Blah Blah

I agree the Police response is pathetic (which is why I said it might take a tragic incident to force them to act) but what can they realistically do against 100 moped/ bike riders? At best they can catch and prosecute one or two for traffic offences. That will hardly stop similar events from happening will it?

I would argue that if that offence was taken on religious grounds, then no, given that many people with religious views have also not chosen to be religious. Most religion is brainwashed into children from an early age, often using devices of fear to force compliance.

Saffron is correct. Bedbug bites can be any size depending on the level of reaction to them. And they are difficult to get rid of because of their feeding and breeding cycles.

Hard to know what the police can do about mass anti-social riding. Sadly it will probably take something tragic to happen first. Looking at the footage online, it seems that it was a minority of riders on the pavemnts though. There's nothing new about motor cycle rallies. How to tackle the anti-social element is the problem.

The Police were all at the Lambeth rave riot I think.

Yes worth asking the people who put out the basket (good suggestion Sue). Fleas can be ruled out as they bite at any time of the day, can usually be seen and tend to attack the lower legs. Whilst spiders are known for double bites, you would be able to see the fang puncture marks. From what you describe dreamcatcher I would suspect bedbugs, who bite the areas you list and are difficult to get rid of. Bedbugs only bite at night and can travel meters from wherever they hide to bite you. A bedbug can go for a week after one feed without feeding again. A whicker basket is a perfect hiding place for them too.

Yes but Loz, differing views on communism are not the same as racism,sexism, homophobia etc. You can't compare McCartyism to any of those things - it's a very poor analogy ayway. And there are better examples of what you are trying to say. The OP was comparing culture to things that are determined by birth. The two are different things, that's my point. Prejudice on the grounds of race for example is absolutely wrong (and we all accept that - or should) but prejudice of what a person believes will depend on the moral code of the society. But even within that, there are things a civilised society tends to agree are wrong, like murder, violence, robbery etc. I agree regarding Tim Hunt and Dianne Abbot for example. The failure of a system to deliver consistency doesn't mean that we should drop the moral benchmark though (and politicians of late are poor examples of any kind of moral line anyway). Julie Burchill, whether she joins the Police force or not can still be defined by her views. The BNP are not a proscribed organisation. They are not on the list at all. Members are not allowed to join the Police or Prison Service presumably because of the BNPs racist views. That seems like common sense to me.

Just to add that McCarthyism is about subversion with no regard for evidence. So you've lost me in describing my view as the basis for that. The supression of beliefs is something that does have a fine line but we don't live within a tyranny.

The examples I were given were sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. I don't think there's any doubt that those things in themselves are wrong. Ideas of course are debateable, like culture, but they are not the same thing as anything in the list given. There is a clear difference between the prejudice of things people are, and the things they think.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this > thread for their contribution. Trolling doesn't need to be directed at a person. > I spent two years in diversification and equality service delivery training and remain very interested in people's > viewpoints on this whole subject. Really? So the best you could do explore that was to write a post that used the expressions of an offensive fictional TV character to make some observation about the men on x Factor? A post that mdoerators deemed needed to be removed and another poster has said read like a homophobic rant? It just doesn't make sense. But again I have not seen the deleted post so can't really know. > As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the debate, when it comes to being an equal opportunities employer then it > could be arqued that there is no such thing. People holding homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are > generally excluded from public service institutions (and other employers), therefore do these sections of society > become discriminated against? The Police service particularly excludes any person that is/was a member of a right-wing > fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby contradicting their own stated "regardless of........political persuasion". There are good reasons why ureasonable views are not tolerated, as everyone knows. What's interesting is that your list, gender, nationality, sexuality are all things that are accidents of birth, and cannot be changed, except in certain circumstances. A way of thinking on the other hand is learned. There is no excuse for such prejudices anymore. We are in a country where there is awareness of these things and quite frankly, if someone wants to behave like a racist, sexist, or homophobic idiot, then they deserve to be excluded.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Therefore it seems we are concluding that context > both condemns and excuses the same words and that > nothing can ever be said to be insulting or > offensive per se. No, we are merely pointing out the difference between fiction (which is a reflection) and real life. There are debates to be had about whether fiction reflects or influences (art imitating life and vice versa) but most people know the difference. Having said that, there is censorship in the form of certification for viewing, so there are sensibilities as to the level of maturity expected from the viewer. > Do we maintain the right to be offended (free > speech) or do we instigate the right not to be > offended(total censorship)? We have something in between and that is both sensible and right. Responsibility comes with free speech and again most people know when they are being deliberately offensive as opposed to having sensible debate.

I don't watch X factor, so can't comment on that, but I would say that using deliberately provocative language to offend enough to raise debate is a form of trolling. And I'm not really understanding what your point is. Were you commenting on X factor, by using offensive language from a fictional character in a fictional drama? I didn't see your deleted post, but would assume moderators would only delete if they had good reason to do so. To echo everyone else, context is everything. Fiction is different from real life.

Agreed Saffron. Human identity on any level is complex and to reduce any part of it to one aspect of biology is ridiculous.

I know better than to argue with a sodding big spreadsheet :D

I agree too ???? and prety much with everyone else. They made committments to some groups to secure votes and it's coming back to haunt them (and I think part of the problem is that they didn't expect to win the election and have to deliver half of them). The stupid thing is that I don't think anyone disagrees with the principle that the Tories are promoting, just the process of delivering it. It's like having a good idea and then pissing everyone off to the point that no-one thinks it's a good idea anymore :D I absolutely agree ??? that Osborne has shown great niaivity in his rush to balance the books. He puts himself under a pressure that is very hard to deliver when so many people are trapped in low wage, insecure jobs. There does seem to be a huge disconnect whne it comes to what people on the breadline are going through. He could slow down cuts and look to reducing the deficit in a rational way rather than clearing it. At the same time he seems completely ignorant to some of the causes of hardship, like rent inflation for example. Balancing the books is more than just getting public spending into the black. It's also about making sure what people earn is enough to live on, and that the costs of living are kept in check where possible. Heseltine the other day had the nerve to say to the steel workers losing their jobs that it was a good time for them to lose them! Two million new jobs (700,000 of them zero contract) has not seem a 2 million reduction in the unemployment figures. Most of those jobs have just replaced other jobs lost through cuts and market forces. Cameron has nothing to boast about. And they think we are all too stupid to understand any of it.

Yes and what I find particularly galling is the parade of Tory MPs who claim that Cameron didn't say that, or that even though he said that, the announced 12bn welfare cuts that were in the manifesto make the lie ok. Time and time again they were asked where those cuts would come from and refused to answer. Even more annoying are those conservative MPs who didn't have the backnone to vote against the cuts in the House of Commons. A bunch of arrogant and spineless liars who can't stomach being pulled into line by people who actually have a moral conscience.

This is true. There are mansions in Kensington that have slaves (in the true sense of unpaid and incarcerated labour) and nothing is done about that.

Didn't she also one time say that rape wasn't that big a deal too?

I too agree with Otta. I watched the whole Lords debate on catchup last night and the arguments were well thought out and completely destroyed all of the governments claims on constitution. Osborne took a risk and has been caught out. He should take it on the chin and move on.

Ridgely, genes do not just determine physical appearance, they also determine a whole host of character and cognitive aspects too. There is a lot of research in this area, including the impacts of stress induced hormonal imbalances during prenancy. There are babies born with both male and female genitalia, what would Germaine Greer say they are? I think she displays and has always displayed ignorance on this issue, odd because she is an academic and therefore should be interested in reading the massive advances in research over the last 30 years. BUT I also think that ideas are always better in the open where they can be challenged and debated, so think the University is wrong, and agree with DaveR and Loz. Universities are places of learning, where students are supposed to be exposed to a wide range of opinion and views, to learn how to analyse, challenge and form debate.

I didn't know that. That's even worse then. Is there anything about this deal that is actually in the interests of Britain?

Er so the Winter of Discontent had nothing to do with it then? Every economic system has black markets. There's no getting away from that. Even the worst police states have them. As for exploiting the system, that too runs through every level of society from the billionaires at the top to the penniless pauper at the bottom.

I was merely pointing out the irony in Uncle's need to feel territorial, not blaming him for that history. How does abiding by the law of the land equate to being territorial Uncle? And how does that relate to the conversation you overheard on a bus from four West Indians? The reason why I asked you to think about that conversation again is because you seem to think that they have no right to criticise the poor attitude of some British people. Your reaction was not one of seeking to find out why they felt that way, but to tell them they didn't have to come to this country! You were so outraged (or baffled) by their comment that you felt the need to relay it on a thread about racism, to make what point exactly?

Territorial is just as bad, especially given that the wealth of the country you live in (and benefit from) was built off the profits of conquest, empire and slavery. Where was the respect for territory then?

That's a bit unfair ????s. The Labour party is not and never will be as far left as it was in the distant past. One appointment does not a party make. And the media have behaved pretty appallingly in fueling the kind of hysteria you have just demonstrated ;) My impression, from listening carefully to what Corbyn and McDonnell are saying, is that they want the Labour party to move towards arguing for a fairer form of capitalism where it's understood that the state has to be repsonsible for providing some things. There's nothing new or scary about that. The debate is simply about what should be state supported and what should not. What doesn't work however is the privatisation of everything and leaving the free market to take care of it all.