Huguenot

Sure, but I meant that some people 'want' to be a victim so that they have an excuse to go on the attack. Nurse Shirley Chaplin was given the opportunity to wear her crucifix either pinned to her uniform or on her security lanyard. She refused. She claimed muslims could wear headscarve. All the hospital wanted her to do was not wear it around her throat where it became a security risk when she leaned over patients. That's not discrimination, that's a stroppy difficult nurse. As for Nadia Eweida, she flouted a ban against jewellery that applied to all staff. By definition it cannot be discriminatory if it's applied to all staff. It actually would have been discriminatory if she had permission to wear it because of her religious beliefs - it would have been discriminatory against people without religious beliefs. She was given the option of wearing it under her uniform and refused. She claimed that muslims were allowed to wear headscarves, and BA pointed out that everyone was allowed to wear headscarves. She was just a stoppy difficult stewardess. Both women were unreasonable, and both of them wanted to be perceived as victims so they could go on the attack. In my opinion both of them were trying to incite religious conflict by claiming muslims were getting 'favours'.

Once more cracking on about the health debate, in a study of 76,000 people researchers could find no evidence that vegetarianism has any contribution to longevity. I quote :"There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined" Although vegetarians did live longer on average, the evidence suggested that this was almost solely down to their smoking habits. Vegans, incidentally, were right up sh1t creek. The only thing that did come out is that they had a lower prevalence of ischemic heart disease, but it made no difference because something else got them. So if there's only one disease that might get you more as a non vegetarian, but as a vegetarian you're going to suffer from vitamin, mineral and protein deficiencies unless you're very careful - then there is no evidence that there is on balance any health benefits to vegetarianism at all. So that's all those 'arguments' for vegetarianism thoroughly debunked.

How does house swapping work? How do you protect your valuables?

I couldn't actually find any coverage that referred to the religious beliefs of these mindless thugs. Anyone point me in the right direction?

Why would you think I was talking about you wee queenie? Bit defensive ;-) I wasn't aware you were calling for a public debate? As for the NHS not being overly concerned, then why would they write an extended piece about how to solve the challenges of vitamin and mineral deficiency? If you don't think that suggesting overseas cattle and dairy farm overseas activity as a reason to be vegetarian is moralising then you haven't come across this definition: "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority"

I'm not disagreeing with views about animal welfare, I'm just saying it's a rubbish justification for vegetarianism. I'm not conflating the issues, I'm just taking his points one by one: Vegetarianism isn't healthy. Environmental issues don't alter the fact that vegetarianism is an arbitrary line in the sand that might as well be anywhere. 'Links with developing countries' has nothing to do with vegetarianism at all. They're all nonsense.

If humanism isn't a religion, it certainly has many of the trappings. It has a deity (humanity) that is worshipped (in the sense of demonstrating devotion). It has a dogma (rationalism) that is considered exclusive (it excludes mysticism). It has an organisation (the society) that attracts congregations. It provides a moral and ethical framework upon which to live one's life. It's evangelical. So it's certainly ironic that a humanist society would call for people to declare themselves non-religious. I agree with the sentiment though.

Narnia, just for you. Print it out, try and learn ten acronyms a day. We'll be having a test at the end of the week. Anyone who doesn't pass will stay down a year.

I had a friend at Uni who joined the ALF. She did it because she thought it was thrilling. Nothing to do with the animals, it was all about the anger experience, the people and the action.

If Christians feel oppressed in the UK I'd say it was more to do with wanting to be a victim rather than actually being a victim.

What I meant was that I was thinking about EMA as an investment in the future that delivers social mobility and a return to the taxpayer. Studying art wasn't really the first thing that sprang to mind. As an artist it's incredibly unlikely that she'll ever move off benefits. I'm sure she'll do something more productive, like graphic design or advertising ;-)

I know, I know, I wasn't trying to be mean. It was just very funny. :))

Ha ha! :)) I love it when people inadvertently say very insghtful things... "my daughter has one more year before she goes to art college this will defiantly help her and others like her" You means she's being paid by the taxpayer to study art now, then she'll be paid by the taxpayer to study art next, and then like every other bloody 'artist' she'll be paid by the taxpayer to 'be creative' for the following sixty years! Ha ha ha ha! Hoooooooooooooo *wipes tear from eye*

There you go Thomas - again presenting unwinnable arguments: "Human health, animal welfare, environment and links with developing countries" From a health persepctive, as any fule kno, it's a varied diet you need. The 'V's can't get by without, for example, vitamin B12. This is why rabbits are also insectivores. Don't even get me going on cholesterol or triglycerides, mineral imblalances or the fact that vegetarian parents are blindly damaging kids because children are more sensitive to these imbalances, whilst parents are more dogmatic. Any 'debate' is going to come out with some blustery claptrap about 'animal fat' that has no basis in reality but an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers. Animal welfare arguments are plainly stupid. Any argument that gives an animal a 'right' that supercedes human oppression clearly defaults to the fact that the best way to resolve the problem is to remove humans altogether. Even then it won't stop them suffering tortuous deaths through predators or disease. Why differentiate between a human and a fox when it comes to killing chickens? The chicken won't differentiate, and 'scale' doesn't impact on the moral argument. Intensive agriculture is just as damaging to animals as consumption, but veggies conveniently overlook that fact. Any 'debate' is going to have pictures of battery chickens and halal slaughter that doesn't adddress the issue, but has an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers. Environmental arguments are reductionist. Not only are animals less efficient than vegetables, but some vegetables are less effficient than others. Why bother drawing a line? If you pursue this argument then you'll be rejecting tomatoes in favour of rice. We don't because we celebrate variety, only a vegetarian would be stupid enough to start drawing arbitrary disinctions based on whether the food in question could make a noise or not. Any 'debate' is going to focus on the carbon footprint of a cow with no reference to the pointlessness of drawing lines in the sand on protein yield. It has no basis in logic, but an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers. Links with developing countries are just as constructive/destructive for ominvores as vegetarians. Any attempt by vegetarians to take the moral high ground is not only false, but vain. Any 'debate' is likely to be full of Oxfam photos of bloated kids suffering from malnutrition, and whilst patently immature, it has an awful lot of cachet in a room full of pale faced teenagers. To be honest I'm not too bothered that all the arguments for vegetarianism are crap, but I am bothered that vegetarians are so smug and self centred, so conceited in their conviction, that they they call for a 'public debate'. Get over yerself for Crissakes. You like animals because they're cuddly. You don't like people killing your teddy bear. That's nice, it means you're nice and sesitive. Well done. But your arguments are post-rationalised and unwinnable simply because of the arbitrary distinctions between flora and fauna, and humans and other predators.

The one thing you don't need is a debate. There's nothing winnable about vegetarianism, because there's no arguable absolutes. You'll merely be hoping to cram the room with emotional screechy 'moralistic' kids. If you want to win vegetarian arguments you'll do it through subterfuge, not righteousness.

Nah, I read them in full, but MM was making a perfectly reasonable case and it didn't demand repetition. I read them in full because, well I wanted to know. The rest of the battles about possible future outcomes seem without foundation. Fight and win arguments when they're real is my advice.

sb, you can deduce nothing about the area from the fact that you've been burgled, any more than you can deduce that all Ginger haired people can juggle because you've seen a couple of Ginger haired jugglers. If you meet 20 people whose neighbour had been burgled, would you deduce that there have been twenty burglaries, or that they all had the same neighbour? The rules for reporting crime are the same everywhere, which means they'll have the same errors everywhere. Hence that crime statistics are a perfectly good way of comparing crime from area to area. ED is has a comparatively low crime rate. That's the truth. So much for the 'Age of Reason'. We live in a compact community of less than 5,000 people. There are 15,000 using this forum. It stands to reason that if someone gets burgled that at least 50 people on this forum either know them personally or are their neighbours. This means you going to get multiple reports of the same incidents from slightly different perspectives. It doesn't mean there are 50 different incidents. So please, calm down and think sensibly. If you refuse to believe that, it's because you think there's something to be gained by peddling fear and prejudice. I have no idea what that 'something' could possibly be. I suspect it's some kind of primeval tribal bonding thing against a common enemy, but it's pretty depressing we can't rise above it.

Gumtree's just a classified sales site isn't it?

I'd be willing to wager that you cannot be greedy unless you have an excessive desire for either wealth or goods. Hence you can't be greedy without a materialistic society, surely? All the studies in the world illustrate, and all the bulletin boards demonstrate, that with anonymity even perfectly sane and well rounded people will lose their normal social conditioning. So materialism + anonymity = light the blue touchpaper.

Sorry peckhamboy, I'm aware that this 'cut' only covers 2 x ?100 payments per year. I think it was actually me that highlighted it. However, it might be my misunderstanding, but both DJKQ and zeban seem to be saying that they disapprove of the EMA completely (not just the bonus), and would prefer to see it discontinued or exchanged with another service. Their rationale for this seems to be that both the students and the schools are ripping off the system. Both have fought fiercely on other threads that poor people are denied access to educational resources and hence lack social mobility. Hence the only logical conclusion of this debate is that both DJKQ and zeban think that access to key resources should be withdrawn because poor people are not trustworthy enough. Given that they claimed the whole world is incorrectly victimising "benefit scroungers", they seem to have actually jumped on this bandwagon themselves here?

There's no shock to me - I've little doubt of people's capacity to play the system. I'm only surprised that self-professed supporters of the poverty stricken and those searching to increase social mobility would deny the poor a financial and educational benefit on the grounds that they're not trustworthy enough.

So what's the solution?

That doesn't sound good at all. However, that doesn't tell us how widespread it is, nor whether the few bad eggs are worth tolerating for the sake of those whom it helps. So what's your proposal? Close the scheme?

Yes, I don't think either fencing, pawnbroking or advertising is a new business. I don't think greed is a novel invention either sadly, and I guess most of this stuff gets fenced by the equivalent of a guy down the pub. Pawnbrokers are probably too easy for police to keep an eye on. Tragically there's probably no instant fix to this. The root cause is likely to be firmly within our materialistic culture, the unequal distribution of wealth and the anonymity and mobility of our society. I'm not sure that there's much more the police can do. For every person out there who wants more CCTV, there's at least one who wants less.

Tandy Corporation History In brief apparently it was a leather goods store that bought Radioshack in the'60s. It then dropped the leather goods, which went on to trade independently under the Tandy name, whilst Tandy Electronics rebranded as Radioshack. In the UK it traded under a subsidiary called 'InterTan' under the Tandy name, which went independent and then was sold to Carphone Warehouse. A company called T2 (presumably Tandy 2) operated some of the stores in Radioshack stylee. There's no reason given for why they didn't trade under the Radioshack name in the UK. Unconfirmed rumours claim the name was already owned by a small local trader who was trying to extort them for the use of the name. Could be a load of old bollocks though.