Otta

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Religion divides people. I struggle to see a > place > > for it in the modern world. > > So does football. And no doubt people have died > fighting over that too. People have died fighting > over many, petty allegiances, perceived slights, > or difference of view. Clearly religion did have > something to do with this, but if it hadn't been > religion, I can't help wondering whether the > perpetrators would not have been undertaking > similar violent acts in the name of some other > cause, or none. If it wasn't for religion the psychos at the heart of it all would not have a banner to call idiots to. Most sane Christians would condemn the Westboro Baptist Church as a bunch of nutters, but they are undoubtedly a Christian group. Most decent and sane muslims would want no part of this extreme stuff, but it is a branch of islam. If there was no religion humans would undoubtedly find something else to kill each other over, but there is no doubt at all that at the moment an extreme interpretation of a religion is the cause.

Davis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is most troublesome in regards to the > prominent narratives which have emerged from the > attacks in France is not the notion that pompous > vulgarity is a bastion of free speech, nor is it > the hypocrisy shown by those who champion free > speech but have not rallied behind the many > historians that have been imprisoned in Europe for > holocaust denial, but rather what is most > troublesome is that France and Britain have been > presented as victims despite their colonial past > and their continued neo-colonial wars. The > combined number of deaths which are a result of > terrorist attacks on French and British soil do > not even amount to 1% of the innocent people > France and Britain have killed in pursuit of their > colonial and neo-colonial endeavours. Good one.

Sounds absolutely vile.

Bah, crap week.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/161548480218?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=108&chn=ps&device=c&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=108

I'm with you Lou, never "got" Harry Hill.

It would make a big difference because a whole section of the bar is being dedicaterd to the guest ales. Put them outside and ease the surge indoors. And those of us who don't necessarily give a shit what we drink can just have the Hamlet lager indoors.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > AqM sorry I misunderstood your post. > > > That's ok. So do you kind of agree with me? Or > not........? I don't know. As you say, it's about fine lines, so guess the jury were best placed to judge which side of the line they were on that night.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hard when the bar isn't geared up for serving 700 > or so people in 15 minutes. > One idea would be a pre poured "quick queue" > selling just one beer...Stella or whatever with > one person pouring and one taking cash plus a few > poured beforehand to save time. It won't go flat > that quickly.. > . I was thinking along those lines, like an Irish pub with the Guinness lined up ready. And yeah an outdoor sub bar for the posh beer would be good. I went to the offy and got a couple of cold ones. Felt a bit bad, but not as bad as I feel when I miss half the match queuing.

Yes that's a well known "black spot", but do you really need another school all the way down there? You're further away than Nunhead.

AqM sorry I misunderstood your post.

Yep, uncomfortable to admit, but there probably is more truth in that quote than most of us care to acknowledge,

Yeah I'm not sure what the answer is, but the bar waiting times are a real downer. And it encourages people to bring their own.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if a woman is drunk, so drunk that she is > having trouble standing up but is still able to > speak, then consents to sex, then passes out > afterwards, has no recollection the next > day............... > > Is the man guilty of rape? Of course he is, because she's passed out. Unless she specifically said she has a weid fetish and likes to be shagged whilst unconscious (which I can't imagine anyone has ever said), then once she's passed out then anything she said before is null and void.

LadyD you're trying to paint people as victim blamers here unfairly. If someone commits a rape, they are responsible, no one has said otherwise. But when my daughters are 19, I'd like to think they'll know that if they go back to a hotel room with a stranger they met in a kebab shop at 4am, it's unlikely the stranger is just going to be after a chat.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They sent a 10 year old girl as a suicide bomber for example. > Where is the press outrage at that? I posted much the same on Facebook today, saying that I was surprised I'd had to actually look for this story on BBC Website rather than it being one of the top stories. But someone else did say that it had been pretty well reported by some of the papers, so I'm less sure now. Guess it depends on your news source.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the predatory, taking advantage of a woman > too drunk to give consent that we are talking > about, not a drunken fumble. I get that, and I agree with you, but where is the line between tipsy / drunk drawn?

I'm assuming these blokes stay sober whilst waiting for the girls to get suitably pissed? What a boring night, I'd rather get pissed and have some fun.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh i don't know - we've got 'free' schools > remember - they choose their own curriculum Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's ridiculous. Free schools still have to > comply with the usual standards, they're inspected > by Ofsted, their kids have to take the same public > exams and they're subject to the prevailing laws > of the country. And don't you think the parents > might notice? I don't think it's quite as ridiculous as you make out.

I am a bit troubled by this I have to say. Most student sex could be called rape by the sounds of it. Does it make any difference how much the male has had to drink?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Tyson still had an awful lot of fans, even > after he was convicted of rape... No doubt, but his PR team played it well and it all added to his "Baddest man on the planet" moniker.

That's the difference with boxing, people love a bad guy to cheer against and it sells tickets. Floyd Mayweather is a master of trash talk and arrogance and he knows a lot of people want to see him get knocked out. Tyson was the ultimate bad guy.

Or people wanted to see him getting punched.

Interesting take on it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332535/We-think-the-Paris-terrorists-were-offended-by-Charlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

I don't understand why an appeal was denied. How can anyone be sure how pissed she was. The same amount of booze will effect different people differently, even if they're the same size and weight and all that.