On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:53:47 -0800 (PST)
1506 wrote:
Wtf?? What exactly was stopping her picking up the phone and shopping him
herself as soon as she found out?

In truth, that would be a hard thing for any mother to do.

Perhaps. Woman tend to be more sentimental. But if he was my son I wouldn't
have waited for him to decide, I'd have phoned the police.

B2003

On 11/01/2011 14:02, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

Extinguisher, rather than hydrant. And he's been sentenced today -
2yr8mo for "violent disorder".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12159581

Presumably he won't now have to worry about a university eductaion, fees
or no fees.

Why? AFAIK, there's no general bar on ex-criminals studying at
university, although there might be for specific courses (Law, perhaps).

Some long-term prisoners have gained degrees while in prison (via the
Open University etc). A 2-year 8-month sentence is too short for that,
though.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On 11/01/2011 17:45, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 11/01/2011 14:02, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

Extinguisher, rather than hydrant. And he's been sentenced today -
2yr8mo for "violent disorder".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12159581

Presumably he won't now have to worry about a university eductaion, fees
or no fees.

Why? AFAIK, there's no general bar on ex-criminals studying at
university, although there might be for specific courses (Law, perhaps).

While it might stop you being a laywer(?), would it stop you studying law?

Some long-term prisoners have gained degrees while in prison (via the
Open University etc). A 2-year 8-month sentence is too short for that,
though.

Presumably he wouldn't need the full three years, as he won't be
spending vacations working or inter-railing!

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Jan 11, 12:10*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:48:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
For some reason I didn't find it all that funny watching a gang of
uniformed thugs beating up children who looked like my nieces and
nephews, and were doing nothing wrong apart from things like being
unable to pass through solid barriers that the thugs were trying to
force them through.

Perhaps if said "children" hadn't been smashing windows and graffitiing then
they wouldn't have got thumped. And what the hell were children doing on
a march anyway? Talk about grade A irresponsible ****wit parents.

They were doing no such thing. They were just being in a street that
the goons decided to charge down with horses, batons and shields.
Believe it or not, they care about the real vandalism that's being
done to their futures. I am proud of them for that.


I didn't find it funny when I was grabbed by the collar and thrown
aside by one of the thugs when I asked where on earth they wanted us
to go, given that I was trying to leave the area and was being forced
back into the area that they supposedly wanted to disperse people
from, given the talk of water cannons etc.

Aww, boo hoo. You're choice to turn up mate. Suck it up.

Yes, my choice to be standing peacefully in a public place. Do you
think I ought to be intimidated by these goons into not doing that?
You call that civilisation?


I have stared into the cold, dead eyes of those thugs, and they are
not funny. *Not funny at all. *They don't care about anything except
for keeping their line straight. *Anything in their path is fair
game. *It could be your children, your elderly mother, anyone. *They
just don't care.

Sub Steig Larson prose aside, do you actually have anything to add apart
for your poor-little-us bleatings? A lot of us saw the ****ing mess left
the next day by you and your fellow arseholes so please spare us the
peaceful innocents being attacked by nasty police BS. It makes me want to
heave.

I am already heaving in response to the ****wit bull**** of an
ignoramus who wasn't there and knows nothing beyond the insane
prejudices that encase him.

All of the violence and damage was either done by or provoked by
police goons.

If you want to accuse me doing of any kind of damage, I'll see you in
court.


And Theresa May is the latest Home Secretary to unleash them on the
public. *The public includes you and anyone you care about, if you
care about anyone.

Most of the public don't go on a supposedly "peaceful" march then trash the
place.

And they didn't. A tiny number of the people who had been violently
attacked and imprisoned without provocation eventually took out their
frustration on a couple of windows. Boo-****ing-hoo.

On Jan 11, 1:11*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:10*am, wrote:



On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:48:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
For some reason I didn't find it all that funny watching a gang of
uniformed thugs beating up children who looked like my nieces and
nephews, and were doing nothing wrong apart from things like being
unable to pass through solid barriers that the thugs were trying to
force them through.

Perhaps if said "children" hadn't been smashing windows and graffitiing then
they wouldn't have got thumped. And what the hell were children doing on
a march anyway? Talk about grade A irresponsible ****wit parents.

I didn't find it funny when I was grabbed by the collar and thrown
aside by one of the thugs when I asked where on earth they wanted us
to go, given that I was trying to leave the area and was being forced
back into the area that they supposedly wanted to disperse people
from, given the talk of water cannons etc.

Aww, boo hoo. You're choice to turn up mate. Suck it up.

I have stared into the cold, dead eyes of those thugs, and they are
not funny. *Not funny at all. *They don't care about anything except
for keeping their line straight. *Anything in their path is fair
game. *It could be your children, your elderly mother, anyone. *They
just don't care.

Sub Steig Larson prose aside, do you actually have anything to add apart
for your poor-little-us bleatings? A lot of us saw the ****ing mess left
the next day by you and your fellow arseholes so please spare us the
peaceful innocents being attacked by nasty police BS. It makes me want to
heave.

And Theresa May is the latest Home Secretary to unleash them on the
public. *The public includes you and anyone you care about, if you
care about anyone.

Most of the public don't go on a supposedly "peaceful" march then trash the
place.

Precisely Boltar. *After the first demonstration, when these punks
darn near killed a policeman with a fire hydrant, anyone with a brain
knew what to expect next time. *If these products of "democratic
socialism" really think they are entitled to something, they can mail,
e-mail, fax, and/or visit their MPs and make their case. *Costing the
taxpayers more in police time, clean up, and repair bills, is not
going to endear them to their benefactors, who have to work for a
living.

MIG went there knowing what to expect.

And the more the likes of you and your goons try to intimidate me, the
more I'll keep on going.

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 00:34:24 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:

Age discrimination prevents one from requiring experience in a field?

No, it potentially prevents some advertisements from asking for it.

eg "Ten years post-gradudate experience in $foo" will discriminate
against most people under 31/32 years old.

But again, since when is requiring an applicant to be qualified
considered discrimination?

If you're hiring a bike messenger you're going to discriminate against
the blind. If you're hiring a bus driver you're going to discriminate
against those prone to seizures. If you're hiring a model for
children's clothing you're going to discriminate against adults. If
you're hiring a welder you're discriminating against those who don't
know how to weld.

Look, I get that actual discrimination is a problem, but at some point
you have to draw the line, otherwise Hooters is going to have to hire
me, and believe me when I tell you that *nobody* wants to see that!

In message , at 17:12:46 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:
In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 00:34:24 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:

Age discrimination prevents one from requiring experience in a field?

No, it potentially prevents some advertisements from asking for it.

eg "Ten years post-gradudate experience in $foo" will discriminate
against most people under 31/32 years old.

But again, since when is requiring an applicant to be qualified
considered discrimination?

No-one has said that. The discrimination here is the implication that
only people aged 31/32 or older will be considered.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:51:53 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
They were doing no such thing. They were just being in a street that
the goons decided to charge down with horses, batons and shields.
Believe it or not, they care about the real vandalism that's being
done to their futures. I am proud of them for that.

Don't try the moral equivalence route. Just because the government have gone
OTT with the cuts doesn't give you free license to smash the place up. But then
we're not exactly looking at a high maturity level with these marchers are
we.

Yes, my choice to be standing peacefully in a public place. Do you
think I ought to be intimidated by these goons into not doing that?
You call that civilisation?

Yes if you're causing trouble. If I stand in a public place and chuck a
brick through a shop window and claim I'm making a stand against right-on-
bogeyman-of-the-day system do you think I should be allowed to get away with
it? Grow up.

I am already heaving in response to the ****wit bull**** of an
ignoramus who wasn't there and knows nothing beyond the insane
prejudices that encase him.

I was there day after, I saw the mess. It wasn't caused by the police.

All of the violence and damage was either done by or provoked by
police goons.

Liar.

If you want to accuse me doing of any kind of damage, I'll see you in
court.

LOL Well one of your fellow peaceful marchers has just been sent down for
over 2 years so I wouldn't be so sure of yourself if I were you.

And they didn't. A tiny number of the people who had been violently
attacked and imprisoned without provocation eventually took out their

Liar.

B2003

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 17:12:46 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:
In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 00:34:24 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:

Age discrimination prevents one from requiring experience in a field?

No, it potentially prevents some advertisements from asking for it.

eg "Ten years post-gradudate experience in $foo" will discriminate
against most people under 31/32 years old.

But again, since when is requiring an applicant to be qualified
considered discrimination?

No-one has said that. The discrimination here is the implication that
only people aged 31/32 or older will be considered.

No, the implication is that only those who are qualified will be
considered.

If a 22 year old shows up who has experience they'll be considered. If
a 32 year old shows up without experience, they won't.

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 17:12:46 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:
In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

In message , at 00:34:24 on
Tue, 11 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:

Age discrimination prevents one from requiring experience in a field?

No, it potentially prevents some advertisements from asking for it.

eg "Ten years post-gradudate experience in $foo" will discriminate
against most people under 31/32 years old.

But again, since when is requiring an applicant to be qualified
considered discrimination?

No-one has said that. The discrimination here is the implication that
only people aged 31/32 or older will be considered.

No, the implication is that only those who are qualified will be
considered.

If a 22 year old shows up who has experience they'll be considered. If
a 32 year old shows up without experience, they won't.

If I were you, I would bail out of this one now, otherwise you're just
inviting Roland to go on inventing increasingly unlikely and irrelevant
"what-if" scenarios which, by the second iteration, have lost all
contact with the original point.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632844.html
(33 038 at Eastleigh, 9 May 1985)