Blah Blah

We do a weekly bake day and make our own veggie ready meals to go in the freezer. Even something liked mashed potato freezes really well. No need to spend huge amounts on stuff that isn't as good as home made. Will check those soy balls out Sue. Might work well with a sweet chilli sauce and sounds like something my kids might like.

The kind of work people who have 'lost the plot' do :D http://home.bt.com/news/odd-news/budi-gets-a-buddy-watch-rescued-baby-ape-meet-another-orangutan-for-the-first-time-11363970487259

Well thank goodness some of us have 'lost the plot' then, bacuse otherwise we would have many more extinct species and worse animal cruelty practices than we already do. Humans are not as clever as they think they are. We are destroying the world we live in. We live by a system that values profit over people. I don't see animals doing any of that. And btw. Nowhere has anyone said animals are more valuable than humans, just that humans aren't necessarily any more valuable than animals. I really do wish people would read what is actually written, rather than what they think is written, before then belittling that view to madness. Out of interest, let's hear just why you think human life is more valuable than animal life? Because that eco system, that is extremely important for all life on this planet couldn't possibly be as important as humans could it?

I couldn't agree agree with you more Loz. Totally spot on.

That's fair enough MissMad :) Jim, that wasn't my point and you know it lol.

The whole left right thing though is just a label for particular sets of views though isn't it? Most people I think establish philosophies for their lives based on how they morally and ethincally view the world and themselves in it. It just happens that we define collective philosophies as left and more individualistic philosophies as right (economically speaking) and many people have views from both sides of fence. Die hards on either the left or right tend to be far fewer than we think, but also tend to be most vocal. It all goes out of the window when we look at dictatorships of course. They can be either left or right. I think traditionally we are a centre left/right country, and in the past, the party that wins general elections has typically been the one best able to occupy that ground.

People are bigger vermin. The rubbish, waste and shit produced by billions of people on the planet compared to foxes is much more in line with any definition of vermin? Or is that too complex for your understanding of how species evolve? If you can form an intelligent disproof of that statement then go for it. Have a think about it and ask yourself if your view of foxes as vermin is logical and reasonable? The truth is that you have more to fear from the poor hygiene of people around you, than you do from a fox.

Oh Uncle. Typical shift of focus from my main point to something totally pedantic and irrelevant. 99% of voters vote out of self interest Uncle. That's why ALL parties have targetted policies doh. And socialist lines are the reason why we have public services at all. Don't forget that. In the free market utopia of the opposite view, there are no state provisions, just the foolhardy belief that the free market will take care of everything. We know it doesn't. So a compromise between the two is definitely better than either/ or. We are all as much socialists as we are capitalists. We all want health care and education for all. We used to want housing, food and jobs for all too.

It's Keeky who is the troll Sam (and not a very bright one either - most trolls aren't). Ignore it.

I thought we were talking about foxes? But for the record, people share their homes with rapists, peadophiles, thieves, despots, tyrants and a whole bunch of animals with far worse characteristics than a fox. Just because you crap in a toilet doesn't make you any different. The crap has to go somewhere. Rats thrive in our sewers because of OUR shit. They carry disease from OUR shit. The rubbish they feed from is OUR rubbish.

keekybreeks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is a troll yes ? Yes you are.

I don't get all the sentimental stuff over human beings either MissMad. Especially the ones that value their species over other species of animals.

Either of those is a good place to give a kitten a home from Sam12. And you are doing absolutely the right thing to look for a pet from a rescue centre. Perhaps if people stopped breeding animals for money and people stopped spending stupid amounts on them, we wouldn't have rescue shelters full of pets in need of loving homes.

What a stupid thing to say Uncle. There are lot of people who vote for all parties because their parents did/ do as well. The truth is that very few people actually think very deeply about the reasons why they always vote for a particular party. They just have an inate idea that's the party for them. That is why the home counties are full of die hard Tory voters who spawn children who also become die hard Tory voters. And it's also why the major urban centres are full of die hard labour voters who spawn children of the same. Only when those main parties stop working for them, do they start to question that. So we end up with s nation of people who vote out of total self interest, for politicians who shape policy in the same way. And we end up with majority governments with minority voting share. Nothing truly democratic about it whatsoever.

Yep, cloud forecast all morning.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As has been pointed out to me elsewhere, means > tested benefits wouldn't be affected. Changing the > tax threshold doesn't change your gross pay, and > the means testing is based on that, so you'd > continue to get the same benefits. Meanwhile your > net pay should creep up a little bit with the > increase in threshold. Personally I'd prefer it if employeers paid living wages so that we didn't have to subsidise the crap jobs they provide. I'd also prefer to see something done about slowing house price inflation, rather than fuelling it ith yet more tax payers money. And as for the benefits to savers? Interest rates couldn't be much lower. Typical pre-election budget. Is anybody really fooled by it?

I agree Otta. But I don't think people are fooled. Cameron can talk about 1.8 million new jobs as much as he likes (and never mention the jobs lost through cuts). He can also talk about a fast recovering economy all he likes. But the fact remains that too many people are finding it harder to make ends meet. The young are especially disillusioned. Either he deliberately ignores the reality or genuinely can't see what the problem is. Either way makes him unfit to govern imo. I can see the sense in that though PeckhamRose. Don't most people do their accounts monthly anyway?

You didn't correct any mistake Dave as 'grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person' still requires a burden of evidence that does not exist here. And excuse me for making a spelling mistake! Excuse me for also not worrying about that or that you belong to that group of sad people who feel the need to point that out.

Most driver do think of those things which is why most drivers never have collisions involving those things. So patronising to insinuate they aren't when driving at 30.

I think the sensible option is to drive according to the flow of traffic. That means sometimes being at 20, and sometimes being at 30. It also means sometimes being at 10, 5 etc. Safe driving is far more important than worrying about an unenforcable number painted on the tarmac.

Dave and first mate, there are no witnesses but the account of the OP, so technically it's heresay anyway and wouldn't even get to a court, if we really do want to get pedantic here. No corroberative witness acoount, no injury, just the perception of the complainent who took what action he deemed right according to that persepctive. And yet, we are talking about the owner, and then dogs and then their owners in general blah blah. See my point?

Read the post I replied to again Duncan. It contains statements made in absolute terms that can not possibly be stated as such. It said that the parent can not have his perspective questioned, because he is the parent and knows better than everyone else, and then goes on to apply the lightest of excuses for classifying a dog as 'out of control'. I illustrated my point with examples, but made it clear I wasn't applying any parallel with those examples. The dog owner has been described as all sorts of things here, with no representation. I'd like to consider the other perspective because in my experience, the truth is more often than not, somewhere between the two. And to be fair, the parent has further explained that he picked up his child because the child was scared. Nowhere has he said the dog tried to bite anyone, or was barking or showing anything that says anything more than play to me. Contrast that with another thread on here where a dog was attacked and mauled by two collies. See the difference between a dog intent on causing harm, and boisterous play? It's a park. Dog owners are perfectly free to let their dogs off the lead and those dogs should be able to run about, because they need exercise for good health. There are areas of the park where dogs are required to be on a lead for those genuinely concerned for their safety. I've lost count of all the balls that have been nicked by dogs in that park when I play with my kids. Dogs like to chase balls. They think it's fun. What a sad person I would be if every time that happened I vented frustration on the owner and described their dog as out of control.

"as after all you are his dad and know what is best for him. No one else has the right to tell you otherwise" And the world is full of parents that also think they know what is best for their kids when they abuse them. To suggest that being a parent automatically makes a person beyond reproach is nonsense. Not relevant to the parent in question here I know, but just thought the point should be made. You can't talk in such absolute terms. "Ultimately if a dog makes you feel like you are in serious danger of being hurt then it can be classified as being 'out of control' " No it can't. The law deals in fact, not perception. Many people have irrational and unfounded fears. The dog didn't bite anyone. It wasn't snarling or barking. There was no indication that anyone was in serious danger from it. The father made a judgement call that he thought was right according to his perspective, that's all.

Seems a bit over the top imo to fence off a piece of land because of a few citizens going up there to admire the view and have fun. The reservoir is perfectly securely underground, and there are plenty of open air reservoirs where people are allowed to use the banks. As for police intervention, what kind of city would we be if we put penitentiary fencing around every open space where Police were called to. That would be all our parks gone for sure.

And beards....