Jump to content

Eddie_shef

Members
  • Content Count

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eddie_shef

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 13/07/1984

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hong Kong
  1. While I agree it doesn't show they believe a particular race is superior to another, it does meet the first definition that you provided. It is showing discrimination or prejudice against people of other races. It isn't a discussion about racism against white, or BME peoples. It is a discussion on creating an anti-racist Student Union. The issue doesn't appear to be who the victim is, but rather the issue itself, which seems the correct way to tackle things. Can't work out why it isn't open to everyone, regardless of race/ethnicity. In fact, I can't work out why it specifically mentioned which races/ethnic groups were welcome.
  2. Hi Alan, I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing, but I've used like strips of a magnetic tape to stick to a yoga mat, that then sticks to the side of my car door to prevent people parking next to me dinging my door with theirs. Credit goes to my neighbour for this, he did it first! Very useful stuff.
  3. Wow, that Chicago website looks much more attractive! Why did they cut up the one at Woodside? Haven't been or heard of it before.
  4. Today, the thing that annoys me is people who say "sorry for the long email". It just annoys me because: - if it is important and valid, then my literacy skills will cope - if it not important and/or contains useless info, then don't send it
  5. Others have mentioned already about uniforms being a leveler (and I agree that it is crazy that some uniforms are very expensive) and linked to working society beyond school but there are a few more angles that also show other needs/reasons for a school uniform: - Conformity. To create a more level playing field in terms of some very basic equity and equality. Schools where I am also provide uniform allowances (grants) to parents that are earning below a certain income. - Identity/sense of pride. Often schools try to create a sense of common identity. This can also be a great strategy moving forward in terms of alumni connections. Uniform is a small but effective way to begin to create a common school identity and culture. Not, by any means, the only way though. - Common values. Very linked to identity but this is one way in which schools try to create a common set of values i.e. a mini society. This includes rules such as piercing and hair dye, even to the point where some haircuts are prohibited. Again, there are many other ways to create common values, and even an argument that common values are worrying. - Branding/identification. Having students in uniform can help identify them - from a disciplinarian perspective it can create a sense of accountability (there are many other ways to do this). It is also a very useful branding/image exercise for the school. So, I think there are several reasons/needs for a uniform. A well organised and run school may/can achieve the above without a need for a uniform. Other schools, including those well established and brand new, find a uniform a quick and easy tool to help them. I'm not claiming that these reasons are all valid/exclusive but there are reasons for uniforms.
  6. I think alchresearch is a Citroen specialist, but I'm not sure and have never used him/her! He/she already commented on your post though.
  7. Thank you Andy C for this. I'm also still a bit confused by why having a franchise system in this case would yield any benefits. It will be the same staff on the same trains, running on the same infrastructure. Price and service can change with a different company, but it seems a bit less likely given the specific restrictions of a national rail system. I don't know much about the pension details, but it seems removing a supplier/vendor due to pensions is quite an ethical move - fantastic, but this seems to be there to protect employees instead of customers. I'm not against that at all, just wondering. I guess the franchise model is there to prevent an incumbent from resting on their laurels, which should be applauded. Although presumably this could be done with having a set of national standards and a service contract that maintains prices/salaries etc. I guess both exist, although I really don't know much about the current rail system in the UK.
  8. Well, 1) You can't ask your DNA anything, but I assume it is about the hunter mentality? In which case purchasing meat from someone else who has had the meat delivered by someone else who picked it up from someone else who possibly might have killed the animal is a bit far removed. 2) "Torture" is bad. However, is the butchering of animals for meat considered torture? Other animals play 'cat and mouse' with their prey e.g. whales (and presumably cats), would you consider that to be torture? I actually don't have an opinion on much of this thread, but I've just been reading through it all. It's pretty bizarre in terms of how people chose to apply their knowledge, yet fail to recognise their biases. But anyway, bye!
  9. While this is true to a certain extent, I think it will become increasingly difficult to opt out. I think as more and more applications e.g. fridges and aircons are fitted with wifi/internet of things capabilities they will not function without the necessary software updates and permissions i.e. they will need to be connected constantly. Added to that, parts of the world (especially China in the news recently) are seriously investing in their CCTV tech and having online 'social capital' scores. I can foresee how not connecting your devices (and therefore you) could increase/void your health insurance etc. So for now we have the ability to not take it up, then we will have the ability to opt out, but ultimately I can see it being an invasive (and useful) technology that we don't ultimately choose. I've also been watching Black Mirror recently, so perhaps thats why I sound more paranoidy than normal!
  10. But you understand how that isn't the same as going out to deliberately murder/kill a specific person? As previous posters pointed out, the sentence does fit the crime
  11. I think it is a lease, which reminds me of something I think Chaz said around page 1 about paying money for something that you don't get to actually own at the end. I think that will be the future, all sorts of mini lease/hire purchase agreements, then at the end you hand it back and it gets repurposed/upcycled/dismantled and parts reused. It's all part of this circular economy that people are advocating, even IKEA is doing it with their kitchens (Yes, you rent/lease a kitchen,...). It makes me feel very uneasy, but is being pushed as being more environmentally friendly. I dunno though.
  12. Hi Ontarian and others, This may seem like a very silly question, but in your video why are the medics wearing that head garb? Is it because they were coming from the boat on fire and that was fire protection at the time? This is what I was thinking, but in the video they seem to keep it on for quite a while afterwards. Thanks in advance.
  13. This is awful to read, must have been very traumatic for you and your animals. Agreed with the earlier posters, that even if it was a serious incident that meant the person couldn't come to your place, you would have thought there would be contingencies in place. Especially as you contacted a company. Have you tried speaking to the company about it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.