Huguenot

I've already made clear that I completely back the underlying ambitions of the campaign. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of being man-hating RosieH. What I've tried to do is to take the conversation to the next level, which looks beyond the overall 'mission', to the manifesto goals, strategy, tactics and accountability. Saying that these are woolly is not a crime - and it's a view that is shared by the supporters, who believe it should be open to interpretation. When you leave things open to interpretation you invariably get factions of individuals who believe in different methodologies that tear associations apart: typically in politics this means an aggregated scale between 'direct action' and 'soft power'. That the UN is involved is neither here nor there: as an Organisation their role is to achieve a consensus - commonly reached through watering down commitments until they become meaningless. Pointing out the weakness in the set up doesn't make me a troll: it should be an opportunity for those involved to try and improve the offering, rather than round on commentators with unreasonable accusations.

Okay, so it's been left deliberately vague - a dangerous recipe for factionalism perhaps? Whilst I support the general theme, I'm not happy offering blanket endorsement for an organisation whose goals and strategies are so unclear. For example, there was a campaign calling for life terms for rapists in India. It overlooked the fact that leaving a victim alive after a rape significantly increased the chance of capture, and if the penalties for rape and murder were the same then the rapist may as well murder the victim to increase the odds of getting away with it. I had a problem with a similar organisation that I signed up to called 'Sum Of Us', which pursued worthwhile campaigns against corporate abuse. The problem is that they used my membership as evidence of support for stupid affiliated campaigns such as those against GM food. Same thing with Greenpeace too - they need to be more specific about exactly what endorsement they are seeking. I'm afraid I can't agree with you buddug that this message has never been put out before. It's been a persistent issue since I became politically aware.

You still haven't answered the question buddug, and calling me a troll or suggesting that BrandNewGuy is somehow pro-rape because he doesn't understand the manifesto is both nasty and abusive.

I'm not behaving like a troll buddug. Both BNG and myself don't understand the manifesto (we both understand the overall intent), we've asked perfectly reasonable questions which you refuse to answer. Instead you've said nasty things about both of us. It doesn't really hold the organisation in a good light if its followers abuse anyone who asked them questions about it? I'm guessing that your refusal to answer means that you don't understand it either? Fine, just say so?

Sure buddug, if I'm wrong I'll stand corrected. Can you explain what 'refuse to accept the status quo until the end of rape culture' means? You seem happy to tell me what it doesn't mean, but not what it does mean?

The headline rather makes my point for me: "Blade Runner Murders Lover on Valentines" The human identity of these individuals is not relevant: it's a comic book caricature. In that sense Steenkamp isn't degraded by it, since from The Sun's perspective Steenkamp is not a real person.

Well, leaving aside that you still haven't answered the question, it seems odd that you reward these sensitive guys who join in the protest by refusing to have sex with them until the 'end of the rape culture'. Idiotic. I share your desire to see the end of these horrific crimes, but I'm rather at a loss as to know how to help something that sets up such stupid conditions. Since myself and my other half have a loving and satisfying relationship, she would rightly feel aggrieved if I refuse to have sex with her until racist Australians stop abusing Aborigines, or members of the BNP launch a multiracial kindergarten.

No response on that question then?

Sorry SJ, you're not really suggesting that Pistorious was part of an international conspiracy to shoot women, evidenced by a willingness to publish photos of women in bikinis? Good heavens.

'Twas the way in which Nigel Molesworth, eponymous hero of Punch Magazine's precocious schoolboy comic strip, would highlight that he was about to state the bleedin' obvious.

Actually, I don't understand this phrase either :"refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends". How do we 'refuse to participate in the status quo'? Do we not go to work, or eat meat or live in a house? Not have sex? What? How will we know when rape culture has ended? For that matter, how will we know when rape has ended? It's really not very helpful - as any fule kno, when faced with wooly or unachievable objectives the output is invariably to do nothing. Furthermore, if we set targets based on OTHER people's behaviour or activities, the outputs are resentment, disengagement and poor cooperation.

In 2001 BTL mortgages were only 1% of the market, by 2007 they were 10%. You can't take 10% of housing stock and transfer it to existing home owners (effectively taking it off the market) without blowing the whole market dynamic. It results in a corruption of the entire supply and demand equation that results in rocketing prices and the exclusion of first time buyers who are dumped on the rental market. For me there is NO other significant issue. More importantly this isn't a long term intractable issue - it was created in the last decade and it can be solved just as quickly.

Why would I misreport? I'll take you at your word that you set out to complain about celebrity reporting. There's no reason not to. Seems a bit silly since newspapers cover everything about celebrities from what they have for breakfast to who they snog, but hey, whatever. How many celebrity Olympiad women's partners can you name? Right now? Jessica Ennis? Nicole Adams? Victoria Pendleton? Helen Glover? Heather Stanning? It's your language that demonstrates (consciously or unconsciously) a gender issue. Examples have already been listed by other people. If Pendleton had murdered her partner would you know who they are unless their relationship was clarified? Given the amount of comments on that subject, it seems I'm not alone in seeing it? Anyway, this isn't a celebrity story, it's a story about the destruction of hope, symbolized by Pistorius. Nobody is human in this story, it's an allegory.

Usually it's because of a blacklisted word. Look for things like bum-p or special-ist. Try posting your message one paragraph at a time, and editing it to add the next.

Incidentally, if anyone else wants to pursue a gender issue on violent death, please be aware that 75% of all deaths by violence (not including war) are male. They don't deserve it either. I'm not saying that I have gender issue. I don't, death is binary. We all deserve respect. Worrying about what the newspapers say is a rich world problem, the rest of the world is fighting for survival.

I struggle to believe leaguebeagle genuinely believes newspapers should write about every murder with equanimity, she's simply not that naive. There's about 1,500 'reported' murders every day according to the UN, no point in even discussing unattributed or misreported murders. We'd be in tens of thousands then. Does legalbeagle honestly believe they're all likely to get column inches? No. Pistorius is the story, not because of him, but because of the symbol he was for achievement in the face of adversity. Like Armstrong, like Woods, he was a role model. Like Armstrong and Woods he has become all too human for such elevated responsibilities. THAT is the story. Nobody gives any more of a shit about Pistorius the person than they give a shit about Steenkamp the person. This is like Helen Keller stabbing the BFF, the story would be Helen Keller. It doesn't take massive critical analysis to see leaglebeagle's consistent use of terms that call out gender stereotypes. Over and over again. She may not have set out to make that point, but its saliency in her mind influenced everything she said afterwards. The offensive subtext to her opinion is that she imagines that just because the newspapers don't talk about the suffering of Steenkamp that nobody cares. That's not a good way to think about other people, and pursuing it will make you unhappy.

Sly and Reggie aren't bright enough to make their point without drawing racial stereotypes, neither are they bright enough to realize that they're drawing their conclusions based on 1970s social memes. I've no doubt they consider themselves part of the 'solution' to racial integration - along with their cliched acquisition of 'black' music - but in perpetuating outdated tribalism they're part of the problem. The peculiar book/manifesto they unravel through the video is typically a weapon of extremist organizations - from Mein Kampf, through the Little Red Book to the NRA's hate list. It's possible they're using it ironically, but since nothing they've done to date (including using street noise as a weapon) suggests they have the intellect for such nuance, I assume that they've reached the tipping point between activist and pillock.

.

.

I think there's been absolute clarity Top Banana that this situation is neither the responsibility nor creation of the European Union.

There is, 1% tax on non residential interest Maybe 0.5% I don't give a shit. Houses are for living in. This is not shoes or toasters. I don't want to see a collapse.

*frustration*

Anyway, there I was, Kilimanjaro, 76....

Eh what DaveR? I think I made it pretty clear that it was a forecast not a review of 'recent past'. *padding like a sulky silverback unwinding himself from his nest, DaveR spuds his bitches, scratches his nads, scowls at the camera and makes it clear that this is HIS domain*

What's your point?