but that of course, is only my opinion.

Do you find that you have a lot of suppressed anger ?
You do come across as being of that 'leaning'.. keen for a bit of confrontation if the opportunity arises  
If so, its maybe very justifyable... I don't know.
A holiday in Scotland in the spring can 'chill a fellow out' .. come smell the heather and have a look at the OLDEST mountains in Europe, up in the Northwest Highlands. Do a bit of fishing, soak up the tranquility... its good for the soul. You would return a 'happy and contented' man, guaranteed.

Take it easy Man..
don't bust a gut.
Life's too short to get overly het-up
All the best,


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Jenx":1iutwxue said:


> ...



That post is tooo long to respond to. 

Face it, you misread my comment.

I noticed the reverse racism stuff, and I agree - any kind of racism is deplorable. And all races suffer from that condition - Jewish/Black racism
is quite common in my experience, but so is Black?Jewish (see Farrakhan for instance) as is Asian/Black, Chinese/Black, and a million others no doubt. None of them any better or less stupid and shallow than the others.




> Do you find that you have a lot of suppressed anger ?
> You do come across as being of that 'leaning'.. keen for a bit of confrontation if the opportunity arises
> If so, its maybe very justifyable... I don't know.
> A holiday in Scotland in the spring can 'chill a fellow out' .. come smell the heather and have a look at the OLDEST mountains in Europe, up in the Northwest Highlands. Do a bit of fishing, soak up the tranquility... its good for the soul. You would return a 'happy and contented' man, guaranteed.
> ...



I think you misunderstand me greatly, but that's OK. Maybe it's because I don't use smileys very much, but at the same time, I don't mind being facetious. And I can argue until the cows come home without getting het up at all ...


----------



## Jenx (18 Feb 2009)

Good. I like a good 'discussion' meself !
better over a beer ( well, diet coke for me now  )... 
and 'oh so easy' to pick up the wrong end of sticks in a media such as this.
..

It _was_ a long post, true.

But it_ does_ have some validity in there somewhere :wink:  

If we're "middle aged " shouldnt we BOTH be working ?     

Take it easy.
& have fun 8)


----------



## PowerTool (18 Feb 2009)

I'm middle aged,working,enjoy a discussion over a beer,and am also known to be facetious and argue just for the sake of it.. :wink: 

I appear to have traits similar to both of you.

pipper! :lol: 


Andrew


----------



## davegw (18 Feb 2009)

My Personal Point of view:

It's not wrong to say anything you like... as long as:

You aren't inciting violence against someone else, and 
You aren't saying expressly to offend (starting a debate is fine of course)

We do generally have have freedom of speech in this country (there are certainly many more that are worse) 

We need to be ever vigilant about our freedoms being eroded. 

and Just for the record... I really don't mind about CCTV cameras - espeically given that this week alone in my street they have been used to catch (and convict) a car thief, and direct a drugs raid.


----------



## Jenx (18 Feb 2009)

PowerTool":1zmfn0pd said:


> I'm middle aged,working,enjoy a discussion over a beer,and am also known to be facetious and argue just for the sake of it.. :wink:
> 
> I appear to have traits similar to both of you.
> 
> ...



Remember Dick Emery ? ...

"ooh you _are_ awful, but I leyyke you "
     

I'll be up for that walnut this week andrew :wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

Jake, 

The last Homosexual Pirate I encountered was in 'Peter Pan'. Read between the lines. I used the word 'Pirates' because I didn't want to use the word 'Gypsies'. (Racist connotations) OK?

If you know anything about Maths then please; work it out with a pencil! 

FIN


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

davegw":ssz4u0yr said:


> and Just for the record... I really don't mind about CCTV cameras - espeically given that this week alone in my street they have been used to catch (and convict) a car thief, and direct a drugs raid.


 
Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'. 

In order of priority, a Police Officer's lawful duties are: 

The PRESERVATION OF LIFE 
The PROTECTION of PROPERTY. 
The INVESTIGATION of crime 
and the ARREST and PROSECUTION of OFFENDERS against the Queen's Peace. End of story. 
Where do you place cameras there?

A Police Officer would not stand by and just watch someone commit an offence. The Officer would intercede. (I hope!) 

Cameras merely allow the Police to later identify perpetrators. (Sometimes) Usually too late to save a victim from dying. 

The only true deterrent to crime is the certainty of being caught. Camera contribute towards that, but criminals know this. So, they wear hoods or masks. (they are Hoods after all!) 

When there is the likelihood of a live, 'real' 'Bobby' just around the corner, then crime rates drop. Which is one reason the Police Force was formed in the 1830's. 

I have nothing to fear where cameras are concerned, but that doesn't stop me from feeling spied upon.


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

Jake":3syu6tda said:


> Jenx":3syu6tda said:
> 
> 
> > 'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
> ...


He's old yes. 
But he is probably demented, which might excuse and explain his extreme behaviour. So he is not a good example Jake!


----------



## RogerS (18 Feb 2009)

Jake":1uywkfj7 said:


> Jenx":1uywkfj7 said:
> 
> 
> > 'Old' has slightly disrespecful connotations.
> ...



But which one is this one? Mugabe 1 or Mugabe 2 (the clone), as rumour would have it :wink:


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

Clone? 
Don't you mean 'Clown'? :lol:


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":5ist0iur said:


> The last Homosexual Pirate I encountered was in 'Peter Pan'. Read between the lines. I used the word 'Pirates' because I didn't want to use the word 'Gypsies'. (Racist connotations) OK?



OK, you lost me there alright - the dying version I remember us rejecting in my early teens was girls and gays (usually a more offensive term was used).


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Feb 2009)

Jake, 


*No one *has the right to say just *anything* they wish, about anyone. 

Opinion yes. But flase accusatioons no. You cannot accuse someone of a crime, without reasonable proof. 

Hence Libel or Slander.

Got it now?


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":31dzsdli said:


> Jake,
> 
> 
> *No one *has the right to say just *anything* they wish, about anyone.
> ...



Got what?


----------



## davegw (18 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":3qihv6fj said:


> Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'.



Of course



Benchwayze":3qihv6fj said:


> In order of priority, a Police Officer's lawful duties are:
> 
> The PRESERVATION OF LIFE
> The PROTECTION of PROPERTY.
> ...



Simple really the last four items in your list



Benchwayze":3qihv6fj said:


> A Police Officer would not stand by and just watch someone commit an offence. The Officer would intercede. (I hope!)
> 
> Cameras merely allow the Police to later identify perpetrators. (Sometimes) Usually too late to save a victim from dying.
> 
> The only true deterrent to crime is the certainty of being caught. Camera contribute towards that, but criminals know this. So, they wear hoods or masks. (they are Hoods after all!)



You seem to suggest that criminals wouldn't commit crime if they thought they would be caught, of course this is true. However, my (limited) experience of people who commit any crime is that they assume they won't caught - even when the likely hood is that they will.

If there is something that can act as a deterrent (which cameras do) and helps in investigations, which cameras do, then I don't see a problem.


----------



## Jake (18 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":3thj5i9m said:


> But he is probably demented, which might excuse and explain his extreme behaviour. So he is not a good example Jake!


 
Jenx's comments weren't qualified so as to accept exceptions - it was an absolute paean to the benefits of age, such that the fact of age should confer automatic respect for the corollary facts of wisdom and experience.

Obviously there are many, many wise and experienced old people - but that's not exactly the point.


----------



## Benchwayze (19 Feb 2009)

Jake":3jiujj8h said:


> RogerS":3jiujj8h said:
> 
> 
> > Jake":3jiujj8h said:
> ...



Jake,

I think it was you who said, ( "Uh huh. But they have the right to say what the hell they like about you too, so suck it up.")

That isn't exactly true Jake. There really are certain things you cannot say about certain people, unless there is truth to back you up. Hence my asking if you have got it now. 

Now do you see what I meant?
I'm off to argue with some curly Maple!


----------



## Benchwayze (19 Feb 2009)

davegw":2240lg4x said:


> Benchwayze":2240lg4x said:
> 
> 
> > Much better to prevent a crime than 'clear it up'.
> ...


 
Camera's don't act as a deterrent, any more than anything else. If they did we wouldn't have metre upon metre of criminals going about there unlawful business. There would be even more of it if there weren't some criminals with a brain-cell they actually use. The fact is, some criminals don't give a fig about cameras, and even put the proverbial fingers up to them. Knowing they won't be caught. 

If cameras do work, they do so because it's known they are there. (Speed cameras?) 

My point is, with a beat Bobby, criminals know there might be someone who can lock them up, there and then. Thus saving huge amounts of time and money, spent analysing and following up their enactments on video! 

I still have nothing to fear from street cameras, unless some puddled officer gets me mixed up with the true 'perp'. Yet, I still don't like the idea that someone can sit in front of a screen and follow my lawful comings and goings, just by moving a switch on a panel. Feelings shared, I am sure, by many attractive young girls in the Summer! :wink:


----------



## davegw (19 Feb 2009)

Benchwayze":3h2xgr3z said:


> davegw":3h2xgr3z said:
> 
> 
> > If there is something that can act as a deterrent (which cameras do) and helps in investigations, which cameras do, then I don't see a problem.
> ...



I suppose the adult mature thing for me to do here is agree to disagree  but, I love a debate (and I really don't mean any offence). 

IMHO: Cameras do act as a deterrent - as in the example you stated - because people do know they are they. 

I don't think the lack of beat coppers has significantly increased crime, personally I think that, assuming that Crime has increased, the main reasons are:


1) The reluctance of the CPS to prosecute cases where there is a chance they won't win

2) The issue of (perceived) lighter sentences making the cost of getting caught less onerous

3) The lack of a basic respect culture, especially, but not exclusively, amongst the young

4) The lack of basic discipline in the home and in educational establishments (not just schools)

5) The lack of direction in society, caused by the ability of everyone to claim their opinion as fact without recourse (mainly the media, but also government)

Getting back to our civil liberties. Whilst I don't disagree that misuse of CCTV and other surveillance technology is a bad thing and we need to guard against it, the same could be said of most (if not all) new technologies (the internet for example), That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used - just that we should monitor the users, whoever they are Government or NGO.


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

Getting back to the OP (if you can remember that far back....) I think there has to be more to this than has been reported, or if not then the one who should be investigated is the teacher surely???

The very most I can see that should have happened if the school were upset with what the child was saying would be a quiet word from Head to Parent asking her to speak to the child (rightly or wrongly).

I also note a distinct lack of content of the 'personal email', now unless there is a legal reason why this isn't shown I would suggest that based on the Mother's description of the content there is absolutely no reason why the news media couldn't show this to add weight to their argument against the school. This (along with the Head's allegations of comments made against the school) suggests to me that there is more to the content than we are being allowed to see.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that any child should be allowed to discuss their religion with another child in school, regardless of what that religion is, so long as it stays within the bounds of peace.

Cheers

Mark


----------



## Jake (19 Feb 2009)

I'd completely forgotten where it started, for one.

This is a bit more revealing (local paper with better journalism than the Telegraph, unsurprisingly): http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Girl ... ticle.html


----------



## davegw (19 Feb 2009)

I'd forgotten too. So the quote from the Headmaster :"What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God"

It's not ok for a child to say that - but it's fine for any adult? What a pile of cr*p


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

Thanks Jake, that certainly seems to suggest a little more than 'being told not to talk about Jesus'. I know if someone, anyone, told a kid of mine that they would 'go to hell if thye didn't believe in God' I tell you here and now that I would be kicking off with that person (or the parent if it was a child).

There must surely also be more substance to the details about the email that there are claims made about the school and/or staff or there is no way possible that the school could follow this up...

The mother's claims that her beliefs are not being respected and that her and her family as peaceful Christians are being persecuted are b*ll*cks as far as I can see. She's feeling sorry for herself because she doesn't want someone else telling her kids that they can't go around scaremongering.

As far as I am concerned, with what I have read of this so far (and am fully aware that there will undoubtedly be more that is yet to be revealed) I am behind the school on this one.

Mark


----------



## Jake (19 Feb 2009)

At 5 or 6 years old, I think that's perfectly appropriate.


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

davegw":3e6h3y51 said:


> I'd forgotten too. So the quote from the Headmaster :"What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God"
> 
> It's not ok for a child to say that - but it's fine for any adult? What a pile of cr*p


Sorry Dave but I have to disagree with you there. It is the Headmasters job to protect all the children under his care, not to make laws and legislate for the rest of the country.

They are two distinctly different questions with the same answer, a resounding NO.

I think there is too much being read into this. Where does it say anywhere that it is okay for an adult to say it?

Cheers

Mark


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

Jake":2qbvq3po said:


> At 5 or 6 years old, I think that's perfectly appropriate.


Which one did you reply to Jake? I've lost the thread now 

Cheers

Mark


----------



## Jake (19 Feb 2009)

That was to Dave!


----------



## Benchwayze (19 Feb 2009)

Dave,

Whilst I agree with your points about the Courts and upbringing etc, your views on cameras are the views of out-of-touch, Senior Police Officers with maybe 10 years service. (Most of that in their Ivory Towers.) 

I still cannot see the point of watching the commission of a crime, if you can't intercede there and then. So to me cameras are at best an adjunct to Investigations or as an ego booster for the criminals! 

I will agree though, they make better witnesses than the average human being. Even if it is too late to save a victim. 

Now I really do have to get back to my workbench. 
Thanks for the chance to air my views. 
Cheers
John


----------



## maltrout512 (19 Feb 2009)

Question for you here, did you when you were that age not call some class mate such and such, pull girls pony tails, as a couple of examples. Now I know I did and I am sure at the time I didn't have much of a clue what it meant or what if any damage it would cause. Children can be very nasty to each other when they want to be. I do remember the teacher giving me a real good talking to maybe even a rap on the back of my hand. Mum or Dad would have been told and I would have had to keep out of the way at home, just in case I had the other hand rapped. That was it, nothing further would happen. So why has this been blown right out of all proportions.


----------



## davegw (19 Feb 2009)

TrimTheKing":og7jopv8 said:


> davegw":og7jopv8 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd forgotten too. So the quote from the Headmaster :"What we do not condone is one child frightening a six-year-old with the prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God"
> ...



Adults - any member of the Christian Church (I was bought up a christian and I went to church - now a devout atheist) will tell you this as a fact - the only way to Heaven is through Jesus - the only alternatives to heaven are purgatory or Hell. I could be wrong but I believe that kind of choice is true of all Judeo - Christian Faiths (which includes Islam). 

So if a preacher from any of these faiths came to the school and said this are you telling me that the Headmaster would intercede? 

I don't agree with what the child said - or the indoctrination of any child into any religon - but I don't see how given the approach this state (and other western states) take generally on religon, and I am assuming that this was a state school, the child could be admonished.

As for the parent slagging off the school and staff in an e-mail - that should be investigated, but I'd love to know how it "fell" into the Heads hands?


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

davegw":asvthsi8 said:


> Adults - any member of the Christian Church .....
> 
> So if a preacher from any of these faiths came to the school and said this are you telling me that the Headmaster would intercede?


Fair point, probably not, but then I would guess that with religious sensitivity as it is that this would never be invited to happen anyway as no matter what religion the representative was from there would be a fear that other religious groups (parents or children) would kick up.



davegw":asvthsi8 said:


> I don't agree with what the child said - or the indoctrination of any child into any religon - but I don't see how given the approach this state (and other western states) take generally on religon, and I am assuming that this was a state school, the child could be admonished.


Again, fair point but they are only small kids and there is a fair chance that there are more that don't go to church than do, and for the ones who don't understand to be told that they are evil (or such) for not believing in a higher power then this can really scare some kids. For this reason if no other then the kid should be told not to discuss it with any other children.



davegw":asvthsi8 said:


> As for the parent slagging off the school and staff in an e-mail - that should be investigated, but I'd love to know how it "fell" into the Heads hands?


Agreed on both counts. Investigation required, but if I was the mum I would be questioning myself on who my 'friends' are....

Cheers

Mark


----------



## devonwoody (19 Feb 2009)

Could any of the posters here say that the 10 commandments are wrong?


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

devonwoody":ge5i82yq said:


> Could any of the posters here say that the 10 commandments are wrong?


I can't remember what they are, post them up.

Mark


----------



## Steve Maskery (19 Feb 2009)

Actually, one of my neighbours has a really nice ass.
S


----------



## TrimTheKing (19 Feb 2009)

Steve Maskery":ackt5x6m said:


> Actually, one of my neighbours has a really nice ass.
> S


Haha, I remember that one! 

Mark


----------



## RogerS (19 Feb 2009)

TrimTheKing":24yzyxed said:


> Steve Maskery":24yzyxed said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, one of my neighbours has a really nice ass.
> ...



And why should Waka keep getting all the shiny new tools?


----------



## Digit (19 Feb 2009)

From the KJA version...

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...

Thou shalt not make any graven images...

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them...

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain...

Remember the sabbath and keep it Holy...

Honour thy father and mother...

Thou shalt not kill...

Thou shalt not commit adultery...

Thou shalt not steal...

Thou shalt not covet etc...

Roy.


----------



## Mark Hancock (19 Feb 2009)

Digit":1e8qs72v said:


> From the KJA version...
> 
> Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...
> 
> ...



What about the others? From what I recall of a recent QI programme there are actual in excess of 300 :?:


----------



## davegw (19 Feb 2009)

Digit":2vj6x225 said:


> From the KJA version...
> 
> Thou shalt have no other Gods before me...
> 
> ...



IMHO These are the commands of a slightly egotistical meglomaniac (no offence meant)



Digit":2vj6x225 said:


> Honour thy father and mother...
> 
> Thou shalt not kill...
> 
> ...



These seem reasonable (depending on you neighbour of course)


----------



## Digit (19 Feb 2009)

The answer to that Mark is, yes, if you are Jewish. 
Take the Sabbath, in Judaism it is sacrosanct, in Christianity Jesus stated that the 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!'
St Paul got around these problems by, in effect creating a two tier religion, Jews to follow the old ways, the followers of Jesus a new, easier way.

Roy.


----------



## andycktm (19 Feb 2009)

What must have it been like all those thousands of years ago when lighning was fire in the sky,god angry etc.
Trouble is now we understand it we havn't moved on.


----------



## filsgreen (20 Feb 2009)

I think this may sum up what is wrong with the UK and maybe the world in this day and age.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090219/tuk ... dbed5.html

I do not know who is right and who is wrong, but I can certainly get the gist of the text and cartoon.

Accidents cannot happen, they must be somebody's fault and as such someone has to pay, usually the rest of us in insurance premiums. And then some people think if that is the way we have to play the game, then I shall do it also.

Phil


----------

