Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:28*am, MB wrote:
On 26/08/2011 12:28, 1506 wrote:

Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. *Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. *IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

So instead of trying and imprisoning IRA terrorists we should have
bombed Dublin and Boston?

You may have read up thread where I said Ireland is not the Middle
East. It would have been better for the UK had she withdrawn from
Ireland in 1921. Better yet, she could have avoided interfering in
her neighbors affairs the the past 750 years.

I think you'll find a great many people in Central America, Cuba, Iraq,
and the Far East might well say exactly the same thing about the USA in
the last 60 years. Or indeed Native North Americans who might wish that
certain settlers hadn't invaded and conquered their land 500 years ago.
Or Anglo-Saxons who would rather not have been invaded and their lands
seized by new Norman lords in 1066.

These things happen. Terrorism is never the answer.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

Once upon a time, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

No, France has the wrong idea there. Or at least would be wrong if done
here. Banning things, making people carry ID papers, etc, are all
European things. One of the things that has always made Britain great
is that we practice tolerance and do not randomly ban stuff. "Land of
Hope and Glory, mother of the free", and all that.

The way to defeat the kind of primitive, middle-eastern culture that
wants to keep women veiled and in medieval-style servitude is through
thorough and compulsory education of women and girls. It's not that
long ago since western women were able to throw off religious and
cultural discrimination and demand full equality. Muslim women will
follow suit as long as we make sure that they receive a full education.

Not far from me is an area which 100 years ago was full of poor Irish
immigrants. They built numerous churches, most of which are now little
used and some stand abandoned, awaiting redevelopment or ruin. The area
is now heavily populated with Muslim immigrants, and they've built
themselves a large and spectacular mosque at the top of the hill,
complete with minarets and a rather beautiful green dome. 100 years
from now, that will also be a largely disused relic, as advancing
culture steadily leaves mass religion behind as superstition.

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger
all 24/7?).

I've no problem with those who can afford it lounging around doing
nothing 24/7, after all it's in the hope of being able to do it myself
that I play the lottery! :-)

Cannabis should be legal anyway. It costs more to police than it would
to allow (plus the tax revenue we'd make), and TBH I'd rather streets
full of cannabis smokers than drunks, weed doesn't generally seem to
make people aggressive the way booze does.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

Once upon a time, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:06:53 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/11 18:15, 1506 wrote:
Say goodbye to the sane world we once knew.

Do you mean the sane world in which gay people were imprisoned, women
were forced to resign from their jobs when they got married and
discrimination against "******" was the norm? **

So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

No, but other than a lot of reactionary ranting in the Daily Wail, what
makes you think fairness and equality are alienating anyone? I know a
great number of white, heterosexual, UK-born people. Every single one
of them who's ever mentioned the subject is fully in favour of equality
for all.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted,
rather than better qualified men. That particular form of
"affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while.

Not in the UK it wasn't, ISTR the equality acts ban any form of
discrimination, negative or positive. I know things were different in
the US, one of the Dirty Harry films partly based on that premise, where
a female cop with no beat experience is promoted to detective in order
to fulfil a mayor's quota. Agree that's a bad way to do it - better to
make discrimination illegal, and then make sure the rule is enforced by
hammering any company that flouts it with large fines.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

Once upon a time, 1506 wrote:

Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech.

Incorrect. Motive and effect has always been a factor, hence why
terrorist murders are regarded as worse than general murders.

Big Brother has arrived.

He arrived with CCTV and his powers are expanding as face recognition is
developed. But he has little to do with hate crimes.

--
- The Iron Jelloid

On 27/08/2011 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
Once upon a time, wrote:
On Aug 26, 5:26 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 13:15, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 26, 5:03 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 12:44, 1506 wrote:

Before I do killfile you, Are you, or have you ever been a homosexual?

Why would that matter?

It would go some way to explaining the axe you are grinding.

Ah, you think that only gay people would care about gay people being
tortured to death. Well, that certainly fits with the rest of your
contributions to this thread.

Who is torturing bright and cheerful people to death?

Language changes. We've had to learn to put up with abominations like
burglarize and 'train station',

Do we put up with "train station"....?

so I'm afraid you'll have to accept that
"gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost
half a century ago. Check any major dictionary and you'll find the
homosexual (esp male homosexual) is now the main usage of the word in
the English language.

I thought it meant something like "not very good", innit.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 27/08/2011 19:21, The Iron Jelloid wrote:

Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually
proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the
victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a
little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and
the killer was still at large? I certainly would.

You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then?

Mwahahaha.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:03:00 +0100, The Iron Jelloid
wrote in
misc.transport.urban-transit:

Once upon a time, Free Lunch wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:43:50 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Aug 26, 5:26*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 13:15, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 26, 5:03 am, The Real *wrote:
On 26/08/11 12:44, 1506 wrote:

Before I do killfile you, Are you, or have you ever been a homosexual?

Why would that matter?

It would go some way to explaining the axe you are grinding.

Ah, you think that only gay people would care about gay people being
tortured to death. Well, that certainly fits with the rest of your
contributions to this thread.

Who is torturing bright and cheerful people to death?

Europop singers?

Isn't that impossibly bright and cheerful people attempting to torture
the rest of us to death (or possibly insanity) through music?

Music?

On 27 Aug 2011 18:39:49 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote

a Union that has State Churches, to wit the Episcopalians in England
and Northern Ireland, and the Presbyterians in Scotland.

There is no state church in Scotland and the Church of Ireland was
disestablished in 1869.

What's your reasoning here ?

The Church of Scotland is just as "by law established" as the Church of
England if more independent inasmuch as they won't let parliament mess
with their doctrine.

The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any
government of Scotland or the UK.
The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this
was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921,
see :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29

The independence from the state is declared in Articles V and VI in
the Schedule to that Act and acknowledged in s.1.

"This Church has the inherent right, free from interference by civil
authority, but under the safeguards for deliberate action and
legislation provided by the Church itself, to frame or adopt its
subordinate standards, .........." [beginning of Article V.]

Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state
itself acknowledges it has no business in its government.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:45:22 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 27/08/2011 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
Once upon a time, wrote:
On Aug 26, 5:26 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 13:15, 1506 wrote:

On Aug 26, 5:03 am, The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 12:44, 1506 wrote:

Before I do killfile you, Are you, or have you ever been a homosexual?

Why would that matter?

It would go some way to explaining the axe you are grinding.

Ah, you think that only gay people would care about gay people being
tortured to death. Well, that certainly fits with the rest of your
contributions to this thread.

Who is torturing bright and cheerful people to death?

Language changes. We've had to learn to put up with abominations like
burglarize and 'train station',

Do we put up with "train station"....?

It is something up with which I do not put.

so I'm afraid you'll have to accept that
"gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost
half a century ago. Check any major dictionary and you'll find the
homosexual (esp male homosexual) is now the main usage of the word in
the English language.

I thought it meant something like "not very good", innit.