Robsk II

I read about this earlier, hilarious. To be fair, I actually think it's out of order - people have a right to priacy. BUT it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch! Some are coppers, one's a vicar, etc. Many live abroad!!! Somewhat hypocritical, maybe? Anyway, it's people who harbour beliefs such as the BNP advocate - at least on the more extreme side - who might well have hunted down homosexuals, liberals, um, Jews etc in the past, so hey. if it's got to happen to someone..

What, penis?

Or indeed anything they have ever done.

Well, yes

I learned everything I know from Alastair Campbell. Everything. It was a decent effort from the paddlers but actually, it required very little technical skill at all, just some vague direction stuff, and the rest is just skipping along nicely. Would've been a good laugh, and the lucky ones got some decent air off the stopper at the bottom. I'd only have worried about that stopper being mental - but it didn't look too bad - or unseen obstructions at the bottom. Otherwise, it's actually not bad, as I say.

yeah, DMSs spot on. It's a really well known 'classic' early trait that many of the most notorious killers have exhibited early on.

Hell of a film (not the chipmunk one).

Stop it, you fat snaggletooth.

Yes. I'm not feeling very well today

To be honest, this is one of those awkward cases where the merit of the concept is determined by the situation which it is applied to. In ideal terms, I don't approve of so-called 'positive discrimination'. Discrimination is pretty much never positive. Jobs should be given on merit, I totally agree. However - that would be in an ideal situation, and the fact of the matter is that imbalances in society need to be balanced out somehow, regardless of the merits or pitfalls of this individual case. It's the same with the thing about female fire'men' - if they want to go for the job, they should be allowed to, and in the past, some daft attitudes have just said a blanket 'no' because, and only because, they are women. That's discrimination. If they can do the job better than the other applicants, then that's all good. If they get the job only because they are female, that's 'positive' discrimination, and fairly stupid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7735242.stm Looking at this, it's not as dangerous as the police and public might assume. Cool, also.

You'd better all ****ing well go next week.

Hacienda - I'm pretty certain you haven't 'bested' my views anywhere. I'm also fairly certain that you're unlikely to best most people in any intellectual regard. I say again, you have entirely failed, quite deliberately, perhaps, to take the meaning from my posts. Maybe you struggle to read, or with the language?

Deary me.

If you read what I was saying AT ALL instead of sticking your nazi fingers in your ears, you thick f*ck, you'd understand by now that this is exactly NOT my point. There's no point in entering into a discussion or debate with you whatsoever because you're just retarded. I have DECIDED that patriotism is in fact NOT about blindly following any flag waving, that's my point, moron. Also, most of what I post is a damn sight more considered, informed and evidenced than your daily hate inspired sh*t spewing rubbish.

Stop being so mindlessly agressive to anything anyone else says. If you bothered to infer meaning instead of venting your vitriol so mindlessly, you would understand that what I'm saying is this: Many people do consider supporting the actions of a country - ie the government, etc... to be patriotic, whether here or abroad. If one does or says anything against actions suppossedly carried out 'under the flag' then some misguided people consider that always to be unpatriotic... In various wars, governments and so-called patriots have lambasted war protesters and so on as enemies of the state even though the protesters would say that their view more accurately represented the founding ideals of the nation. Vietnam protesters were routinely described as 'un-american', 'reds' and so on.

As a kind of intermediary between StT and TCK.. some countries in Africa do still have a high prevalence of the practise of female circumcision. FGC is an umbrella term for female genital cutting, and it takes place to varying degrees of severity. Some is relatively unobtrusive, some if, from a Western viewpoint, barbaric. Also, Africa is not the only place it occurs - Iraq, Iran, Syria etc all still have communities which do this, for example. Also Egypt! Guinea, Eritrea and the Sudan have 90% + prevalence. So this is at least largely fact. The original statement: "Do people here realise that it is a custom for Somalis to cut off the ****oris of their daughters, and this is a common practice over here that is carried out in crude conditions, but it's their custom, so where do we draw the line? In some countries it is acceptable and common practice for children to get married and have children when they reach puberty, yet we find it distasteful and horrific." As it happens, Somalia isn't generally held to be one of the nations where it is prevelent, so maybe that part isn't accurate - but certainly it is acceptable, if sometimes taboo, in many countries (though in most, there is also groing opposition). So going back to your point, yes - where do we draw the line? Ultimately, we have every right to not do it here and not consider it valid or acceptable here. Do we have the right to force other nations to stop doing it? Setting ourselves up as the best moral force in the world, the most advanced culture, etc.. is dangerous business. We've often only intervened in places for economic or politcal reasons, and then used humanitarianism - and examples of abuses etc - as an excuse.

I never mentioned any specific conflict. I know you love being contrary at all possible opportunities but that wasn't one. I also think you fail to see my point. I was actually suggesting that those who support British values rather than British policy could be considered more patriotic - so I would support or resist policy based on what I think of it, and also whether it matches the values I, as a Briton, hold dear. I wouldn't support it just because Britain did it, as I would deem that to be less patriotic - just jingoistic.

Also, I'm not at all sure I'd publish my address if I did this kind of thing, even if I was cool with it - I'd be aware others might not be.. 14807 Millstream Way, Tampa, FL 33613

Tolerance is all well and good, but, while I wouldn't seek for this chap to change his ways, I reserve my right to consider him a proper weirdo. 53? What a ****.

Indeed one could. The problem with this, for me, is that it seems a lot of beliefs I hold, and that I believe to be quite British in many ways, are not held by an increasing number of people. I am British, though, as are they. I am patriotic in a way that is different to some. I support the values I hold to be British over the country itself - that is true patriotism on my view. This is why I do not support military action I deem unjust or not needed, for example. Blindly following your country - read government or whatever - isn't really doing the best thing for the country. If a dictator took over this country waving the flag, and I resisted, I would be labelled a traitor and anti-British, perhaps - yet I would believe I was being quite the opposite. A real patriot.

OK - out of interest - can you explain why being patriotic is inherently a good thing?

Typical,when I'm away.

The crazy thing is that afte the Climbie case, the Every Child Matter framework etc were devised ENTIRELY to stop this kind of thing happening - not the abuses, it's impossible to stop everything, no matter how good things are - but to stop a breakdwon of communications, multiple agencies ****ing up and not communicating. We are all meant to put great emphasis on joint working and a multi agency approach, and this seems to have failed yet again. If all had been involved and informed, there would have been sufficient cause to make that child safe. The (relatively new) Common Assesssment Framework SHOULD have been performed on this case, should have been pursued, and if followed through appropriately with the co-operation of all agencies involved and other being brought in, it was preventable. THAT is what makes this tragedy all the more tragic. Climbie was killed in the SAME ****ing local authority, I mean what the hell? I know a lot about this kind of thing, and it's awful that some agencies and bodies are still ****. The worst thing is that this isn't isolated. We had a case of a young man who, until we picked him up and kicked the cr*p out of social services and everyone else about it, agencies had simply stopped working with. He was very much 'at risk' for more than one reason, but each agency had dropped the case, thinking the others were still working it. This should simply never have happened, it's pathetic. he could have been in a cellar or under the sodding patio, but the agencies involved initially, the ones that SHOULD have stayed involved, totally just screwed up. We were absolutely dumbfounded by the failings displayed, and I promise you, it could have gone the same way as this one in the paper. Whatever anyone else says, you can't blame the government for this one. The legislation in place is the best to safeguard young people we've ever had, but it just gets ****ed on by bad professionals. I could write a book on the incompetence of agencies on Southampton, I really could, and a lot of it has potentially put young people at risk.

Now I've heard everything.