silverfox

Interesting point Milo. Why don't you ask your black colleagues what they think about it and give us an accurate report back? Tell them there's a debate going on and we'd like their opinion. You might need to actually pronounce the word rather than speak to them in PC N-word code otherwise they mightn't have a clue what you're talking about. You mention your colleagues are 'British Black'. I wonder if you would get a different response from an America black person? I ask this not only because of cultural differences but also hip-hop has sub-cultural overtones. You might get a variety of responses. I would be generally interested in an accurate report back. It could substantiate many of the views expressed here or it could expose many of the views here as knee-jerk white liberal reactions.

From today's Mail online: Iraq Inquiry bombshell: Secret letter to reveal new Blair war lies http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231746/Secret-letter-reveal-new-Blair-war-lies.html Amazing how useful these enquiries are - who'd have thought it?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have managed to misrepresent every single > point silverfox > > Well done No problem. Give me a shout if you get stuck on any other threads

Methinks I'd better think about another stocking filler for Christmas presents

My worry here is it could be used against the innocent offensively as well as used by potential victims defensively. Therefore no to legalisation because criminals could abuse it. Having said that, my sister has carried pepper spray, legally available in France, in her handbag for many years.

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP If objective non-EDF forum readers were to look in on posts like this they would rightly, I suspect, think what a load of parochical small-minded nonsense. This is all getting a bit ridiculous. Y'man said he came back from Thailand in 1980 with, among other things, a tube of toothpaste named 'Darkie Boy', it's logo was a picture of a negro wearing a top hat. Fact: this happened 29 years ago. Response 2009? Shock, horror, disgust etc etc. Basically people who were in nappies when the alleged crime was committed now have the audacity to rule whether what happened was okay or not, with a multitude of braying idiots agreeing. Given the puerile nature of the objectors such concepts of cultural relativism are beyond their wit. To sum up, we now have a PC culture of 'it's wrong innit?' If we're not careful such sloppy thought from the PC brigade will tell us there was no flowering of intellectual thought in Greece because its idea of democracy was based on slavery etc. Get a grip people or don't bother posting. Are Daizie and Santerme the only rational people prepared to stand up and be counted against such ill-thought out objections?

And you Sean are in error

I'm confused what to make of all this. 1. Do not trust lapsed catholics, especially those of Irish origin. 2. There is an anti-catholic element here, hatred is an apt word (sorry Dulwich Mum but you are representative of many). Perhaps we should adopt for PC purposes the Ca-word which appears to placate some on here who are frightened to call a spade a spade. 3. I've absolutely no idea what De Valera has got to do with this (except to say he was a realist who basically told Irish youth to F-off abroad because we can't help you) 4. For the last time, keep things in perspective. If you judged the Islamic faith on the basis of mis-guided suicide bombers then you'd be a fool.

I did say this was going to be a toughie

Right, let's just review some of the views so far: The Catholic church is rotten it is a rotten rotten institution ... and allowed these people to continue their abuse in their full knowledge. Sick sick sick sick sick. the core is utterly corrupt This is corrupt and intrinsically evil ... Get a grip folks - you're in danger of getting carried away here. Bad elements inside the church were responsible for this and the church needs to reassess the structural weaknesses that allowed them to abuse their authority and positions of trust. It is silly to say that therefore the whole institution is rotten and corrupt, and its members and adherents tacit supporters of such abuse, any more than Harold Shipman type characters, the doctor who poisoned his girlfriend and nurses that smother babies and old people can lead to accusations that the medical profession is by its nature rotten and corrupt. It was abuse by some who were in a position of trust and badly handled by their superiors.

Maybe it's getting late but I didn't understand the end of your last post. I'm sorry to read of your wife's friends and the cost to your family of Franco's regime. All I'm saying is keep things in perspective. I'm not trying to excuse anything that's gone on here and the church should rightly answer for its failings. I'm just pointing out it's silly to extrapolate that the Church is rotten to the core because of the actions and decisions of a few. (Re my priorities: simply to question. I tried to keep out of the Saudi paedophile debate because I found it too emotive although I did do one post in reply to Keef about the victim being a relevant matter. By all means pick on the Catholic church and any other authority or organisation but let's not be too simplistic; and my point about the Iraq enquiry is I don't think it has any value and will not achieve anything.)

I can see this is going to be a toughy as it has fallen smack bang into the hands of those who dislike the church itself, distrust churches in general or don't agree with religions in general. But it is wrong to say it's rotten to the core. It's a vast, bureaucratic organisation and some parts of it have tried to cover up these abuses under their jurisdiction, partly because it relects badly on their leadership. Of course the hierarchy would have known about the problem but that is a very different matter than saying it has a systemic problem with paedophilia/child abuse.

Yes Mockney, all that is true. It is sick and I understand certain US dioceses (Boston?) have declared themselves bankrupt because of the number of claims against some of their priests. As I said, the church should have been ruthless in getting rid of these people and handing them over for justice. But still, let's keep a sense of proportion here. The institution itself is not rotten to the core and does not endorse such behaviour. Unfortunately, it's been mis-handled and has tarnished the image of many good people who belong to that church and I think it's an over reaction to criticise innocent 'flower arrangers' for the wicked deeds of some rotten individuals.

Interesting point about the insurance. Any responsible organisation would do this and it is a recognition of the dangers that such rotten apples present. I'm sure there are a number of members of the forum who work in the insurance field and they will tell you better than I can that the actuaries would have assessed the risk before permitting the insurance. If child abuse, paedophilia was endemic they would not have allowed the insurance. (For clarity, the insurance point was in response to Huncamunca's original post where he/she raised the point but has since edited the post)

Steady on let's not get carried away. It is a disgrace, shameful, terrible breach of trust and more. But we are talking of rotten individuals abusing their position. Such individuals are drawn to organisations and occupations where they have access to children and they can hide -churches, teaching, nurseries, care homes, youth clubs, play schemes and so on. The Catholic Church in Ireland, America etc should have been ruthless in ridding itself of such vermin. Foolishly they tried to cover it up. It is a big jump to accuse the Catholic Church itself of being rotten as if it systematically endorses such abuse and it's hardly fair to pick on people who polish candle sticks and sing in choirs.

I never felt misled, I never believed the 'intelligence' in the firsr place and seriously doubt many, if any, in the House were misled and believed it either. Rather in the climate at the time they were too cowed to speak out but conveniently back-tracked in the face of public opinion. I maintain politically Britain had to go to war shoulder to shoulder with the Americans given the mood in the US or risk losing any credibility on the world stage. Glad you feel an enquiry is of use though.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you're fine with the invasion of Iraq but think > an enquiry into what is universally accepted as > our worst foreign policy decision, based entirely > on lying to the public, since 1956 is a waste of > money? > Erm....nope, you've lost me. Don't see why I've lost you. You've summed up the position quite well so what else do you expect the enquiry to reveal to you and the public at large? The money would be better spent giving 'our lads' more equipment so they can finish the job and come home.

Sorry ????, you are not comparing like-with-like

I understand the arguments. What I don't understand is what an enqiry costing millions of pounds and the best part of a year is going to achieve. In my opinion ZILCH! (edited for typo)

From Sky News: US And UK Desperately Wanted 'Smoking Gun' "British and American officials were desperately looking for a "smoking gun" that would justify their imminent invasion of Iraq ..." Surely we all know this and there's no justification for an enquiry. We were all lied to but that wasn't the point. The point was post-9/11, as Bush said, you were either with the Americans or against them. Britain had to join in. The end.

Mad Frankie's floggings would seem to have failed as a deterrent, at least in his case. I suppose if you're a 'bad un' no form of corporal or capital punishment will stop you doing wrong.

Yes is probably the answer. Rainbow decides how much to sell something for, taking into account his/her overheads and expected profit margin. Edited to say unless of course you're a franchisee, where prices may be set for you.

"...Yet Macroban too fell silent..." Fell silent or was silenced?

Didn't they leave us advanced technology in the form of the Bugaboo as punishment because the guy in the fabric shop was rude to them?

Equally though Huguenot, there is something very unsatisfying to the rational mind to say everything that is sprang from an unimaginably small singularity (Big Bang) and leave it there. That would be a cop-out. The Big Bang must have had a cause and if Membrane (M-Theory/String Theory) seeks to explain that universes pop in and out of existence all the time that still begs the question of an ultimate cause. To seek help in attributing this to (a) God, is not unreasonale to my mind in trying to make sense of what is probably unknowable.