pk

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pk > > Dont be naughty. Thats not what i said. And you > know it > > Choosing a religion is not the same as ones > sexuality. One is real and one is a choice. But if > one chooses a faith it doesnt entitle you to hold > opinions such as homosexuality is wrong. Such a > person might think it does. . . But that is not > the same thing. And if one chooses such a belief > should one be given a free pass? i do think that you've said people aren't entitled to hold CERTAIN religious beliefs and i think you said it twice now, including above (not being naughty) i think that people should be free to hold and express opinions that i don't agree with and if that includes racist, homophobic beliefs then so be it - acting thereon is of course another story. i guess the reason i've picked this up is that i thought that you'd agree with freedom of speech i also don't believe that religions are necessary chosen (or that in all cases homosexuality isn't - but i don't want to get into that one at the mo)

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is it that, when I'm rushing to jot something > down, the pen I pick up never works! Grrr... sorry, you've hit on one of mine here - questions with no question marks

i hasten to add, i said hold beliefs, not to act on them or encite other to act on them

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The ONLY basis some people have for imagining > homosexuality is a sin is their belief in some old > book, written by blokes, translated by other > blokes and to all intents and purposes, worthless > as a guide to modern life. In other words they > aren't ENTITLED to it. They can choose to believe > it but it doesn't make it so. so people aren't entitled to hold religious beliefs?

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The point Diane Abbott made so well is that there > simply does not have to be a conflict between > people's beliefs and protecting minority groups. > Btw the Attitude website does not carry the > stories so I will leave it to everyone reading > this to decide whether I made them all up! > can't you quote the relevant pieces verbatim?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love this forum, someone dares to say something > about a parent / child in a pub, and straight away > it's challenged! > > He even said it was only a minor gripe, and why > shouldn't he say it. There was no suggestion that > the kids shouldn't be in the pub or anything like > that, he just commented, quite rightly, that > parents should watch what the kids are doing. > Surely no one would disagree with that would > they? > > no 'challenge' or suggestion that he shouldn't say it, just curious as why stating the obvious (as you say noone would say parents shouldn't keep an eye on their chidren) and rising a minor is worth the effort

Pierre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > * a couple of parents who aren't grown-up enough > to realise that it's not a creche and that leaving > their wheeled children's toys in the > turning-around-with-newly-bought-drinks space > immediately in front of the bar is at best > innattentive and inconsiderate, at worst > arrogantly rude and dangerous. what's the point of this bit? did you take steps to deal with the danger at the time?

MadWorld74 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SimonM Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > He is no better, different to or less offensive > > than the kind of person who, if asked if they > > watched the Olympics 100 metres final, would > > respond "Why would anyone want to watch a bunch > of > > jungle bunnies.....?".... > > > I'm sorry? who the HELL says that!!!!??? I'm > confused. Are we in the 1970's still? ....... i think simon is saying that discrimination against paraomplypians is as bad as racism?

think all my personal favourites that i go back to have already been mentioned: baltic anchor and hope meze mangal dragon castle ganapati palmerston other places i've enjoyed meals and would like to go back, one day: butlers wharf chop house pont de la tour lobster pot oxo (the view mainly) places i'd like to go to: chapter 2 that sticks place in the oxo tower chino latino champor champor magdelen places that didn't really do it for me: black and blue roast not an exhaustive list so i might come back with more

i thought that people might think that, but i don't think that it is a thumbs up looking carefully the thumbs are out and not up, and if you hovver over it it say 'the finger smiley' surely the 'thumbs up' one is this: (tu)

i'm pretty sure that this emoticon is giving 'the finger' >:D<, so why do people use it so much? TLS is a prime example - are you intending to say 'f*** you', or words to that effect, in so many of your posts?

i've eaten the palmerston a load of times and will go back, but i've only eaten in the herne once a few months ago and it put me off (which is a shame as i went expecting to like it) as with many of the less happy punters above, we went on saturday lunchtime and waited a good while to be served an inaccurate order (with protests that they'd got it right and we'd got it wrong, until the order was checked) and despite all the talk of fresh food above the bearnaise tasted (and i believe did) come from a jar may be i'll try it again, cos i do like the place for a drink

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and going not so far back you said you'd call the > police - make up your mind > ... > So, although tomk thinks that this thread is > somehow offensive by it's very existence, I think > it's been enlightening for a lot of people, me > included. > > (PS Sue: see my post at 2.11am today.) whatever

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Would I like someone filming them in the park? > Going waaaay back to much earlier, I really don't > understand the damage. If they were at the pool > or the beach and semi-clothed, then I would > definitely have some reservations, but > gallivanting around fully clothed? I just don't > get it. and going not so far back you said you'd call the police - make up your mind

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Totally agree. Gobsmacked at some of the posts > on this thread. > > Sorry, you're right. Shall we organise the a > suitably sized mob to meet tomorrow by the > playground and sort this pervert out? What do you > think: hang him from the nearest tree or just cut > his whatsits off? Maybe we can ask Sky Sports to > cover the event? > > Honestly Sue - given your previous posts, you were > the last person I would have picked as one of the > Daily Mail brigade. What convinced you of this > man's guilt? What put you off my idea calling in > someone suitable, like the police, to have him > properly investigated versus the much more > expedient he's-obviously-guilty lynch mob > approach? how was it your idea to 'call someone sensible?' - at the top of this thread you said that the person who did call someone you couldn't understand it and then when someone says that they're gobsmacked you draw ridiculous conclusions about lynch mobs and the daily mail - how do you manage to reach these conclusions? just so that you can act like you're right and everyone else is overreacting?

cdonline Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "No Keef, it is relevant - see my post above. > Social services, the police and the school failed > to communicate the information they had about > about Huntley being a paedophile." > > > > So, we should spend our lives waiting for > something so exceptional to happen? > > Or get on with our lives, not always worrying > about the worst case scenario. or spend time on the internet telling concerned parents not to be suspicious of a person who to me (and many) behaved in a very suspicious way?

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You confuse me, Taper. Can you clarify the > > difference between "population groups" and > racial > > groups in your statement? > > > > You see, this is the kind of thing that really > > annoys me... refusing outright to recognise > that > > top sprinters tend to be from African > heritage... > > absurd. Naive, faux political correctness. > > > > What he said now i didn't write it so i don't know, but perhaps the intention was to say that to lump black people or people of "african heritage" together is sometimes unhelpful? are the stereotypes around say the french, the irish and the italians (all from the same continent) the same? using a sports example as they seem to be popular - even within africa there are different traditional strengths - the kenyans and ethiopians for example have not produced great sprinters but have produced many great runners over longer distances i guess (and i could be wrong) that 'population groups' may have been used to acknowledge that black people do not form a homogenous group?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Funnily enough Sue I have just covered your > point.Naturally everyone should be looked at as an > individual and its essential to have an open > positive mind about everyone.That des not however > stop me from noting that as a Group there ARE > differences between Men and Women,for example. has anyone suggested that you shouldn't note actual differences between groups where they exist (as a whole, with exceptions)?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll tell you a true story pk..In around 1977 I > met a Girl(around 20) at work called Linda..I said > Black Guys(as a group) are obviously better > dancers.She(fresh from Winchester to London) saod > NO!(Having met probably seen 5 Black Guys in her > whole life).I said to her "if I meet you in 10 > years you will have changed your tune"..Well I met > her 20 years later and reminded her...she laughed > and said "No Contest!"..B) so linda thought black men weren't better dancers and then 20 years later she thought otherwise, and then what?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > so you think all black men run fast (and no > white > > do) and all black men are poor at swimming (and > no > > white men are) > .....Co-incidently pk I have just answered that on > my next "Dancing?" Point! > By The Way if you disagree roughly half the 100 > you're answer seems to be that "relating to one thing and not others" means the same as "as a group with exceptions" and i don't think that that's true (when using the words to mean when that actually mean)

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No thinking about it,I will be The Bookmaker and > you can have 5/1 ALL The White Athletes combined > in The 100 Metres..and as a "once-in-a-lifetime" > """SPECIAL OFFER"" You can back The Black Swimmers > at 5/1 COMBINED to Win more Medals than their > White Counterparts...I KNOW I'm too generous but > hey! the Dictionary clearly states "the belief > that there are characteristics, abilities, or > qualities specific to each race. "...... and specific means "relating to one thing and not others" so you think all black men run fast (and no white do) and all black men are poor at swimming (and no white men are)

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Opening ceremonies have all been something of a > let-down since this back in '84. > > The magic starts about a minute in. i remember wanting one of those really badly, 24 years later surely i should be flying one to work by now?

BJL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NatashaD Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it racism, for example, to wish you daughter > > would marry within her race? > > Is it racism to be wary of strangers of a > > different race who may or may not share your > > customs, ethics or traditions? > > Is it racism to consider common stereotypes > when > > dealing with a stranger of another race? > > Is it racism to prefer that your favorite club > > admit only members of your race? > > In my opinion - yes, yes, yes and yes. and me, without question

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t see any problem at all with establishments > which cater exclusively for any one group. And if > they have rules to enforce that so be it. They > aren?t laws. Just as long as people aren?t @#$%& > about it. > > If you want to have an establishment that is gay > only, men only, women only, 18-25 only or whatever > because the people who attend feel more > comfortable that way go ahead is what I say. As > long as you aren?t discriminating against anyone > with regards to employment, education, legal > representation etc. > > This is not to say that I personally would > patronise such places (I kinda like diving > headlong into a mix of all sorts). I just don?t > see a problem with it. i agree

lordship_bod Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with tony.suburbs the alibi of "it couldnt > of been me gov, i was stalking someone else at the > time" hardly makes me want to have this bloke back > in society although take on board that this > individual is rather complex etc etc... how do > people feel about his compensation claim? i accept > the man has lost 8 years of his life and there has > been a miscarriage of justice but possibly half > million? i read somewhere that the formula takes > into account loss of earnings and emotional > distress etc... i'd like to know what he did for a > living.... how much would it take for you to spend the next 8 years in prison? i wouldn't do it for half a million