SeanMacGabhann

oh no no no, don't get me WRONG. I know Cameron will say that.. but upon election, "evidence" will be passed to him which will mean "he is, for now, reluctantly keeping the 42 days"

Fair play to him I say... (but his party will be doing the same if they get in)

something like http://timesonline.typepad.com/alphamummy/images/2007/09/11/boden_mum.jpg in my head. And nothing wrong with that. If she didn't drop so much pesky litter

I think most places the forum have been to have made me warm to them in one way or another - even if I liked them already. Can't say the same for the visit to the Vale on Friday so - NTV once more?

Calling someone a "Lucinda-type" is a shortcut to describing someone - it doesn't raise any prejudicial instinct in me. And that's not me being naughty or disingenuous (but I do like the attempt to warm up the discussion James - appreciated) To be misogynist he would have had to single her out for something she couldn't possibly avoid as part of her being female and make unflattering renmarks about that. He didn't . He simply pointed out that she was female. Ok he could have pointed out that a PERSON was walking along yadda yadda but dear God do we have to go down that road? He wasn't rude about her because she was female. She just happens to female. And overweight it seems. If he had said "typical misddle-class woman - stuffing her face and dropping litter" you might have a point. And it's not a simple case of reversing that statement to make your point either - he didn't say "NO middle-class woman could ever litter or be fat" I put it to you, sir, that you are being overly quick to shout fire in a theatre over this one... ;-)

If people are giving out about "yummy mummies" even existing then yes they are an easy target James But if you substitute Nero's description with any of your categories above then THE STORY DOESN'T FREAKING WORK Let's run through it: Scruffy person tosses litter = no major surprise. This doesn't mean all scuffy people toss litter. But it doesn't make it surprising. And scruffy is NOT another word for working-class ok? African person tosses litter = no relevance to story Well Dresed BLOKE tosses litter = same story The whole point about the person being well dressed and of obvious self-awareness is the juxtaposition with their actions

Clive does make a good point about their existence in other countries. To my knowledge there hasn't been any major abuse of such centralised data - but I'm not sure with the way things are going in, say, Italy that I would be too happy. Especially if I was, you know... suspect to that sort of government (dark skin, less skin, gay etc)

JumpingJackFlash - have a read of this.. um.. enlightening thread Milf and more James: you seem to WANT it to be sexist and class-based rather than reading it for what it is. I don't KNOW for sure that that is what Nero is thinking but having watched him post on here for a year or so, and having met the guy once or twice, I have some inkling of the type of person he is.. just as if I suggested banning all dogs in public places, I would know how you would react As I said, the comment about snacking wasn't a generous comment, or even nice. But that's the extent of it's misdemeanours

phew Anyway.. snoozequeens points are all good and valid. And to be fair I think MM has learned a lot from the excercise. It would be interesting to hear what he thinks might be good public policy to address the situation? How can people escape that kind of trap (getting a job doesn't always help as many minimum wage jobs effectively provide similar income)

11th means I won't be there either. But i quite like the Herne.Especially the garden on a summer evening

did he??? Did I miss him? I don't remember being that drunk...

Because there isn't You can claim something is sexist or class-ridden but you haven't got a pile of evidence to back it up I guess until Nero comes back and posts his own reply we are all second guessing - by I stand by my defence of his post He would have said the same thing to a bloke - maybe replaces luv with mate - so not misogynist Her appearance was described to contrast her attitude to herself with that of her environment - so not classist

here it is The injustice of it all

Ganapati: I would stake whatever rep I have on it Strawbs: Did you see the thread about the person who was fined ?60 for dropping litter in ED? Now that Huguenot is posting again, and given his Singapore experience, perhaps he has a suggestion or two?

Nero's comment about snack sure wasn't graceful - but I'm willing to be a LOT of money had it been a bloke Nero would have made pretty much exactly the same comment, so: judgemental? yes. Misogynist? No

The lack of surprise is all mine....

It's not just "hostile" society which does it strawbs I think it might have been another facet to Nero's post. I remember taking a walk in Finsbury Sq near Moorgate with one of my staff who was having home problems and wanted some advice. So we were wandering around a lovely spot in the city when, mid-sentence she chucked the wrapper from her sandwich on the ground. This was someone I had no need to fear would attack me but when I caller her on it she became aggressive and wanted to know what my problem was, someone would come and pick it up!! (backing up Asset's point) Where does the attitude come from? (in probability, there are people reading this NOW who wonder what the problem is and find it hilarious that people get worked up about a bit of litter. Which is Missing. The. Point)

Less high-brow maybe, but one question that always has and always will bug me if a show is on Channel 4 or BBC2 it gets, say, 3 million viewers if the exact same show is shown on ITV or BBC1 it gets 8-9 million viewers That means, teh majority of TV watchers will not watch anything JUST because it's on BBC2 or CH4. Why? What does it say? Why does it upset me SO SO much????

Oh and PLEASE let's not get bogged down in class again. I read Nero's post, not as anything class based - but illustrating the obvious care the woman took with her own appearance which was in contrast to the way she treated her environment

But as we saw on this forum when someone actually DID something to stop them littering (ie fine them an amount which would make someone think twice about doing it again) some people got the right hump, saying it was disproportionate I know Bill Bryson was made some kind of litter tsar (sorry.. just had to go and bite hard on the desk after writing that phrase) but apart from one or two interviews I can't say as he has made much impact. The litter istelf bugs me - but more than that it's an act that is so illustrative of much that is really wrong in the country*, Not wrong as in what the papers peddle (immigration, tax, computer games) but the complete disassociation between an individuals actions and the impact around them. Get that fixed and you will see genuine change in the country * Not that I'm all doom and gloom. I don't think the country is going to "hell in a hand-cart". But there are areas for improvement

because you miss him I miss him but he is still wrong about "eating is cheating" on the pub crawl thread

It wasn't the negativity that stood out for me - in itself being negative doesn't make one wrong but the "Lambast me if you will, but I am entitled to my opinion" I'm not lambasting you spangles - I just wonder why you feel the need to put that in there - it seems overly defensive (and yet aware)

MM - interesting paper but not one I have to fully respond to as yet- but for now: Much of what you write is demonstrably true, yet never questions why. The reason so many "consumers" are less happy with the state services than they were post-WW2 is that post WW2, people were regarded more as citizens rather than consumers. A point I will return to.. It has been in private companies interests to whisper in the ear of successive governments, promising to deliver better services. What actually happens is that IF a company can cream off the profitable clients it can deliver a measurably superior service. If it has to deal with the masses, or anything considered the "general public" it struggles. As does government The problem with treating us all as "consumers" is that when treated as such we appear to lose civic reponsibility. And even on the consumer side we are pretty rubbish as the western nations you mention rely on their populace being heavily in debt just to keep the wheels turning. Relatively few of us excercise restraint and when our "expectations" aren't met by public service we wail until some company charges us a fortune (more debt) instead of making do You have also stated in many posts that you are against IDcards - yet it is these same companies whispering in governments ears that is leadingus down that road. On a trivial level my junk mail problem is bad enough as it is - as soon as more of my details get sold in whatever sleazy market these guys decide is best, it will get exponentially worse. Less trivially.. well enough writers have tried to show us the possibilities of what can happen. Maybe it's time teh book club read or re-read 1984 again...

Intersting stuff MM - thanks for sharing all the detail as well. I might even forgive you not buying me that pint you promised last Friday ;-)

Anyone flying out of Knock - if you haven't done so before, there is an "exit fee" of about 15 euro that everyone has to pay the airport before boarding.. But it's all worth it for the west coast of Ireland. has anyone been to Ballyvaughan?