Loz

Your dog has a coat?

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What's hard to find on the East Dulwich Forum? > > The joke thread, thereby requiring a new thread > for every new joke it seems. No, no, you misunderstand (though you are correct). It was supposed to be an answer to HonaloochieB "The answer is three wise men and a virgin."

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The answer is three wise men and a virgin. > > The question? What would be the worst boy-band of all time? What is the least accurate way of describing the Strictly Come Dancing judges panel?

What's hard to find on the East Dulwich Forum?

How long have you had the new broadband, Sue? They take about a week or two to settle down - the line goes through a 'training period' as they work out which settings at the exchange are best for you. It can be very variable during that time. Also, as you have a new router, you may have a channel clash on the new one with another neighbour's wireless. If you think that may be the cause you can download NetStumbler and you will be able to see the strength of your neighbours wifi signals and what channel they are using.

felt-tip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a thread about female masturbation and > masturbation tools was always going to attract > controversy. Yeah! When do we get the 'Men - How do you like to masturbate" thread? Will it be considered too close to the bone? And how long before the admin pulls it? Fnarr. :))

SCSB79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our place must be the only employer that states in > their employee manual that no one is allowed to > work from home????!!!!! Our place used to get very sniffy about people WFHing and used to state that you could only do it if you had the OK of a senior manager and a set task to do. Then they discovered that people working from home was cheaper for them than providing offices and desks...

OK, Sean point taken. How about a compromise? The shopkeeper could put up their poster, with picture and caption "this person is banned from this shop". It's factual, so no libel or false accusation. It achieves your aims without any sniff of vigilantism. Solved!

To an extent Sean. Journalist makes allegation and shows the evidence. Shopkeeper apparently does the same. If either get it wrong they will be sued for a lot of money. So you could successfully argue that the shopkeeper is doing the same thing as Panorama. But then comes the question of intent - I would question what the shopkeeper hopes to achieve. What was the outcome they hoped for? If you argue, "to stop said individuals from nicking stuff from his/her shop" then the same would be achieved by banning those people from the shop. The shop in question is not large and I doubt there is more than a few people in there at any one time so this is quite achievable. So why put the posters up? What else did he/she want to get out of this? If you start getting to any suggestion of retribution of any sort you get into some worrying territory. Earlier, rahrahrah asked, "Is it being suggested that CCTV images shouldn't be used to identify suspects of crime?". The answer is absolutely not - if the shopkeeper put up the posters with "do you know this person, please tell us who they are", then I would know the shopkeeper's intent and how they want me to react. But why would any shopkeeper put up a poster with "this person is a shoplifter"? What is their intent? How do they want me to react? Compare this with Panorama. What is their intent? How do they want me to react? Answering those questions will give you this difference between the two situations.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No way Sue, at stake are some key issues. > > I note that investigative journos at Panorama have > unveiled untoward happenings at FIFA. > > According to Loz, this should never have been > broadcast. > > Thoughts? I think that you are confusing vigilantism with the concept of a free press. If they do it correctly, Panorama will go through the evidence in very careful language. For instance, they will not say "he accepted a bribe", they will just note that "he accepted payments" and have the evidence to back it up. If the Beeb gets it wrong then they will almost certainly have a very large writ heading their way.

An elderly lady goes to the doctor's. "Doctor...", she says, "I seem to have this terrible flatulence problem. I'm passing wind so much. Fortunately they are silent and don't smell, but could you help me?" "Hmmm", says the Doctor, scribbling a prescription. "Take these for two weeks then come back and see me." Two weeks later the lady returns. "Doctor I don't know what you gave me, but it's made it worse. I'm still as flatulant as ever, but now they really stink. It's terribly embarrassing." "Good, they worked", said the doctor. "GOOD? It's awful. How can you say it's good?" The doctor said, "Well, they've successfully cleared your nose out. Now let's see if there's something we can do about your hearing..."

Are you connecting with a SCART cable? There might be a bent pin or loose wire. Try a different cable.

Point taken on the Citizen's Arrest rights, ianr. Them too. Edited to clarify.

new mother Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fascinating how much attention is given to the > rights of the thief as opposed to those of the > shopkeeper and his customers, who presumably pay > more to compensate for insurance claims or stock > losses. The shopkeeper has the right to report the matter to the police. They can also ban the person from entering their shop. What other rights would you give them? > I haven't read the whole thread. Did anyone get > into "it isn't their fault, they've had a > difficult upbringing" excuse? This one really > makes me mad - it is a gross insult to the people > who HAVE had a difficult upbringing but have tried > their damnedest to get out of it and who we should > be supporting at every level. I agree entirely.

Stick with the drinking BB.

Jedward? They put the 'c' in rap.

Ok Apple Bobber - we'll do the thinking and you do the drinking. Actually, I can do the thinking and the drinking. I am just soooo multi-talented... :))

Personally, I have a nasty suspicion Cher has mental issues. She just doesn't seem stable.

Did you mean to put this in the Lounge? Was this a random attack or an attempted mugging? Is your partner male or female, out of interest.

First reboot the box - turn it off at the mains. wait 30 secs and turn it back on. Sky+ boxes take 3 to 5 mins to reboot. That fixes an amazing amount of problems. (Cue: Roy from the IT Crowd... "Have yer tried turnin' it off and back on yet?") If that doesn't work you can try a system reset (google it), but you will lose everything on the planner. It essentially reformats the hard disk.

I never claimed a majority (though I suspect there is one). I said that the shopkeeper took them down, hopefully as a result of your much-lauded social unacceptability. Social acceptability does not always have to be a function of the majority opinion, it just needs to win be the right argument. Doing nothing at all can sometimes be better than doing the wrong thing. Otherwise you get to the "Something must be done - this is something: it must be done" crap. And anyway, I don't quite believe that shoplifting is as ignored by the police as much as you think. I've seen them rock up to Sainburys PDQ quite a few times. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Letting some human rights violations through just means that more go next time - the thin end of the wedge and all that. Who cared that the police were needlessly hassling photographers? What's a few hobby photographers in the bigger picture anyway? Luckily, enough people stood up to voice their concern to have the policy (almost) changed. You might consider that 'intellectual whimsy', I see it as an important lesson that human rights have to be respected. Human rights would only come into play if (and I must say we've never had this confirmed) the police did OK this exercise. Then it would no longer be a trivial matter at all.

You really need to understand the difference between extrapolation and disproportionality. I agree with the example, but you are confusing upholding the law with social acceptability. There is a huge (and very significant) difference between social pressure convincing someone that they shouldn't drive drunk versus an active campaign to 'name and shame' alleged, unconvicted drink drivers or similar. What we have seen, though, is it seems to be socially unacceptable to hang pictures up of people and accuse them of crimes they have not been convicted of. And hooray for that. Note that no one took the law into their own hands to make this happen - that is the difference between citizen imparting social acceptability versus any clumsy attempt to try to uphold the law. And you must hang around with a different set of people than me, but I never thought shoplifting was socially acceptable! The people I know consider it pretty damned unacceptable.

England has such a friendly team. Looks like if Trott didn't have his helmet grill in place, Cook would be slipping the tongue in... http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50193000/jpg/_50193041__50192576_cook_dt_getty766.jpg

OK, you're being thick then. :)) This came from your comment "His critics talk about 'vigilantism', mobs and pitchforks, accusing people of being paedophiles, violations of human rights - a completely disproportionate escalation of the case at hand." When you put the two side-by-side then you can see how you shifted the context to try and make a completely invalid point. This is what tabloids do: strawman arguments. Huncamunca's point was valid: you cannot, in a fair society, leave upholding the rule of law to the citizen at any level. It is vigilantism. He is using extrapolation to make a point. You are twisting it to make him sound like he is "equating pictures of shoplifters with mob revenge on paedophiles", when he is not and never did. Can't you see that?

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They play for 5 days and it's a draw and everyone > knew it was going to be a draw after 4 days. What > sort of a game is this? If you just look at the results then, yes, it would seem that way. But if you've been up watching it then it's been a fascinating test, with advantage swinging one way then the other. It's a bit like having an enjoyable 0-0 draw in football.