Blah Blah

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....

Has it gone wrong in ED? House prices and overpriced gastro pubs aside, things seem pretty ok to me.

Given how much music has ever been published surely it's going to be that some people write what they think is an original tune only to find themselves sued by someone saying I worte a song that sounds like that 40 years ago! It's impossible to know everything ever written.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We seem to be more outraged by cultures that > deny women education and the freedom to drive > > for example than we do by a culture that makes > mobile phone porn accessible to children. > > Am I missing your drift here or are you saying > that's a bad thing? > > I'm always bewildered that films are forced to > remove a scene with nudity, but are allowed to > keep the dozen or so violent murders. No not saying it's a bad thing at all. Just wish we could be equally outraged. Agree on the nudity versus violence thing.

Wow bob lol. What circles do you move in? ;) In comparison 'Relax' seems quite tame.

You might be right bob. I think human nature has always harboured this attitude towards sex, women etc but what I find uneasy is the open display of it now through mainstream media. And we barely bat an eyelid. We seem to be more outraged by cultures that deny women education and the freedom to drive for example than we do by a culture that makes mobile phone porn accessible to children.

It's a song designed to shock, because controversy guarantees instant fame and record sales these days (remember that Robert Palmer hit anyone?). The chart is full of dross sold by naked women (and that's just from the female artists themselves) and gimmicks designed to shock. Strangely it's something that artists like Adele don't have to do, oh but hang on, she can actually sing and write decent tunes can't she. On a deeper level though, sex sells has moved from just car sales to pretty much everything now. Page three calendars seem almost tame. We talk all the time about how the media and arts have negative impacts on the self image of young people, but instead of doing something about it, it get's worse.

And the Council of Europe has been opposed by the World Health Organisation. Who do we believe? There is NO conclusive evidence to prove any of the claims made about masts, electromagnetic fields and health, which is why a professional world health body, much more qualified than a bunch of politicians in europe, has looked at the evidence and concluded there is low or no risk. By all means push the Council of Europe view if you like, but I'll push the World Health Organisation view back at you. As you can see from the map posted above, masts are everywhere anyway. To be honest there are many other more immediate forms of pollution that are more likely to cause or help the cause of illness down the line.

I never stay awake long enough to see who wins. The missus loves it. I just don't get it I'm afraid. Not for me.

And just where has anyone expressed vitriol about cyclists? Discussing a cycle lane inevitably means talking about the behaviour of some cyclists, which IS aggressive and self righteous, just like some drivers behave that way too. I'm fed up of the same vitriol from the cycling militia (yawn) but would never deny their right to both have a view and express it in a public forum.

We all want mobile pones with good signals so these masts have to go somewhere in our local neighbourhood. I'm inclined to agree regarding the lack of evidence of danger given that billions of people use mobiles phones accross the globe and billions of people are not suffering health wise for it. People always object when these things go up in their back yard yet want the benefits these things bring. Can't have it both ways folks.