pk

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dimitri from Paris - A Night at the Playboy > Mansion this is one of my favourite mix albums, might have to dig it out

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No pk - but I will repeat the main point of my > previous thread - why didn't he let the court > decide whether he was guilty or not - why pay him > off and deny the right and proper forum to decide > on his guilt or innocence. > > i offered a possible answer above, is it what happened? dunno

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse by a > 13-year-old child named Jordan Chandler and his > father Evan Chandler. > > The friendship between Jackson and Evan Chandler > broke down. Sometime afterward, Evan Chandler was > tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I > go through with this, I win big-time. There's no > way I lose. I will get everything I want and they > will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will > be over?. A year after they had met, under the > influence of a controversial sedative, Jordan > Chandler told his father that Jackson had touched > his penis. > > Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their > legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful > negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial > settlement; the negotiations were initiated by > Chandler but Jackson did make several counter > offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist > and later police that he and Jackson had engaged > in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as > well as giving a detailed description of what he > alleged were the singer's genitals. > > Jackson agreed to a 25-minute strip > search, conducted at his ranch. The search was > required to see if a description provided by > Jordan Chandler was accurate. Doctors concluded > that there were some strong similarities, but it > was not a definitive match. Jackson made an > emotional public statement on the events; he > proclaimed his innocence, criticized what he > perceived as biased media coverage and told of his > strip search. you think that's flawless evidence?

ibilly99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then why did he pay $22,000,000 dollars to the > Chandler family in an out of court settlement - if > he was innocent - WHY - he would have had the best > lawyers money could buy - if he was innocent he > could have had his day in court and be cleared on > the evidence presented. He chose not to and paid a > HUGE amount of money. To all the apologists or the > innocent until proven guilty crowd explain away > that. > many/most civil actions settle, going to court is always a risk even for 'innocent' parties as you never know how the evidence will be heard, sometimes the reality may be seen as unlikely or unproven and where it's essentially one person's word against another the risks increase. so people sometimes pay for such problems to go away - the terms of such settlements are generally confidential, so i dunno about $22 m or not. jackson's set to make $150 m from these dates so i guess he has different attitudes towards money than most on the other hand, there's no denying that the chandlers obviously wanted money more than they wanted justice not saying that's nec what happened, but it could be

i haven't been in since the refurb (or for a while before), but i've always thought that the rye overrates itself the food's ok (better food available for less in the vicinity), the drinks are expensive, they stung me with a service charge for putting a card behind the bar and then fetching my own drinks! it was (dunno now) poorly lit and the beer's badly kept in my experience the garden's nice (and the key to it's success in my opinion) and i'm sure that it'll draw me in at times over the summer

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Jackson had a father named Joe. He > apperenttly was not a nice man to his children. > Michael Jackson recorded some great pop music as > part of the Jackson 5. when he was a child himself and as such michael had a very unusual upbringing and has grown up to be a very unusual adult, one that certainly has odd and questionable relationships with children - but does that make him a paedo? (beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever the US standard of proof is?) without further evidence, no i wouldn't trust him with my children and i've no interest in seeing him live, but to say e.g. that because there's suspicion it's fair to brand him a paedo is not right

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some thing that dropped in to my email box the > other day. do you believe everything that drops into your inbox? the stats don't given get the number of members right, so i wouldn't put too much faith in these 'facts'

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...but what would you have in place? just let the people on here decide, based on incomplete evidence that they've read in the papers, rather than trusting people who have heard two sides of a story presented in court

dazeykat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do any of you complainers give to any good cause, > whether time or money? yes, and they do it in a superior fashion, it would seem

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sort your lives out you miserable bastards not how i woulda put it, but there might be something in it

what really made me chuckle were the gifts exchanged, the browns buying dresses, necklaces and a collection of books for the obama girls and receiving two plastic helicopters available from the white house gift shop; and then gordon giving barack a first edition series of books and a pen holder made from the wood of a historic ship (which was a sister ship to the ship from which the oval office desk was made) and recieved a dvd set i don't think that it's important for world leaders to give each other good presents so unlike the telegraph readers i'm not outraged by this, but it does amuse me

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A billion catholics? from wikipedia so not nec trustworthy. thinking about it, it does sound very high

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, effectively forcing people to live their > lives in abject fear of God and the chuch, and > adhering to a dark ages outlook on life is such a > plus point innit - those papal coffers dont fill > themselves you know. > > Hushing up sex abuse cases is probabaly another > slur on a noble institution as well > > And I wont even make any reference to the Lateran > pact, cos that will invoke that law about calling > someone a Nazi that some deluded fools think > instantly devalues whatever point you may have > made > > And El papa isnt an ex Nazi either Im sure > > > OTT ? but the story isn't about any of the above and i thought that the thread was i don't know about forcing a billion people to do what they don't want to, i don't know about all these stories that people tell about covering up paedophilia, or about the lateran pact (you didn't do well there in relation to not making a reference, by making a reference) - i really don't so i'm not commenting on them - can you share any FACTS about these? and about the pope being a nazi?

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What is even more shocking in this scenario is > that the church, which should be a source of > succour in times of crisis, is villifying the very > people who are trying to help this child. how is it a shock that the catholic church comes out against abortion?

What I don?t get is why if the catholic church is so evil, being excommunicated is so bad? And also why in a story with two villains ? one a priest who excommunicates some people from a church (whatever that actually means, I don?t really know) and one a stepfather who repeatedly abuses a stepchild, it?s the priest/church that is filth, disgusting, vile, revolting, despicable and peadophile scum? (for the avoidance of doubt here, i don't think that the doctors or mother acting badly on the facts as i know them, but i think that using this story as an excuse for an outpouring of hatred against a faith followed by approx 1/6th of the world's population (to some degree) is a bit OTT)

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There ARE racists and Homophobic people, no doubt, in all Groups but it is far, far more widespread in the Black Community. Any Black person wil confirm that, I'm certain. Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its fair to assume that the next person one asks of the same Race will reply the > same way Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You, blatantly, do not want to hear or believe > this, for your own reasons. > quotes taken from different posts, so 'out of context', but not unfair i think as a summary i don't want to hear or believe it, the reason is because i don't believe it's true

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: so you've got statistical data about the > prevalence of homophobia and racism in the 'black > race'? > > Just ask any Black friend or colleague that you > know well, if, in their opinion, there is a higher > ratio or proportion of Homophobic people within > their Race, compared to other races, and see what > their response is. > > You need not ask them their own views or the views > of their circle of friends but what their general > perception is of other Black peoples views on this > Subject (particularly of Afro-Caribbean descent) > . > > I'll be astonished if they do not agree that there > is a much greater homophobic feeling in the Black > Community. that's a no then

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > It's not racist (but may be statistically wrong) > to observe that a high proportion of a individuals > from a particular racial background may be > homophobic, but it is racist to assume that > someone is likely to be homophobic because of > their race. > > I really can't agree with this at all. > > Hypothetically if 100,000 Members of a Race (any > Race) were asked a question about any Subject > (positive or negative) and 95,000 all replied the > same way, then its fair to assume that the next > person one asks of the same Race will reply the > same way. Given that would be a very large sample > and 19 out of every 20 replied the same way its > only natural to assume the next Guy will also hold > the same viewpoint. > > That, of course does NOT mean that "every" Member > of that particular Race will reply that way or > that there are not Members of other Races who will > also reply that way but in my hypothetical example > the Guys replying differently would be the > "exceptions to the rule" so how can that be > "Racist" to form a clear view of that Racial > Groups general view of a Subject when nearly > everyone thinks or talks or acts the same way? so you've got statistical data about the prevalence of homophobia and racism in the 'black race'?

i tend to agree with the information commissioner on most of these issues. it's shame that he won't be in the role for too much longer http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5812076.ece

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're nasty because they try and construct an > argument that it is okay to make assumptions and > construct prejudices about someone so long as the > percentages are high enough. > and in fact they generally have no idea of what those percentages are anyway

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: so what's the point of this? > > ....to demonstrate that while we are all > individuals and should be judged accordingly, > there are differences in the way differing Racial > Groups can, in general, perceive and regard > different situations sometimes, which some people > seem to not believe or deny occurs.. so you are saying that black people are generally homophobic, and using a very small self selected group as 'evidence'? and are you saying that this page is different from 'them'? not denying that cultural differences exist sometimes to some extent in some regards, but any conclusions and generalisations drawn should be based on fact - i am sure that if you spent a minute some 'white' pages you could just as easily find people saying some racist and/or homophobic things

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does make me laugh after experiencing and > witnessing all that I have in my 54 years when > "some" people deny that there are not blatant > differences in Culture between Racial Groups > sometimes!:) > > Take right now..there is a thread n "Blacknet. Co. > UK" which asks:- > > "What if your chld was homosexual?" enquiring how > Parents would react on discovering that was the > case. > > The replies, thus far, are along the lines of : > > "but like I said before it aint gonna > happen.....may as well have a convo about what > would happen if we wont the lotto this comming > saturday."....and that view has already been > seconded. > > I'll make a confident prediction that hardly > anyone will be "brave" enough to go entirely > against the grain and say that they will not mind > at all. > So far, someone thankfully has. > > If that same question was posed on here is anyone > seriously telling me that the opposite would not > occur and that the overwhelming majority of us > would still not cherish and love our child just as > much whatever their sexual orientation? so what's the point of this?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KalamityKel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Haha racist? really? do those claiming to be > > "effected" know the meaning? ::o > > > > "racism" > > (I know it's Wiki but hey ho...) > > > > To the original poster - I don't recall reading > > anywhere on this forum ANYONE saying "I have > > purple/green/red etc coloured skin and I'm > better > > than anyone else who is not the same as me" So > how > > can the forum be racist? Are you not bringing > > racist views in to the forum unnecessarily? > > > > Sorry, I know the aim of such comments and > threads > > (by suggesting, based on no facts what so ever, > > forumites are racist) is to instigate arguments > > and such but really things like that really get > me > > (6) > > > > *Edited to make points directed at the correct > > people more clearer > > xxxxxxx > > ??? > > There are sometimes comments made on the forum > which are bordering on racist. Sometimes they're > challenged, sometimes they're not. I'm sure in > most cases they aren't deliberate, but just > unthinking. > > I don't think it's helpful to start talking about > Wiki definitions of racism, and I don't think it's > helpful to suggest that no forum users are racist, > just as it isn't helpful to suggest that the whole > forum is racist. > > Great post, candj i agree with Sue

so have many people found an ipod (or other item) and successfully returned it to it's owner through this forum? just wondering whether it is an effective method? (and not denying that it could work)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Trev's solution is far more likely to find > the original owner. How many times have people who > have lost things gone to the police staion to > report it? They'd laugh you out the door. > > This forum's read by 3,000 to 5,000 local-ish > people, who likely as not may include or have > encountered the guy who lost the iPod. That's much > better odds. but surely you could hand it in to the police station (as i believe that there are in fact many thousands of people in the area who do not visit the site or talk to their friends about what they've seen here) and say that you've done so on here - thereby betting even 'better odds'? the police are actually very used to people coming in when e.g. mobiles are lost or stolen because (as i said in my initial post) a reference number is generally needed for an insurance claim to be made out of interest, if it's not handed in and no one claims it on here what do you think that Trev should do with the ipod? keep it?