Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a genuine stained glass window,



From where?


Just because its a window does not mean its acceptable for a "family forum" - if it were a picture or photo it would not be allowed.


Can you say where I can see this window?

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mockney piers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's a genuine stained glass window,

>

>

> From where?

>

> Just because its a window does not mean its

> acceptable for a "family forum" - if it were a

> picture or photo it would not be allowed.

>

> Can you say where I can see this window?



Are these (childish but amusing) photos worse than the reality of what the pope continues to cover up and the suffering that some within the catholic church have caused? I don't think so.


On my list of "things I find offensive", these photos are at the back of the queue. Which do you find the most difficult to deal with?

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Eh - edcam

>

> Because Men abuse children does not make it

> acceptable to be "shown" on a forum.

>

> What other abuse would you think should be ok to

> be shown here ?



What a strange response. So it's acceptable to endorse the pope's visit, considering his flagrant disregard for human rights, allowing young people to think that what he stands for is ok? Why would anyone let their children into this part of the forum if they didn't want them to see some challenging/controversial content?

Sorry - not with you.


1) Pictures of child abuse, in whatever form, should not be allowed on this forum (my opinion only).


2)

So it's acceptable to endorse the pope's visit
- I certainly do not endorse the Pope's visit.

3)

would anyone let their children into this part of the forum if they didn't want them to see some challenging/controversial content?
- Of course not - and the administrators have to my knowledge always upheld a good reputation and would generally prevent children accidently seeing inappropriate images.
Sorry mickmac - I see your point but what I'm saying is that on a reasonably intelligent forum such as this I would hope that people would be more wound up about what this current pope represents than they would be about a few silly pictures.

I'm guessing it'll probably be removed, but for the record it's in Los Angeles.

It actually features in a scene in Six Feet Under as it happens, and the director's commentary said they spotted it during filming a scene there.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm guessing it'll probably be removed, but for

> the record it's in Los Angeles.

> It actually features in a scene in Six Feet Under

> as it happens, and the director's commentary said

> they spotted it during filming a scene there.



In that case its an accidental image ? Intentionally misrepresented ?

Party..?


Now throw your hands up in the air

And wave'em around like you just don't care

If you wanna party let me hear you yell

'Cause we've got it goin' on again


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49092000/jpg/_49092284_010167240-1.jpg ( what is that in the left hand side of his mouth ? )


I go to the halls and then ring the bell

because I am the man with the clientele

and if ya ask me why I rock so well

A big bank, I got clientele

Its a very serious issue and I don't think its an issue to make light of through "silly" or even disturbing pictures. Those affected by the issue will not thank people for making a joke out of it. You should make up your mind where you stand.

The Pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country.


* However, as well as a religious leader, the Pope is a head of state and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:


1. opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS


2. promoting segregated education


3. denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women


4. opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people


5. failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.


6. rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.


* The state of which the Pope is the head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (?concordats?) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states.


* As a head of state, the Pope is an unsuitable guest of the UK government and should not be accorded the honour and recognition of a state visit to our country

I completely agree Jah. Your post very succinctly demonstrates just what the discussion should be about. And sometimes it takes illustrations (even ironic, close to the bone ones) to get people to discuss the real issue.

Mind you, on many of those criteria you could also exclude Obama.


Probably not the child abuse, but you could trade Pius XII for state-sponsored terrorism.


You also can't hope to explore negotiated solutions if you haphazardly start excluding heads of state from your country. You tend to end up with a quid pro quo and a complete breakdown in communication. Nah gid fa naahbody.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Bit nerdy. But the traditional form of England/Wales local government was based on committees with themehmbers in proportion to the respective political parties numbers.  Blair government introduced for councils that chose it cabinet structure where the majority hold roles covering each of  former committee would decide/confirm. Additionally a Blair option for a super council leader Mayoral role such as Lewisham rather than ceremonial mayoral role who chairs council Council Assemblies of all councils. A number of councils have since moved from exec Mayoral role to cabinet basis.  Without Councillors being elected via a Proportional Voting system I personally would prefer to see a return to committee decision making structure. It ensures all Councillors have to know what they're doing rather than the ruling party leaving it to a few cabinet members and the rest just voting at Council Assemblies how they/re told. Just a personal view. 
    • With the elections coming up soon, it's interesting to note that residents over the boundary in Lewisham have a different system of local government than Southwark. Lewisham has a directly elected Executive Mayor while Southwark has kept a traditional local authority structure. Nothing is perfect, but I think Lewisham made a mistake with the Executive Mayor in that it blurs the legislative branch and executive branch of governance, and makes serious scrutiny of decisions less likely to happen - especially in a Borough like Lewisham which is essentially a one-party state. None of the political parties are offering any major reforms of local government for London, which is very disappointing since it seems obvious that having 33 local authorities - all with their own internal administrations - is not a good way to run things, when most of them are struggling even to maintain basic services.
    • My  understanding is that all developments whatever size, have to have an element of social housing…affordable housing… council housing..No longer sure of percentage but clearly less than years ago.. The point is house builders clearly make a profit or they simply would not  continue building what I refer to as modern  boxes!  Putting housing condensed or what originally was one house with land attached.  Huge development going on in Beckenham - 200 social housing and rest open market.. sited over several houses now demolished… up the road from the park on way into town centre.. might even be completed by now.. haven’t been that way in last year… certainly can’t miss it.. So, for example, let’s say a developer builds houses and flats on a site… social housing I assume would be in a separate block to other flats and I assume house as well. Ie to put it bluntly, away from main site.. Nothing wrong in that at all.  Many years ago, near Borough a developer built flats divided into blocks. . Price range £300/400,000. Social housing was in a different block…. Can’t remember how many… so families , couples etc got a brand new flat with modern kitchen and bathrooms, flooring etc  and could not even keep common parts clean.. trash thrown out and left including out of windows etc..total disregard for community and certainly not  grateful for brand new property and a home.. I hasten to add, not every flat in the social housing sector but certainly a fair few behaved that way.      
    • Please name all of the shops.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...