bignumber5

This all seems to be covering similar ground to the littering/cigar-butt thread, and a previous one on traffic wardens - do something naughty, get caught, get fined, throw tantrum. We all hate it at the time, but I think the major part of getting angry is because we either didn't think we'd get caught, or just think we're above this particular law because of specific circumstances. Generally speaking, we're not... however cathartic a good "over-zealous traffic warden" rant might be.

for cricket spectating, I found this handy. http://www.iscacrows.co.uk/Field%20positions.JPG Just watch a well commentated game with this by your side, it helps a bit! (commentating on cricket ALWAYS better on radio, my dad swears by tv on mute and radio on for commentator...)

Welcome - tell me, do you... DRINK? :)-D

condolences PGC :(

2 fish in a tank - one says to the other "do you know how to drive this thing?"

fingers

Bloody hell, seanmac, hope you've got a paper with you...>:D

Well, I started the thread with a sort-of rant, so gloves off all round ;-)

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PS: The original post "smelt" of a viral marketing > campaign against BJ to me - but maybe I'm becoming > too cynical? Oh, and I have no idea what this means... anyone free to help? Original post was watching the news after getting home, and thinking something that I'd normally discuss with Mrs.number5, but she was out, so I thought I'd post to discuss with you guys as you always seem much more politically aware than me, hence original post ended with a question mark. No hidden agenda, if that's what you mean. (And my first proper thread-starting, so confirming upgrade from lurker to poster, and thought in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound and go straight for politics!) [edited for huge number of typos]

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BN5 - what is your evidence that BJ is a hard core > right winger? Apologies for not getting back to this thread until now - I seem to keep very different hours to everyone else... Thanks to those who have covered the original point-of-view while I've been away from t'internet. I think SeanMac has done a spot of mind-reading, which will save me a great deal of time. BJ: Openly sexist, a bit racist (Papua New Guinea, remarks about cannibals... familiar?), up for helping the old school network kneecap a journo, writing off a whole city presumably because it's a fundementally working northern city, similar arguement with Portsmouth, and while that whole cigar case business may seem pretty trivial, it essentially amounts to looting. Then to his poicies for London to demonstrate his general uselessness: *Abolishing the congestion charge: the best thing to happen to daily life in London in my lifetime, again to seanmac for the specifics. *Motorbikes in bus lanes: I ride motorbikes and I think this is a crap idea, anyone who's ever been on a bus that has to crawl along because a 2-wheeler (motorised or not) is sat up front will prob agree with me. Pointless. Bus lanes are for buses. *Removing bendies: reactionary bollocks. the accident stats for bendies are just shite - bendies run the busiest central routes, and this is (by averages) where the accidents will happen. Per bus running and per head of user, the bendies are no different to a DD running the same part of town. Concerns about how often the size means clipping a cyclist would do well to address how few cyclists in London actually obey the highway code and try stopping at lights. I work in a central london A&E and when cyclist contacts bus, cyclist always gives a "no idea what happened" history, whereas the shell shocked driver and anyone at the front of the bus can always tell a detailed story of cyclist running red light or going for a tight pass and misjudging the wider turning circle of a bendy - so cyclists, stop whinging about bendies and obey the rules of the road, enough of the "I can judge when I can make a gap" bollocks and then being suprised when the back half of a bendy swings into said "gap". (sorry, that should probably be a separate thread-rant...) *More coppers, more CSO's, but less public spending - smashing, Boris, no one could possibly fault these, except that one makes the other virtually impossible. Standard pre-election spin; throw in better state school resources, something widely unfounded about being able to cut spending, safer streets, partridge in some sort of shrubbery. So, sexist, racist, sweeping statements about people from whole cities based on the class divide, condoning acts of public disorder as long as it's old-boys-network as the agressor, and a series of policies with no real basis for implementation other than pleasing the London motorist, who with the price of living in London is unlikely to be the average working Londoner. Right Wing: check Moron: check Bumbling: irrelevent, but makes him seem unthreatening, and that's what might get him London. BJ should stick to history TV and getting poked at on Have I got news for you. An academic, occasionally a refreshing stance on hypothetical issues (extreme opinion of any kind always allows me to review my own stance, if only to argue my case calmly, something I may have failed to do here...), but not someone I want running London.

Is it just me that is really worried by Boris Johnson? The media focus seems to be stuck on the bumbly side, the loveable "he's a bit daft but not so bad" side, and glossing over the fact that he's hardcore right wing in a way that george dubya would be proud of. It really concerns me that many a-poorly considered vote will go his way from those who want a change from Ken and think Boris looks like a fairly safe and harmless alternative. Even today's revelation that a senior transport bod will quit if Boris takes office is still being played down, with no news show giving decent attention to exactly what about him it is that makes senior officals consider their position: which is more likely, being ashamed of being embarassed of working with bumbling boris, or not wanting to be associated with the administration of the 21st Century London-only Mrs Thatch? Thoughts?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to admit Paddy's day does my head in a bit. > It was fun when I was a student in Liverpool (the > Irish dock), but now it just annoys me how > everyone goes mad for it, and yet noone raises a > pint on April 23rd (or is it 21st? see I know > without thinking what 17th March is). Basically > it's just Guinness Day. Seconded. When I was a student (specifically a student rugby player) then any excuse for a skinful of Guinness was much appreciated, particularly at the end of the season as we were winding down. Was pointed out by many that I'm not Irish, and that now seems to be very valid in a way that it just wasn't back then... But must argue a little bit: some people do raise a pint on 23rd April... People who drive white vans and look like bulldogs raising pints of beater, but still people raising pints ;-)

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > method a would be terribly unfair on the > train driver. The dad of a friend of ours is a train driver and never really got over the time someone threw themself in front of his train...

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Graham Chapman I think you will find and he was > not the messiah he was a very naughty boy. Aware of that: Sorry, but you missed my reference a bit... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs

Rolo Tomasi - I love subtle references to great films

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- But, like it or not, there is > something of a gulf between what might be a legal > no-no, and what actually goes on. And it does go > on. I've been in the medical biz for a while now, including palliative care, and i'd have to say not in my experience. I'm not so naive as to totally deny the practice exists, but i have never seen evidence of it. regulation on practice, particularly post-shipman, is pretty good, and the professions are currently changing the culture around whistle-blowing, rather than the old medical "closing ranks" approach. Unless, *Bob*, you have a very personal experience that you are drawing from, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, because my personal experience is entirely unilateral.

And this whole Jesus Christ character - JC? Clearly a lampoon of our Comic Messiah Jon Cleese. Disgraceful in what is still fundementally a Python-Worshipping Country... >:D<

An interesting topic... the distinction currently made is the difference between withdrawal of treatment vs an act of intentional harm. Treatment can be refused at any point in illness, in which case the new treatment to offer is symptom management. CWALD may be the best person to help here, with that LD, but as far as I'm aware a living will can be arranged but only to state the circumstances in which you would want treatment to be withdrawn. In the UK, Medical staff can never take an act to intentionally harm, regardless of consent or desire - it's a legal no-no, and even if that was ever changed, it'd be a big ethical minefield for a lot of us in the trade.

TJS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Karl, I simply think it is the fact he will overly > threaten people who look weaker... (i.e old etc) I've seen this chap (i think) doing exactly that: he rarely seems to single out blokes under 40 or over 6ft, and when he does he seems to be less pushy. Unlike Brendan, I haven't ever given anything to this guy because I don't engage with agressive begging, it's a personal rule. With this fella, I tend to go for headphones in, no eye contact, and walk straight past. It did occur that I am advertising myself as oblivous to my surroundings and carrying an ipod (those white earphones sure are discreet)... But the same priciples of straight-line walking without slowing down, no eye contact and a disinterested "no" rather than a passive and enquiry-inviting "no, sorry" go a long way with managing intimidating persons, although I admit as a big lad it feels easier to do that.

Well, todays results shed a little light: back to my earlier post, the Welsh are on a roll. England, on the other hand? Roll over, play dead...

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BN5, quite. I think we're all agreeing that it > makes sense to make an effort to clean up after > yourself but that we wouldn't expect to be fined > for dropping a raisin or two - and yes, I do think > that's different from dropping crisp packets or > anything which stays on the street or is > unpleasant for others to step on. I agree we've > all a tendency to cluck at others' crimes and > contextualise our own, but isn't that a reasonable > rule of thumb? Agreed on all counts, although must reply to the last of your points that everyone doing something doesn't make it ok. Except when I do it, obviously ;-)

Moos: that does sound pretty ridiculous, although the text of the article calls into question the actions of parent, who seems convinced that the options are a) leave on floor or b) put back in bag. I've watched the same situation with my sister-in-law with her kid, and she picks it up to put in a bin, telling her child that those ones are not for eating because they've been on the floor. But still, good example of apparent jobsworthiness. Tillie: we're all different, but if any litter falls out of my bag when I reach for something, yes, I do pick it up, including giving reasonable chase. I agree that petty laws can get out of hand, it's just that I don't consider this to be a petty law (as seanmac pointed out, problem identified, awareness raised, no change in behaviour, penalty identified, penalty enforced, wooly libs whinge when stung). Moos' example demonstrates how it can get out of hand, but the case that started it all on the forum, seanmlows cigar, is not out of hand. It's exactly what the law is there for! For my 2 cents, the issue here is one of snobbery. We, the wooly liberals of ED, seem to think that we are above it all because we drop cigar butts or the contents of our jute bag when we take the kids out in the bugaboo, we are not hoodies maliciously littering in order to stick it to the man... It's the same antisocial behaviour, and that's how law not being influenced by social status (perceived or genuine) works.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some halos shine too brightly on this thread for > me. Can you imagine if this fine expands to > include any litter. SCENARIO -walking along LL > with little one in buggy who, unbeknownst to > yourself, lobs her raison packet or organic banana > chip onto the ground and along comes the Litter > Brigade and slaps you with a ?75.00 fine! That > will be OK with y'all will it? Or is it just > because someone was disgusting enough to be > smoking that it's OK? oh for god's sake, don't be simple... From reference.com - littering: Carelessly discarded refuse. "Carelessly" requires the disregarding of better prior knowledge of appropriate conduct, which I think makes a kiddy dropping a banana thingy, or whatever organic ED yummy-mummy inflicted snack it is that they have, a bit different in intent from pitching a finished smoke on to the pavement because you can't be arsed to walk 10 feet to a bin with an ashtray on top. (Similarly, I reckon genuine accidental droppage may be excused, as I doubt that a community warden who saw you drop your keys would scoop them up and hold them to ransom.) A child in such a position requires educating about the rights and wrongs, as (it appears) does seanmlow. The difference is that this is to be expected from a kid, and may take a while to hammer the message home. Since he's a smoker, I'm assuming seanmlow is at least 18 and should know better by now. Are you proposing that smokers be met with the same amount of special consideration that we give small children? Do we let someone throw away rubbish and throw tantrums as long as we can see a pack of fags on the table? Is it a linear pattern? Do really heavy smokers get to shit themselves like babies? Or is that just silly?

omgwtfpwn, i'm really not sure who you're annoyed with, me or seanmlow... the "whom our great nation" bit was me ::o

seanmlow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They were obviously not very bright individuals > and it winds me up that they get paid MORE THAN > TRAINEE NURSES! I haven't sifted through the whole of this thread to see if anyone has replied to this particluar comment, but steady on seanmlow: First challenge, to the apparent intelligence of the community wardens. These are people who want work, are willing to do shit work if that's all that's going, and are willing to get paid not a great deal for doing so. That seems like a person without whom our great nation would be utterly buggered as the shit jobs need doing too and are obviously necessary since as the litterer in question, you are demonstrating no insight and perhaps need fining in order to iniate a change in your behaviour. How does doing their job make them unintelliegent? Because they were not open to being reasoned with? I had this chat with a traffic warden once: he was just slapping me with a ticket when I got there, and I had a go at reasoning with him. He said sorry, already written. I went for a rather petulent "does this really satisfy you?" and receive a calm "not really, but I have a wife with a baby on the way and it's a job: the council give you this when you start because no-one would do it out of choice, and if I play it by the numbers for 18months then I can transfer onto something a bit less hated." I apologised profusely, went home feeling awful and have never back-chatted to a public servant since. To the second charge, the cash recieved by student nurses: When I did my nurses training, I paid no tuiton fees (because student nurses don't), got a decent-ish grant (enough to cover rent and utility bills) and I wasn't pushed so hard that I couldn't fit in enough part-time work to cover the rest of my costs. And i still pissed a fair amount of it up against the wall: rather than very victorian sounding trainee nurses, student nurses are still students. Sorry to come down hard, seanmlow, but that just crawled under my skin a bit.