RosieH

Le singe est dans l'arbre. Moi, j'aime bien les types francais. Bien sur, j'ai fait du "french kissing" tout pres de la Seine, et c'etait super-chouette. I have, from time to time, been given a moment's pause on pondering whether, if "Le Genou de Clair" had actually been "Le Genou d'Eclair", the heroine could have walked with a cake-knee. I am off now to boire a leetle more of zees excellent Bordeaux.

Asset, you're a genius - for THAT I would donate generously

???? bang on. Mick Mac, I think you'll find that I said, but if no one bothers to find him guilty, are we going to jusge by tabloid and storm the barricades?

ibilly, you have a point, but I find it troubling nevertheless: is Jackson guilty by a "no smoke without a fire" public verdict? While barely legal may be legal only barely, it remains legal nonetheless. My own opinion of Michael Jackson is entirely subjective - he is without a doubt, deepy disturbed, and I suspect that yes, he very possibly is a paedophile. But he was found not guilty and as such is free to go about his business as usual. And the two jurors, who are now writing books for which they will be paid a lot of money, might have wanted to show a bit of backbone during the trial and stood up and dissented, rather than now that that hint of spine might stand to make them millions. For me they can have no credibility whatsoever.

Yeah, I'm with Snorky, I think you're all a miserable bunch of b*****ds. It's not on that often, you don't have to watch it, you're not obliged to bathe in baked beans, you don't have to donate AND you get to see red-caped crusaders riding on choppers through Peckham Rye. 40 million quid to good causes - what's not to love? Frankly while I'm not a fan of general zaniness, and it might be the hangover I'm still nursing, but I'm finding the films rather emotional. Enough to tolerate the very bad suit the very delicious David Tennant was wearing. I'm unconvinced this money would be raised any other way - do people really buy lottery tickets as a way of giving to charity? I think moving them to donate through rubbish comedy and harrowing documentary footage gets the job done and as such is no bad thing.

Dancing Queen. Did anyone else hear "oh-oh camel pie"?

Yes, you're right. Sorry Dave, I think I was overlooking the Law of Divine Oneness So I'm going to need the help of several Ascended Masters - anyone know where I can buy some crystals..?

Well DaveR, thanks very much for ruining my life - I really do need to be bringing some money in, you realise there's a credit crunch on, right? And Brendan, thanks for your insights. Based on the above responses, I suspect I might have a hard sell on my hands. Arse.

Jah, take it you don't mean the Brompton Cross end? Used to work there and the train / bus to Victoria and tube to South Ken was pretty quick.

Nah, Moos, I was with you on that one. Lately I seem to have fallen victim to gag haggery of the worst kind, and harboured a lusty fondness for the Jupitus. However, I saw him on something else and he was a massive cockadoodledoo, so I have grown out of it and seen the error of my ways. Stephen Fry, on the other hand, is the master. I view his fondness for royalty as the flaw that only serves to make him more beautiful. edited for any delicate sensibilities and because I like Moos' word better

wtf? I'm all for a little troll on troll action (aren't we all?) but invoking the spirit of Adolf seems a little harsh Shu. Well I say harsh, I mean psychotic.

Apparently this is the Universal Law of Belief. In the interests of absolute candour, and following the underhand exploits of Bounty, I'm should explain that this is work related. I have the opportunity to pitch for some work that sort of centres on Universal Laws. Currently I know next to nothing and wondered what anyone who does thinks about them / the concept: sound philosophical principles or am I on a hiding to claptrappery?

Reynard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Getting laid 3 times in one week on an all > inclusive on the Costas. Are we to surmise this was hitherto unknown, or that it was included with the full board?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- But all of those numbers are less than 1 in 10. Dave, I really don't want to be sensationalist about this. Even I have been surprised at the extent of experience of other posters on here, but I don't dispute it. But I just wanted to remind you (gently) that the 1 in 10 statistic is not limited to rape. It encompasses other forms of violence too, so you shouldn't expect to see stats saying 1 in 10 women has been raped.

Roger that ;-) (that's a special one just for you Huguenot - I don't usually do the faces - they make my arse clench)

Mick, I could draw you a venn diagram if you like. 1 in 10 women (that's about 3 million or so) versus 66,000 cases of FGM? It includes them, it isn't exclusively about them. So no, the campaign shouldn't be about ethnic minorities being subject to the laws of the country. (or are you saying that rape and domestic violence are also restricted to ethnic minorities.....? surely not) Huguenot, you're probably aware that interntationally Amnesty campaign against violence towards women (which includes rape as a weapon of war) among their many other worthwhile campaigns - they are also part of this campaign in the UK. It wasn't meant by me as any kind of attack on men, and I don't believe it is meant that way by Amnesty either. However, I am not a man, so I cannot say with authority that that is how it comes across. And I think it possible that I have misinterpreted what you said about "normal social challenges" - from your previous posts on all manner of subjects, I'm certain that I did. But it felt to me that you were saying that short of a knife to the throat, sexual assault or a slap round the face are just things we women should have to deal with as part and parcel of everyday life. I take it that wasn't what you meant..?

Some stats and their sources: (taken from end violence against women) Studies have illustrated that VAW is widespread in our society. For example: ? 45% of women have experienced some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.4 ? It is conservatively estimated that 80,000 women suffer rape every year.5 ? At least 32% of children, mostly girls, experience some form of child sexual abuse.6 ? An estimated 66,000 women living in the UK have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM) and 21,000 girls under 16 are currently at risk.7 ? In 2004, the Metropolitan Police decided to re-open 114 murder cases from the previous decade, which they now think may be so-called ?honour? killings.8 4 Walby, S. & Allen, J. (2004) Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office. London. 5 Ibid. 6 HM Government (2007) Cross-government Action Plan on Sexual Violence and Abuse. Home Office. London. 7 Forward (2007) A Statistical Study to Estimate the Prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation in England and Wales . Forward. London. 8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3828255.stm And Dave, you know what, I do think that people need educating about this, because it certainly seems to me from my experience of this thread, that people I would expect to be intelligent and informed think that sexual assault can't possibly be widespread and that it's just, you know, a normal social challenge that a woman should take in her stride. edited as I missed a bracket

I think we should start a collection to take Poppy on a nice day out around ED - we could hire a double decker bus (sans conductor) and go on a day trip, via the nice sweetshop on Northcross Road - we would sing happy songs to her and she could leave the trolley at home because the gentlemanly folk (or ladies!) of the forum would carry her bags. There'd be cake and ginger pop and nary a pit bull or hoodie in sight.

Huguenot, truly, what planet are you living on? One in ten is a statistic that shows the likelihood of women being the victim of gender-based violence as defined by the UN. Now I know you're a wise statistician and all, but frankly, I find your posts on this topic disingenuous at best and am choosing to throw my hat in with the UN rather than with you. You're a man. And as such, maybe it is uncomfortable recognising that men are the main perpetrators of ALL violent crime (although clearly, women are making some headway in demanding equality in this area too). I've resisted making this point as I don't want this to be an anti-man thing, it isn't, any more than a campaign against gun crime would be (men again you see). And it isn't that one in ten men is violent towards women. Of the estimated 66,000 women in the UK who have been subjected to female genital mutilation, there wouldn't have been one butcher for every woman (and indeed, women are heavily involved in this practice too). Your average rapist may well have sexually assaulted / raped more than one woman. In domestic violence, where, as in my case, it happens within the family, that's one man to more than one woman, and similarly if that partnership breaks up and he moves onto someone else. The numbers go down and down and down. And of course women are involved too: there was the first case relatively recently of a woman being convicted of rape, certainly in sexual assault, in domestic violence, in female genital mutilation, in trafficking. That's not worthy of you - that's not what she said and you know it. I mentioned 6 women of my knowledge earlier, I realised I omitted two - and how could I forget, one whose husband chased her down the street with an 8" chef's knife, another who struggled to get away from an attempted rape. I could tell you some serious horror stories, but a public forum just isn't the place. I would ask that you suspend your righteous indignation and consider that it's possible, please believe me when I tell you that it happens, and terminology like "normal social challenges" is hugely insulting and disrespectful to women who have had their lives turned upside down by violence. Edited to say this is getting silly now, so I'm really really going to try to leave it here. I hope all you fellas with bullying lady bosses speak to HR and get it dealt with.

If you're prepared to make two of your children feel like second class citizens then go for it. My two brothers and I went to public school. My sister, then aged 10, chose not to. 30 years later she's still deeply resentful and makes sure my parents know about it. As mightyroar says, your money would be better put to use doing good stuff together as a family (some of it could even be educational if you were so inclined). But if you do decide to choose one, go for the boy - he'll need the extra help as girls outperform boys in education.

Mick, you're hilarious.

Yesterday, very much against my better judgment, I allowed myself to get quite wound up about this - I intend not to do so today. So. This is my best attempt at a reasoned response, but my impression Mick and Mike is that our opinions differ wildly on this - I'm unconvinced that I'm likely to change your minds, and I know for certain that you won't change mine. Nevertheless... Mick Mac, I think your explanation did ameliorate only slightly your earlier statement, but unfortunately it's still an inflammatory and divisive opinion. To suggest that women in their 50s in positions of authority in an organisation are driven to the point of selfishness is sexist in the extreme. To suggest that women can only get ahead in the face of adversity by becoming hard-boiled bitches and the nice ones just don't cut it does you no credit - patronising women is what reinforces the glass ceiling. Why is a successful woman a bitch but a successful man just ballsy? Some women choose a career over children. Some women choose children over a career. Some women choose to have both. And it's our right to choose. However, the point of this thread was not to state the case for feminism or women in the workplace. It was to raise awareness of a particular campaign. Mikecg, not sure what Chopper Reid is adding to your case. But as a more rational response to your comment yesterday, I do think that to say there's always going to be violence and what you gonna do about it, is pretty spineless. If there's something I don't like, by and large, what I'm going to do about it is try to change it: like kids carrying guns, like the use of torture or genocide, I don't think the world should sit idly by and say, meh, you know, man's just naturally violent innit. I don't doubt for a second man's inherently violent nature, but neither do I doubt man's huge and wonderful facility for taking responsibility and caring for its fellow man. So what are we going to do about it? I would hope to raise awareness that might make some people think a little bit and talk a little bit and maybe change our minds a little bit, for instance: - only approx 15% of rape cases are reported to the police - of those 15%, fewer than 6% result in conviction. Hopefully what we're going to do about it is help remove some of the stigma that surrounds sexual violence so that more women feel comfortable reporting it and help educate the public (i.e. potential jurors) so that more cases result in conviction with rapists being put behind bars - remind politicians that this is an issue that matters - for instance, encourage Boris Johnson to stick to his mayoral campaign pledge to devote funds to new rape crisis centres from savings made by cutting his media and marketing team - help remove some of the stigma surrounding domestic violence - so that a battered wife might feel more confident going to the police, and the police might take it more seriously (don't get me wrong, many do, but certainly not all), that someone who suspects that a friend might be in trouble feels more able to encourage them to talk about it and then do something about it, that someone else might recognise the violence in their own behaviour and do something about it I think it's a worthwhile campaign.

Actually, I just edited my last post because I thought I was rude and it wasn't called for. However, having just read... ...I'm utterly disgusted. Mike you should be ashamed of yourself. That attitude is despicable and beneath contempt.

Like anyone with a brain would rise to it. Mike, think you'll find that when you said: that's what both BN5 and I were referring to, i.e. this post: Anyway, enough, I don't need to fight the corner for feminism when you do it so eloquently for me. edited because I was unnecessarily rude

yet what you actually said was: Mike, it really would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Are you saying that you know better than Amnesty International, Rape Crisis and the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the grounds that you don't see enough women with black eyes? In a way, I'm grateful to you for opening up this question - perhaps this is the reason people find the figure so stark and unbelievable, because they don't always see the outward signs. You've probably read that sometimes in cases of child abuse friends / neighbours had no idea because there were no visible marks, perhaps because they were made on the body or in other places where they wouldn't show. Add to that the stigma that's attached to domestic violence - it's something that women (and men who suffer it) want to hide. And rape and sexual assault aren't marked by some kind of brand on the victim's face. I'm not sure what you're expecting to see..?