Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy

Bloody hell you still don't get what I'm on about. Firstly, I'm not scared of dogs, my family always had Alsatians when I was a kid. They were all soft as shite but even so we would never have exercised them in a park crowded full of children. The reason for this is that we realised not everyone likes big dogs and not everyone knew they were brought up as family pets, in a nutshell people would have felt apprehensive with them being around, which directly impacts on their enjoyment of the time spent at the park. Basically, we recognised that it was unfair on other people, whether their fears were real or not. I suggested that if you want to keep a dog in a densely populated area and let it off the lead in the park then choose a breed which doesn't scare the crap out of people (particularily those with children), or at least choose one that isn't associated with an aggressive, screw-you, my dog's bad etc culture. Then people might not immediately assume that you are a selfish "chav". Very few people are scared of children. To my knowledge there haven't been breeds of children banned. In the event that a child bites another child it doesn't normally take 5-6 adults to drag it off. What a stupid comment to make in light of the subject of this thread.

You did miss my point. It was that I wouldn't keep an animal in an urban area that I knew made many people nervous, which Staffies, Pitbulls, crosses (as well as many other breeds) do, and that people who choose to shouldn't moan when others question their social responsibility.

Yes, maybe not a cross but you still seem to be missing my point.

The point I was making was about how a dog is perceived by other people, how comfortable people feel having such a dog around them. I used a Pitbull as an example to make a more general point, how does that make me confused?

Like the hoodie who asked me to keep my kids away from his young Staffie because he didn't want it to get to like other people. Terrifying considering he was sitting in a beer garden very popular with young families.

Very important point lurking within this post. I cannot understand for the life of me why a person would own a dog, in an urban area, that they knew had had very bad press (rightly or wrongly) and made people very nervous, which by and large they do. This would be my main reason for not keeping pitbull (actually not true, I also think that they're hideously ugly), its an antisocial stance as far as I'm concerned. If you want a dog, and don't want people to think you're somebody whose individual sense of self-entitlement overrides any notion of social-responsibility, then get a labrador, or a Newfie, or a poodle etc.

If you don't want people to think you're a chav then don't buy a chav's dog, because that is the way that they are viewed by almost everybody who doesn't keep one.

In all fairness to American judges, they usually favour the boxer who comes forward.

I'm in as long as we take an inclusive approach and allow people from Peckham to follow the hunt on stolen mountain bikes.

Errr Spadetown, most people cancel all their cards within 30mins of discovering that their wallet is missing, in the full knowledge of what a pain in the arse it is. The only thing more inconvenient, however, is having all your money stolen. Do you really wait a couple of days to see if some kindly soul hands it in? Or, as I suspect, were you just being a twat for the sake of it?

Yeah, as an Arsenal fan I find him by far the weakest link in the team (and thats allowing for Senderos' lapses). He was poor again yesterday.

Eboue's shite.

I've seen trouble outside at night but, as I have only ever been in there in the early evening, none actually inside. However, I do know some of the people who drink there and have seen them involved in plenty of aggro. Could you now answer my earlier question about understanding why a lot of women wouldn't want to drink there?

You're right. EDIT I was just pointing out that most women would always choose to drink in a "male dominated drinking den" where you might witness a punch-up. They just love that kind of stuff, especially if they have a premiership game on and the stella's ?2 a pint.

I didn't say that women would feel threatened in there, I was just pointing out that most women would not choose to drink in a "male dominated drinking den" where you might witness a punch-up. Its not the kind of place where a woman would be assaulted (except possibly by their partner).

It even has old skool chairs in it.

Annasfield Six months ago. I've tried it about 5 times and its just not a very nice pub, and I'll drink pretty much anywhere.

AKA "shit-hole"

Now that is old skool, lager and lime I hope. Keef The Castle isn't old school. Any pub dominated by the tv is immediately disqualified. What it is is a male-dominated drinking den, which, because of this, sees more than it fair share of trouble. Do you not see why some of the ladies on the board might not want to go there? Maybe you should make the next drinks men only...

Can someone define what they mean by an "old skool boozer"? To me it conjures a picture of drinking crap beer in a poorly decorated bar, in an atmosphere of potential violence. Was forced to drink in too many of them before I moved to London.

We have an Iceland

I got the wife a new bag and a belt for Valentines Day. I expect the Hoover to be working perfectly by the time I get home.

Popular insurgency? It was guerrilla warfare planned and executed in the North with the financial and military support of China and Russia. It wasn't just a few plucky peasants. Anyway, this thread is getting bogged down on one small issue. You seem to refuse to accept that from 1945 until 1990 there was a very real war going on, not one defined by tank battles on the plains of Europe, but fought by proxy, and the subsequent casualties cannot just be blamed on one of the many protaganists.

It wasn't though was it?

What Vietnam would that be? North or South? They were both given independence by the Geneva Conference (pending elections), and carte blanche to form political alliances with whatever countries they wanted to. The North chose China and the USSR, and the South chose (rather unsuprisingly) the USA. You make it sound that all Vietnamese supported the North's communist regime, when this was far from the case as is highlighted by the millions who fled the North after 1954. You mention that the South was a dictatorship, well who voted for Ho Chi Minh? So did they start it? No, absolutely not. It was started originally by the effects of de-colonialism and fought by the French. It was then reignited by the North after 1960. The U.S sided with its Asian ally in exactly the same way as the USSR and China did. Did they prosecute it needlessly? Wasn't my question, and impossible to answer in light of how the US and USSR fought the cold war.