norwaysaint

Each to their own and everybody should have things the way they prefer, but I can never understand how some people prefer milk or sugar in a decent coffee. It's like adding Coca Cola to a good single malt.

This is pretty common ignorance on your part actually. Political correctness is not to ignore race, but not to discriminate unfairly. For example, if you're looking for an actor to play Winston Churchill in a film, telling an actor they are unsuitable because they are a black woman is not unfair discrimination. Telling somebody they're not suitable for a job as a computer programmer because they are a black woman is unfair discrimination. Discrimination in itself is something that every person needs to use all of the time or we would die. It is not the same thing as unfair discrimination on racial grounds. I have been unceasingly amazed at how many people cannot understand this simple concept. Surely everybody with a brain agrees that unfair discrimination is wrong and if they do, they are PC. I don't see the connection between right and left wing. Are people saying to be right wing is to single out one group and victimise them unfairly? Surely not. Most cases of "PC gone mad" are not anything to do with PC. The idea of "banning Christmas" is very non-PC, as it discriminates against one cultural group. If you say you are anti-PC, anybody doing something like that is one of yours. Most things that are called PC gone mad are, oddly, to do with over-protective Health and Safety regulations which have absolutely zero connection with being politically correct. I know this will go over the heads of many posters on here who will continue to mindlessly quote newspaper articles about PC gone mad and the fact that most people won't get it will only serve to irritate me. The word PC will continue to be used mainly by people who don't know what it means as a way to attack the left wing over silly decisions made by silly people (who are actually acting in a non-PC way or work in Health and Safety).

The thing with Oasis is they set out to be like the Beatles and failed pretty badly. Nearly all of the suggestions here are from their first two albums. Loads of bands have managed a couple of good albums. You might not like the Beatles, but most of their famous stuff was released between 1963 and 1970, just 7 years and think of how many famous and classic songs and albums there are. That's the same a band being formed in 2004 and breaking up now, it's a pretty short time with a massive output (about 12 albums in 7 years). Oasis were going for 18 years, 15 after their first single and put out (I think) 7 albums, of which only the first couple were in any way classic. A good band that utterly failed to be what they wanted to be. I always thought they ran out of ideas and inspiration very early. An all time great debut though.

Once again, the point is that it's a holding place for people awaiting trial. That's not a BBC slant. Your first comment showed that you didn't understand this.

They haven't been convicted of anything yet. They're awaiting trial, many of them will be found innocent. You do realise these people haven't been found guilty of anything, don't you? They are awaiting trial. Some of them will be found guilty, others were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time and will be released. As for having done "something very, very bad"... It's a wrong thing to do, of course, but not really "very, very bad." If you would be happy to be locked up in a place like that for something similar, without trial, fair enough. I think you three need to actually read the article.

Couldn't this question be solved with a simple poll?

Just remember, this isn't about prisons, these are for holding people who haven't actually been convicted of the crime. In other words many of them could be completely innocent. Mental. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13457576 What do they expect these people to be like when they leave? No wonder the USA has huge problems with crime. I don't know how other systems in other countries compare, but that is clearly counter-productive.

I find it a bit odd how some people give respect to the idea of Christianity or belief in God in general, but look on some religions like paganism as a bunch of nutters. It's also common to see people who believe in multiple gods as somehow primitive. As far as I can see they all have just as much foundation as each other. Paganism is no more ridiculous than Christianity. They're both based on nothing more than faith and tradition. similarly there are people who think Christianity is fair enough but laugh at things like tarot cards, horoscopes and similar. They are both beliefs in the supernatural. Why is one more valid than another? There's no physical evidence for either. It's just a case of the numbers believing, which surely means nothing.

This is just political correctness gone mad.

This is sadly another classic case of political correctness gone mad.

This is sadly yet another case of political correctness gone mad.

I don't think the problem is that "they" wouldn't allow a national day, or that it's not allowed to have a heritage. I think the problem is in so many people's inability to be inclusive in a national day. I think too many people would want to celebrate Britain's borders instead of having a day where immigrants are a big part of the day, like here. There have been a couple of posts referring to empire already, that's wallowing in a lost past rather than being thankful for the good of the country you're living in now. Here, 17th of May does a lot to improve and cement good relations between immigrants and "natural" Norwegians. It could work in Britain, but a lot of people would have to put their pettiness aside and embrace what Britain is now.

I agree that just blind "proud to be British/Norwegian/etc" is a silly idea, but a good celebration isn't like that. it's almost a demonstration of gratitude for what you've got. In Norway's case, getting back their freedom after occupation and foreign rule, but also thankfulness for living in a country that has been good to you. I get to celebrate being an Englishman in Norway and what that means to me. It's a welcoming and inclusive festival, rather than one which celebrates its borders. SF, you are wrong about it being a birthright and entitlement because of birth and I would think the reasons are pretty clear here and in the OP.

It's Norway's tomorrow and anybody who's lived over here will know that every single person in the country will be out on the streets tomorrow either watching or taking part in a parade. There will be flags everywhere, the majority will be in national dress and the cities and towns will be full of marching bands and celebrations. It is huge and the people here get excited about it like no other day of the year. Is it the sort of thing that could ever happen in Britain? I think maybe not for a variety of reasons. Firstly there's the sad habit of people being unable to be proud of the country and culture without feeling they have to show hostility to other nations and cultures at the same time. Here you will find people cheering as groups parade representing all different cultures and sections of society, last year there was some kind of Malay society behind us, there was also a band of bagpipers and another band from Northern Ireland, but the parade is full of immigrants joining in and just celebrating enjoying living in this country and being cheered on while they do. A lot of British people take a large dose of hatred of immigrants into their patriotism. Secondly, it's a day for children. They get spoiled, get to wear their national costumes, eat ice cream and generally get made to feel special all day. They grow up into citizens who love to celebrate their country every year and can't help but get excited over it. I never hear people who want a British national day talking about it being for the children. Thirdly of course is the need to celebrate the national identity. Norway has in the past been under both Danish and Swedish rule and was occupied by the nazis during the war. People here don't take the idea of having their own country and freedoms for granted. I hope I'm wrong and one day Britain/England will learn how to celebrate it's better sides. Anyone else here live in a country with a national day have similar experiences?

What about a good quality, freshly squeezed orange juice, or a range of smoothies made freshly on the premises. Also how about a good selection of freshly brewed coffees, perhaps a guest coffee every week. Perhaps there could be some sort of delicatessen open on the premises selling cold meats and cheeses from around the world. Also, which wines are currently available at St Mary's? Couldn't they keep a good cellar stocked for those who don't want beer or cider? Come on Cortese, the club could be making money on these things!

Incredible. The whole situation up there is just political correctness gone mad.

This is another classic case of political correctness gone mad. You couldn't make it up!

My dad lives in St Keverne so we usually stay there, also like Coverack and Kynance though. My second favourite part of the country after the Lakes, pain in the arse for me to get to though.

Why would anyone read a newspaper like the Daily Mail to get science or health news? You should read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science", he blames them for a large part of the misinformation that's out there. They take scientific articles, strip them of the most important facts and present small parts out of context so that they have no real or correct meaning, they take influence from businesses that push ideas on them for their own gain and they do absolutely no journalism at all. Stuff like taking antioxidant supplements or fish oils and omega 3 are good examples of things that the media have put out there as beneficial that have no basis in science at all. All of it just comes from the companies who want you to buy the stuff. If there has been new and interesting research into the of salt intake, you can be sure none of the facts were printed in the Daily Mail or similar.

Yeah, we bought land by the sea and built on it. Got a good deal and fixed building price at a good time. The thing is lots of my neighbours were buying second cars they could scarcely afford, decided they needed new flat screen TVs (in more than one room) even though the old ones still worked and they all had to have Mediterranean holidays every year. Some are now in credit trouble and whine about it. We saved for years for a second car and only just bought a flat TV now. I'm going on my first ever package holiday to the med this year. Nothing bought on credit at all. We don't even use credit cards. I consider it a duty to my family not to start borrowing money for stuff we can't afford.

Except for my mortgage (and my house is worth three times what I paid for it) I have no debts. I think buying stuff on credit is just a bad idea. If you can't afford stuff, save up until you can. I have no idea what my credit rating is and I couldn't give a ****.

His death is just a symbolic victory, but still... What made me laugh was somebody on here saying that it will end when we kill all of them and that's one less. If you think it through, it probably means at least a hundred more. Nobody's leaving the group because of this, but it's certain some will join.

We will win our first promotion in years, the sign of the wonderful change in our club's fortunes. A time to celebrate SFC...and some of you want to build pompey's egos by singing about them at our moment of triumph. Brilliant.

"Basically there's a whole generation of people that have confused political correctness with health and safety legislation." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7OAk2O3_PU