david_carnell

Two can play at that game Mockney (although whther this thread is the rihgt place for it etc etc): :) "In fact Mesolithic man was thought to be substantially healthier than modern man, thanks to diet and exercise and with luck would happily reach his 80s." Err, not quite. Upper Paleolithic man had a life expectancy of just 33. If you remove infant mortality from this it reaches a stunning 39. Granted, this a era before the Mesolithic but I understand penicillin didn't arrive for a while yet. "Medieval times weren't nearly as bad as is usually made out, with a protein rich diet of fish, pulses and vegetables. Though I really wouldn't have fancied urban life back in them thar days." The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties. So you're partially right - but it's hardly a ringing endorsement to delay fathering children is it?! As for Huguenot...eewwww. Did not want to know that! Oh, and I think you and I are in the same camp on the whole western/alternative medicine thing - I remember you from what became known as the "reiki thread" ;-)

duplicate

Sorry Kel if I've poured petrol on the fire, as it were. I've tried not to use words such as "pity" or "shunned" or to use derogatory language as I'm aware this obviously affects some forum members (in)directly. I certainly don't wish to offend anyone. If you can quote me on something that's done this, I'm happy to retract/apologise/defend.

"Isn't that what grandparents and other family are there for?" Yes, if said mother is fortunate enough to have these. Personal experience is not something to be sniffed at either. "I just hate the asumption that teenagers doing what nature intended and procreating is always seen as something negative to be pitied and looked down on." Do you know why nature intended sixteen yr olds to have sex and procreate as much as possible? Because you died at 35 and infant mortality rates were through the roof. Oddly, this no longer applies. Advances in western civilisation and medicine no allow women to choose when to have children through the marvels of contraception and when they do decide, modern medicine means that their baby has a great chance of survival. I don't pity anyone who decides to have children, only those who didn't make an informed choice. Please don't put words in my mouth.

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it is better to wait until you are in your 40's > with a pile of money and dried up ovaries is it? Oh come on, be fair. That's not what I said at all. There is never going to be a "perfect" time to have a child. No-one ever knows whether they are going to be a good parent but it's common sense that if you have some life experience behind you, good qualifications, a good job and a stable relationship with a partner and your family then the chances of you successfully raising a child are increased. I'm not saying all teenage mums raise feral criminals and I have no doubt that some 40 year old millionaires are useless parents but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who stands a better chance in life does it?

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "inexperienced mothers" ??? who is ever fully > experienced when it comes to motherhood? That > comments hints at the assumption a young mother > equals a bad one. That very clearly is plain > wrong. Age doesn't come into it at all. Yes, that was probably inflammatory and not quite what I was getting at. Sorry. What I really meant was that on top of eveything else, these girls are young and inexperienced in life. I appreciate that some teenagers are capable of both looking after themselves and mature enough to raise a family. Most, IMO, are not.

I don't think there is anything with teenage pregnancy/motherhood per se but it is routinely used as a measure of a civilised society. CWALD, your daughter is clearly a mature person in a stable relationship who made the choice to have a child at a young age and is now raising that child in a loving environment with full support from her family whilst studying hard and furthering her career. Excellent - you should be proud. However, this is a long way from the experiences of many. Teenage pregnancies more often occur in lower socio-economic groups. They are often from broken families and not in stable relationships with the child's father. Lack of academic qualifications can lead to aggravated social problems in the future.. Relying on the welfare state to raise a child is neither easy nor sensible. I cannot conceive anyone arguing that having children should be encouraged if you have no financial means of raising that child. Teen pregnancy should not be condemned but neither should it be encouraged by a society that wishes to alleviate social ills. Whilst over a million children still live in poverty the prospects for new-borns raised on sink estates by inexperienced mothers lacking family support networks and the academic ability to raise themselves out of poverty, the situation is bleak.

Man, that sounds painful. Surely you could have carriages like that but with the modern sliding doors. The upside to the old slam door trains was that should you be running late there was still a chance of getting on the train even if the doors had closed. You can't do that anymore. Any other suggestions for an improvement to our rail network?

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't they change them because people kept > falling out of the doors when the trains were > moving? But I suppose if they look nice, we > should bring them in anyway. Really?! What is wrong with some people? They ruin it for the rest of us. ;-)

As per the previous post asking for a quick show of hands I think I fall into the "don't care" category but with some reservations. I do not have a problem with bookmakers or gambling. The idea of people "needing protection" from gambling seems absurd. If someone wishes to gamble they should be free to do so and have the facilities provided. If they lose their money it is no ones fault but their own. People complain about government interference regarding drinking limits, community inteference regarding individual pursuits is a similar grievance. I would rather have something else, though. I don't gamble myself (other than the odd flutter - Grand National etc) and could think of things that would be of more use to me personally. Whether anyone else would want them is another matter. I am wondering whether it matters if a shop is busy though? Is this an argument against a bookies? Surely if they pay rent, business tax and council tax they are doing the community a service? Better that than an empty premises. I'm not sure whether more bookies equals a better deal for the consumer though. Odds are pretty similar in all. Do you not just visit the one closest to you or with the biggest range of TVs and free teas/coffees?

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps there should be a First Class carriage on > this route and then we could choose not to mix > with the riff raff. I very occasionally go to > London Bridge and always disinfect thoroughly > after every journey. Ahh, for a return to the "good old days". Can we have carriages like this back please? http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/cw/int/387_jamesyq.jpg And proper waiting rooms with tea urns at stations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2006/06/14/carnforth_gallery_20060614_pic1_470x353.jpg And station staff dressed in appropriate attire: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/18/Fat_Controller_TTTE_1.jpg/210px-Fat_Controller_TTTE_1.jpg Now, that's a railway service!

atila the gooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given the amount poor mugs like me and hundreds of > thousands of others pay week in week out, I think > it gives us the right to voice our displeasure. I > certainly wouldn't stoop to racial abuse, or > personal abuse, but I have every right to comment > on the performance, just as a theatre goer would. > Footballers are paid huge amounts of money and > supporters pay through the nose. So, yes I think > I'm entitled to an opinion, and to jeer. After > all, if I and all those who go through the > turnstiles and subscribe to Sky decide enough is > enough, these people would be screwed. Why should > sportsman be different to everyone else? I'd pretty much agree with atilla here with the addition of homophobic abuse. I intently dislike the fact that in football it is still tolerated in a way that racism is not. Ask Graeme Le Saux. My only worry is that football should be family-friendly - taking children (under 15s) to games should be encouraged but I'd be wary given the kind of abuse referees and players receive on a regular basis. And when it stretches into the personal (a la Mrs Beckham and her sexual preferences) I draw the line. Family only stands don't always solve the problem, sound travels a long way. "Who's the wanker in the black" can often be heard on MOTD let alone in the neighbouring stand. I don't wish to sanitise football - it is at heart an earthy, manly, sometimes gutteral sport; but just sometimes I hang my head in shame at the language and opinions you hear on a terrace these days.

blinder999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think rap music's got a lot to do with it. If > you're a feisty adolescent with no male role model > at home, people like Lethal Bizzle are only too > happy to fill the void: I think you hit the nail on the head there blinder. Broken homes can lead to social problems. The rest of your post was superfluous and utterly one-sided account of rap lyrics. Bob showed the other side. Other genres of music contain equally appalling lyrics. I shot a man in Reno Just to watch him die Johnny Cash No-one blames country and western for America's gun violence!

Nor are gangs and gang fights a modern phenomenan. My own father was a member of a so-called ganag in the 60s who caused "terror" up and down the country fighting with their nemesises(sp?). They were known as "mods". Go back another decade and there were teddy-boys armed with flick knives and chains. Football hooliganism was rife in the 70s and 80s and is now almost extinct. The most dangerous thing about modern society is the reporting of crime by the media.

MelbourneGr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a certain group of kids. Influenced by money, > rap music and being a bad boy. "The world owes me" > / "Untouchable" / "I can have what I want" > attitude. When I see kids behaving in such a way, > I'm not afraid to show my disgust. > > What these kids need are role models. Another > option is to do it the old fashioned way, a good > clip around the ear! I don't think rap music has much to do with it. In the 1950s people thought rock and roll would lead to devil worshipping and teenagers fornicating. Hip-hop is the modern equivalent. If rap talks about guns and drugs it's a reflection on society not the reason for the existence of aforementioned guns and drugs.

When I was a nipper I wanted to be a road-repair man - yellow vest, hard hat and a pneumantic drill sort of thing. As a teenager I wanted to be a diplomat. I now work in politics but nothing exciting. I still want to be a diplomat, or even better, a ring announcer. "Ladieeeeeees and Gentlemen, lets get ready to ruuuuummmmmmbbbblllleeeeeee!!!!"

My grandfather was baptised as Plymouth Bretheren - which probably means I shouldn't be talking to any of you. No idea why.

Brendan, Kel....just wondered what you two do based in Westminster as I'm there too. Obviously if it's secret government work then don't say anything. Although then we'll know you do secret government work. Just lie. I'm in the murky world of political lobbying.

Although if I were going to be a terrible pedant the description of hunting in packs is, and always has been, entirely appropriate to apply to humans. The evolution of language and communication that allowed pack hunting enabled humans to rise to the top of the food chain. If the rapist(s)/attacker(s) had in fact been a single individual the hyperbole would have been along the lines of "loner"; "outcast"; "misfit" etc etc instead this time it was a group so you get animal metaphors, which as I've just mentioned really apply to humans as well. The journalism is shoddy whatever way you look at it.

deleted due to double post

What do you expect from a restaurant critic who is maquerading as a journalist. I think DulwichMum put it best in another thread when highlighting the inevitable follow-on from "...I'm not a racist but..." A couple of the commmentators pinpoint the hypocracy and historical innacuracy of her argument. London in the 70s and 80s was hardly somewhere where one left doors open at night or wandered through back streets without caution. Riots, terrorism and civil unrest were all present then as well and yet some look back on this period with rose-tinted glasses imagining London as some sleepy backwater of the Oxfordshire countryside until Blair came to power at which point in suddenly resembled Beirut populated with packs of marauding savages murdering the innocent. Another commentator sums up nicely when he/she says "thatcher said 'There is no such thing as society', there certainly wasn't when she'd finished". Spot on.

LostThePlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mamafeelgood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pleased to see people taking a big issue > > seriously. the expansion of heathrow is > > ridiculous, it's about making more money for > baa > > etc... are there any reasons why expansion of > > gatwick is not undertaken before adding more > > terminals and traffic at heathrow? > > > > So, to make my point again, is it OK to expand > Gatwick then? So long as we don't have the noise? > Someone has to suffer, it's the way, with flight, > that society has developed. In 1979 an agreement was reached with the local council not to expand further before 2019, but recent proposals to build a second runway suitable for large jets at Gatwick led to protests about increased noise and pollution and demolition of houses and villages. The government has now decided to expand Stansted and Heathrow but not Gatwick. Gatwick's owners, BAA, have published a new consultation which includes a possible second runway south of the airport, but leaves the villages of Charlwood and Hookwood, north of the airport, intact. It is not as simple as merely flying the planes in a different direction to avoid heavily populated areas. Wind direction is the major factor. It is worth noting though, that Heathrow is a cock-up from start to finish. Built in the 1950s in is so poorly designed, with the terminals in the middle, that all future expansion makes the problem worse. The entry tunnel is evidence of the lack of foresight in planning. The way to build airports is with the terminals at the edge of the site not the middle. What any government with balls should have done is demolish the whole lot and start again. Except not in the same place. Whislt initially this appears madness it makes sense. Build a brand-new airport on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary with high speed links to central London enabling planes to take off and land over the North Sea thus eliminating noise pollution and ensuring a higher number of night flights. See here for a project site map The massive amounts of land that Heathrow occupies is then sold off to developers for much-needed housing. It would, by all accounts, be almost cost neutral within a decade of completion. Alas, it's too late. As always, Britain has failed to build anything exciting or original and goes for the conservative option.

I love the number of converts we've managed. I'm now awaiting the delivery of series three from Amazon rental. Series two was a terrific insight into the world fo the Baltimore dockers and their unusual breakfasts (pint of lager with a raw egg or two dropped in for good measure). What does series three focus on? Politicians?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lot's of ones to agree with on here. Hot Fuzz > finally got watched last week and I loved it > > but "meaty-smelling linen"??? If you read Brendan's first post about Biltong at the ED Supermarket, this was my, clearly rubbish, attempt at humour. I'll add a smiley next time.

Meaty-smelling linen Walking Tweed Manners