Jeremy

New Addington is popular?

The London Bridge service did increase in frequency a few years back... and I think the current timetable is supposed to be temporary..

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Biggest TV ratings on Chrostmas Day. You're not a > crusty High Court judge by any chance, Jeremy? ;-) I quite like the idea of being a crusty high court judge, but alas no! Usually just watch Netflix... very rarely turn on broadcast TV, except for Cbeebies occasionally!

I've never even heard of Mrs Brown's Boys.

Selfies/selfie sticks are bad enough... but go to almost any far east country and everywhere you go there are girls grinning smugly taking photos of themselves. It's nauseating.

On film/TV it's a bit better because the luvvies tend to reign in the aaactiingg a little bit.

Almost every subgenre of electronic dance music. A four-bar phrase repeated over and over again, punctuated by various noises or nonsensical words. Rubbish. (With a few rare but notable exceptions). Olives. They taste disgusting. Flat Whites. We already have enough combinations of coffee/water/milk, you're just being pretentious. Shakespeare. The tragedies aren't exactly heartwrenching. The comedies are tragically unfunny. The script format doesn't lend itself to enjoyable/involving reading, and you need a glossary to understand it. On stage it is almost always hammy and over-acted. No thanks!

ernesto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lots of intellectual superiority vibe going on here By you, maybe!

We'd still be saying that the sun, moon, stars and planets all revolved around the earth, for fear of offending the Catholic church!

Sounds like a very nasty situation, Otta. But I'm assuming you didn't subsequently cower in terror whenever she raised her voice at you. I really think that despite the distress the abused husband/boyfriend obviously feels, it's not quite in the same league as the other way round.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Common sense is a culturally relative concept Perhaps so, but I meant there comes a point where your own common sense (or judgement) has to take priority over what others may find offensive. I'm not necessarily saying that Charlie Hebdo is a good example of this, but as a general principle, whether you're talking about art, journalism, science, philosophy, education, or whatever... sometimes views and beliefs need to be challenged, even if it's going to cause offence. We can't go through life never doing anything which might offend someone.

When I said "we will always need", I didn't mean that everybody needs a car! I meant that there will always be a need for some vehicles. Personally I do not cycle as I consider it unsafe... if there was better infrastructure I'm sure I'd change my tune.

With our roads jammed and our public transport creaking under the strain, encouraging more, safe, cycling is a good thing. But I'd like to see it done properly as in the aforementioned cities, with properly segragated cycle lanes. The problem is... how could we fit them in, as well as pavements and bus lanes? Despite the car-haters, we will always need cars/vans/lorries on our roads..

I think the Americans would be most amused if the French started taking some sort of military action. Otta, I understand what you mean by "it is not for you to decide what is or is not offensive to people".. but at the same time, somebody finding something offensive is not necessarily enough of a reason not to do something. Some people find women wearing trousers, or with uncovered heads offensive. Some people found Life of Brian offensive. The theory of evolution was once considered offensive (probably still is)... provision of free contraception... we could go on and on. At some point common sense has to take priority.

Surely regarding domestic violence, the difference in strength is key. Women are not usually in a position to physically defend themselves against abusive partners. Men usually are physically able, but unwilling to defend themselves as they don't want to hurt their partner. I don't think the level of distress and fear is even similar.. and I don't see what there is to gain by protesting that it's essentially the same thing!

I was actually heading towards being in reasonable shape before xmas, then during "christmas week" put on a few kg of lard. Back to the gym this week... and substituting the crisps and chocolate for fruit and occasional "popchips"...

If they have a "line-in" then they could be useful for playing an iPod through, or whatever. But if the only working feature is an FM radio then they're probably ready for the tip.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Respect religion'. > That's like saying 'Respect magic'. Quite. I'd like to think that we all respect freedom of religion/belief/thought. But it would be stupid to automatically respect those beliefs.

I agree with the start of his article... the freedom of speech issue isn't really black and white. As some of the above comments demonstrate, even us liberal westerners can't agree on what is/isn't acceptable. But some of his accusations of double standards (i.e. we don't make fun out of the holocaust or 9/11 victims falling from twin towers) are plain ridiculous. As if this is in any way comparable...

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It could be argued that publishing > these cartoons would fall within that category. I think that would be a very hard argument to win.

Yeah I agree with DC here... not sure how you can say it's inciting hatred. It wasn't deliberately designed to turn one group of people against another.

Camberwell to Victoria in 40 mins.. maybe. Not from ED though!

Afghanistan arguably is... certainly was under the Taliban.

I believe they lived in the huge mansion on Champion Hill, which is now Kings halls of residence. Camberwell was a highly affluent semi-rural area on the fringes of London.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever their motives > there is no religion which could justify their > actions or would want to. Again I disagree... religion isn't necessarily limited to what is contained within the holy text. If this attack was considered legitimate by certain preachers or clerics, then surely their version of religion WOULD justify it...