Brendan

WThey do have a certain point *bob*. It seems to be a hobby of a certain type of brit to have opinions on things, people and places they know fuck all about. Perhaps next you can regale us with your views on China, Pakistan or Australia. What do you actually know about South Africa? Do you know how it came to be? Do you know who its original inhabitants were? Do you know anything of the original Dutch settlers? The Huguenots? The mfecane? The rise of the Zulu nation? The great treks? The British empires influence/wars and genocides? What do you know of figure such as Moshoeshoe, Dingane, Kruger? What do you know of the impoverishment of the Boers during the depression and the mass exploitation of black labour by English mining concerns? Do you even know how many nations live in South Africa? Have you ever had to flee a township where you were doing charity work and caught the stench of someone being necklaced on the wind? What do you know of the 3000 odd men women and children who have been killed in organised farm attacks over the last decade? The residual effects of separate development? Any idea what it's like growing up in Joburg? The tribal affiliations within local politics? etc etc etc You know fuck all about South Africa, what it is like and what it means to be South African. Your self-righteous, scornful opinion lacks perspective. Now most decent polite people I will happily engage in discourse with on the matter but little shits with your type of attitude can fuck right off.

To answer Mick?s earlier point regarding Mandela. (put very simply) South Africa was at war. Mandela was part of this war but so were a lot of other people. It had been at war (both on the borders and more covertly domestically) for a long time and it looked like it was going to be for the foreseeable future. At a point where things came to a head Mandela took the opportunity to make something positive of a country that could very easily have descended into full blown civil war. What was achieved really was something special and Mandela was not only the figurehead but also very much the driving force. This is why he is respected universally by all the peoples of SA. As for his deification by the western media well that?s just so much bullshit but he very cleverly uses it help promote good causes. This article in the indy recently put the time and place into perspective quite well and with the except of 1 or 2 small points is a very accurate reflection of SA at the time. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/fw-de-klerk-and-the-end-of-apartheid-1886128.html

It?s quite a valid point Rosie. If not put in the most diplomatic way. Approaching South African politics from a British perspective is about as valid as me approaching Russian politics from a South African one.

Simon, You actually don?t know what the fuck you?re talking about. Perhaps you could go and explain to the parents of the 6 year old girl in my class who was blown to pieces in a Saturday morning bomb in the Wimpy back in ?84 that they shouldn?t be so upset as she was really just an electricity pylon. Now I actually have a great deal of respect for Mandela for a number of reasons and when I have the energy I will address Mick?s question as best I can. But unless you actually know what you are talking about or have a proper perspective on South Africa its history and peoples* rather just keep quiet. *which is something that experience has taught me folks possessing this island?s cosseted world view don?t/can?t posses.

I?ve had that before. Got injured through the strain of having my head repetitively trod on.

Not sure if the figures are accurate but someone said that for the cost of the bailout the government could have just given everyone in the country ?10k which would have ended up in economy and eventually in the banks anyway. But you see that would have meant that there would have still been the same amount of money in the economy but it would have been more evenly distributed and not in the hands of those special people who deserve it. We really do owe these people so terribly much.

Ahh! I shall employ it liberally upon my next excursion on the Queen?s highway. You really are a colourful folk.

A passing motorist gave me one of these today: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg I think it is a gesture with certain romantic conotations.

Maybe not in these particular type of circumstance but then again road deaths are only something that have been a staple of life for the last 60 years or so. But crosses, shrines, plaques etc. are all part of the same phenomenon. Anthropologically speaking.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not advocating a ban or telling people they > can't do so. Then what the hell are you arguing with me for dammit?

Please accept my heartfelt thanks.

Well personally I don?t like them they remind me too vividly of the trauma and randomness of road deaths. But they aren?t about me they are someone else?s expression of grief or loss. Humans are compelled to make these gestures when we grieve even though we are all too aware of their ultimate futility. So it is both insensitive and impolite to try to make up rules about how people should grieve. Unless, as I said before, they are causing a specific problem.

Roll Deep Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's when the bereaved appear > to go out of their way to 'guilt' you into feeling > sympathy by leaving things like teddy bears that > simply serve to say: "A child died here. Shame on > you if you don't share our grief". Which is quite > petty to be honest. Or perhaps the message could be interpreted as: ?A child died here. Shame on you if you continue to use the road with the self centered contempt for the safety of others that you currently do? A message that most road users, especially bus and truck drivers, would do well to bloody well listen to.

Which is precisely what I was saying in my first post David. We can?t just decide to contrive reasons to prohibit something just because we don?t like it or it makes us ?feel uncomfortable?. As long as it isn?t causing harm that street is as much someone else?s as it is yours or mine. And I wasn?t trying to argue that it is a cultural issue either. Just pointing out that tributes and shrines are not an unknown phenomenon in our culture or anyone else?s. They are a natural human expression that has always manifested itself in different ways since before we had even evolved into homosapiens.

It?s got quite a good forum. Or so I?ve heard.

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Grief is private Not necessarily. Perhaps to you and in your culture but (taking out of the equation the plastic melodrama peddled by the media when celebrities die) shared grief and public displays of grief are very normal to many people. > Leaving flowers to rot and die with tattered bits of > paper, where one can no longer even make out a > message, just re-inforces the bleakness of the > event in my opinion. That could be all the more reason to allow it to happen. Violent premature death isn?t a pretty thing and has a lot more to do with decay and mess than the polished coffins and black suits we dress it up in.

With respect. Who are you to make a judgement on how someone else expresses their grief? Even if you can identified and have seen a loved one?s face split in half as they bleed their last onto rancid asphalt it is still not for anyone to say how someone else should express their reaction to the experience.

Memorials, shrines and the like have sprung up spontaneously throughout history for various different reasons. Some of them last eventually become churches or monuments while most are just forgotten with the memory of the event. They are physical expressions of the feelings of an individual/s and unless they are causing a danger or obstruction I don?t think it would be particularly polite to get rid of them. It is worth trying to keep in mind that just because something hasn?t affected us directly or we don?t identify with the sentiment aren?t grounds to try to contrive a reason to get rid of it.

Are you trying to sell me travel insurance STOP

Well that?s easy. Just negate the threat of the British ruling classes feeling threatened by growing industrial and financial power in Europe and throwing their disposable recourse of manpower at it and to hell with the cost to the common man. Then, just to be sure, arse fucking Germany back into the stone age for their own personal gain, creating the perfect environment for a power-hungry, extremist regime to rise and kick the whole thing off again. (In summary) So to answer your question the best thing Europe could do it avoid another War is intelligently manage the threat from Britain. This may have to involve coercing them into the fold.

There also aren?t 44 species of shark found in this library.

STOP

Forsooth.

That watching America one by Razorlight. It is actually a good song that would be palatable if sung by someone else.

Allow me to clarify STOP The chance of me being at risk of being stung by fire coral in a library in Westminster is zero STOP MrBen is in the Red Sea STOP Fire coral is endemic to the Red Sea STOP He is therefore at risk of being stung by fire coral STOP The likelihood of him actually being stung may be anything from 0% to 100% STOP But he is definitely 100% ?at risk? STOP Even though his actual risk is not 100% STOP Am I making STOP sense here STOP QUESTION MARK CONFUSED SMILEY STOP