Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

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

> Bus no, Tube yes...stooping into my space


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


Oh now "tallism" what next, big feet ?


Oh I can see it now, the foot license


"Excuse me Sir this license is for a size 7 & you are quite clearly wearing a size 9 "


I'm going to be the annoying one and say this thread is probably really upsetting some people. Sorry!



I was trying to point it out with my ugly people in the hairdressers comment. This thread is a bit off IMO. Yes I know people can lose weight, but still, the first thing that popped in to my head, was certain seats for black people on buses in some places in the past.


I know it was started in a light hearted manner, but not a nice thread.


Besides, if the fat people paid double, they'd still take up the same space, so you'd still be sat next to them, the money wouldn't change that.

Has the EDF taken a big step to the right or are the Guardian/Indie readers all at work? This thread has moved me to log in for the first time in about a year. Have to say I find body fascism worrying. I know the tabloids love to fill their empty columns with it but this forum used to be relatively inclusive.

brum Wrote:

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

> Crikey I can see why it wasn't successful! Wide

> seats for everyone (ie, benches) - thats the only

> way...


______________________________________________________


Oh no, then the "Idle" would only lie down on them.


Note* Please don't take this as mocking the "Idle" I mean they might have "Idleitus" and that's not nice.



W**F


* Stuffs another M&S choclate biscuit into mouth*

Ms B Wrote:

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

> Has the EDF taken a big step to the right or are

> the Guardian/Indie readers all at work? This

> thread has moved me to log in for the first time

> in about a year. Have to say I find body fascism

> worrying. I know the tabloids love to fill their

> empty columns with it but this forum used to be

> relatively inclusive.



Good point well made. Also agree with Sophie & Keef. Time to bow out.

..and who said Guardian readers hadn't got a sense of humour? Come on.... I've never seen a more tongue in cheek set of posts poking fun at such stupidty as charging fat people all through this thread. Fight battles that are worth fighting FFS not ones that don't exist.

Ms B Wrote:

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

> ????, try substituting the word 'black' or 'gay'

> for 'fat' or 'ugly'. Still think it's OK?



It's not the same at all. Try reading posts that aren't poking fun at an easy target but pointing out the stupidity of prejudice - jeez, read them and look up satire too...I give in if people can't see that.

Ms B Wrote:

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

> ????, try substituting the word 'black' or 'gay'

> for 'fat' or 'ugly'. Still think it's OK?


_______________________________________________________________


You missed out "disabled" there & isn't "ugly" subjective anyway ?



W**F

Giggirl - I agree with you about small children having to sit on a parent's lap or sharing with another small child. I asked one man to let his kid sit on his lap on a crowded bus, and he acted as if I had asked him to wipe my arse. I explained that she was little and she hadn't paid and that I had a ticket and was tired after an 11 hour shift. He still couldn't quite see why I felt it was the right thing for his daughter to do but relented - grudgingly - in the end. Now, if it had been a fat kid....

My point is that there has been a lot of discussion and education around racism and homophobia and so most people now know it's not acceptable to discriminate, criticise or mock on those grounds, but some people seem to find it difficult to work out what amounts to discrimination in other areas.


For what it's worth, you could argue that 'fat' - or for that matter 'black', 'gay' or 'disabled' are subjective terms.


Not sure any of these posts could be called satire, by the way...

Nero Wrote:

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

> Giggirl - I agree with you about small children

> having to sit on a parent's lap or sharing with

> another small child. I asked one man to let his

> kid sit on his lap on a crowded bus, and he acted

> as if I had asked him to wipe my arse. I explained

> that she was little and she hadn't paid and that I

> had a ticket and was tired after an 11 hour shift.

> He still couldn't quite see why I felt it was the

> right thing for his daughter to do but relented -

> grudgingly - in the end. Now, if it had been a fat

> kid....


so were you more important than the child because of their age? because they were little? or because of the fact that you splashed your hard cash?


if i'm older/bigger/richer than you, can i ask you to give up your seat for me?


i'd have told you to stick it

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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