samshe

Hans you are so ignorant it is actually quite offensive. Not everyone down south is Rich you know, a bit like not every Italian likes Meatballs and every Scottish person likes whiskey and wearing a kilt. There has been widespread flooding in my home town (with spitting distance of London). Luckily no one I know has been affected, but the flooding is in a fairly deprived area, far more deprived than a lot of areas of Sheffield. If these people are either not covered by insurance, or if the insurance does not pay out "act of God?" these people are in serious trouble. I am pretty sure that Sheffield has some of the most affluent areas in the country. This isn't the working class paradise that some idiots claim it to be. Doom, you have picked a very poor example in Zimbabwe. Read some history, you may even get some ammo from it to attack Thatcher! It really wouldn't bother me if it was an immigrant or native that got the bed ahead of my mother. Remember, an immigrant is just somebody who used to be somewhere else.

As horrible as this may sound, I am pretty sure that a lot of the deaths attributed to the above were only slightly premature. Whilst I openly admit I haven't researched the subject, I would imagine the vast majority of those that die were dying soon anyway. Surely one has to be on deaths door in order to fall to the British winter, which is fairly mild.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, except for the stand out word. Mr. Rigby was NOT a civillian. He was a soldier, complicit in the illegal invasion of a sovereign state, the agenda of which was to steal resources form a weaker nation. Whilst I am not condoning the death of Mr. Rigby, I can understand (note, not agree with), the mindset of someone believing he is a justifiable target. You see, it wasn't Mr. Lee Rigby that the people were targeting, but Private Drummer Rigby of the Rpoyal Regiment of Fusilliers. There is a massive difference that I assume will be lost on some people here. A member of my extended family was murdered by the British Army in Ireland (I am maternally of Irish Catholic descent) a long time before I was born. I hold absolutely no malice towards the Army for this. I was very close to attending Sandhurst after school and through my Paternal line I am the 2nd generation in 8 to not join the Army. My Grandfather was a Lt. Col and my great grandfathers were a) A sergeant in the 8th Army and b) One of the members of the BEF that was evacuated from Dunkirk. However, can I promise that had I been alive and a young, testosterone filled male at the time of my relatives execution at the hands of the British Army, that I wouldn't have sought revenge? No I can't. My relative was unarmed and shot in the back. I wish I had the grace of the poor guy whose house was bombed (see previous entries to this thread) to forgive in this situation, but I am not sure that I would. Mr. Rigby was a victim of OUR genocidal crusade. Killed by our politicians and our foreign policy just as much as he was by the two accused.

Ok I am on more like 25k, so slightly above the national average. However, we must remember that we live in Yorkshire, which has relatively cheap cost of living. After making student loan payments and paying into a share scheme, I am left with about 1400 per month. Living costs including all bills is approximately £400 - £500 per month, leaving me with approximately £950 to spend on food, clothing etc. This thread has made me re-evaluate my finances (not in a smug way though).

I used to do this as a student when I had spent all my money on drinking an was waiting for next pay day. 1 Kilogram of rice for 40 pence (tesco online price) 18 eggs £1.50 frozen veg £1 500 g pasta 69 pence 3 x tinned tomatoes £1 that is about 12 meals; 100 grams rice and two eggs x 9 meals 100 grams of pasta and tin tomatoes x 3 Put some of the frozen veg with each meal and you have spent about half your money. Not hard to do

Chris you seem to be very defensive of her, are you trying to be a knight in shining armour by any chance?? If your bouncer was walking towards a woman, you could presume he/she was going to attack her if a) he (or she) deliberately refused a taxi when they noticed the woman and b) walked towards her saying "lets be havin ya" (btw this is an aborrent way for anyone to behave, let alone a mother). Lou, you have my empathy, when I was your age I got into a few scrapes with bouncers when I was drunk, including a couple of stand up fights so I appreciate how you feel an injustice had been done. However, the bouncer didn't punch you, kick you, head butt you etc, he pushed you. I would suggest that pushing someone who is drunk and screaming "lets be having you" is acceptable. The fact you fell over and broke your collar bone is a moot point. Had you been sober you would *likely* have either not fallen over or been able to break your fall. Chalk this up as a lesson learnt. If I saw this on the street I would be on the side of the bouncer, and this is judging on the bias views of a drunk "victim". You intended to do harm to another person and harm was done to you, some people will be glad of that.

You are completely wrong. If you don't know the answer to a question please don't answer it. Two of the most famous fascist regimes in history have been allied to the Vatican City, the Nazi's and the Italians under Mussolini. Also, what about Idi Amin?? He was a fascist and he loved black people (he was one). Moreover, I would find it very hard to be persuaded that Israel isn't a fascist state and it loves Jews Also, Communism and religion do not mix well. Communism is an atheist movement and communist states such as Soviet Russia, China and Cuba have made it a clear and stated intention to wipe out religion. It is fine that you favour communism over fascism but don't stoop to playing the race card in the absence of any knowledge to support your views.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking. If you are fairly young then just go youth hostelling around Aus, you will meet loads of people. I am considering doing it.

This is essentially correct. Sunni Muslims believe that the next leader of the faith after Mohammed should be democratically elected. Abu Bakr was elected the first Caliph (think Pope but with less covering up of child sex abuse and less Nazi sympathising). Shia Muslims believe that the right to rule was inherited (as was the popular belief in that era, and still is now) and so feel that Alu bin Abu Talib, Mohammed's Cousin and Son in Law (don't judge, these were different times) should have succeeded Mohammed Sunni Muslims (those democratic cats) are by far the most populous Muslims in the world. Where it gets complicated is in the existance of the Haddiths. Think of these of a similar thing to the Gospels (to those who know what I am talking about I am aware that this isn't a perfect analogy, but I am putting this in Laymans, Western speak). Abu Bakr (the elected guy) and those that followed him wrote down traditions and things that Mohammed was supposed to have said/done that isn't in the Koran. The Sunni's see these as almost on a parallel with the Koran whereas the Sunni's see Abu Bakr and his followers as usurpers and disavow everything in the haddiths. That is correct to the best of my knowledge. However, I am a athiest that was brough up in an Irish Catholic household. If any (neutral) Muslims here would like to educate me and everyone else, please do

No you didn't you side stepped it. My point is that you have been unable to deny that the definition of thee word I posted above directly states that Mo Farah can be considered British. You tried to counter my argument and I dismissed it as poppycock. You are ignorant and perhaps even racist. You and your ilk should be shown up for what you are.

What traditions do you think we share that Mr. Farah does not? You have been unable to refute my point. Even should Mr. Farah only meet one of the definitions of British Nationality, then he is by definition British. Moreover, I suggest you take a look at history to decide what exactly "Britishness" is. Are we Picts? Celts? Angles? Romans? Vikings? Saxons? Normans? The answer is a b*st*rd mix of them all. East Indian, African and Asian are just the newest ingredients to our wonderful culture.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to be very intelligent. You do not understand the definitions of the words you are using. Please allow me to educate your small mind. Country of birth = something that can't change. It describes the location of a past event. My country of birth will never change much like the place I got my first kiss will never change. Nationality = a legal construct. See definition "the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization". So one's nationality CAN change. If I moved to Spain and lived there for 5 years and was granted citizenship I would be Spanish. People like you fail to grasp the difference between NATIONALITY (a legal construct which has nothing to do with nature) and RACE (a pre-determined genetical truth). So Mo Farah is British (his nationality), but will never be Anglo-Saxon (the race of most people living in Britain). So using me and my move to Spain as an example. My nationality would be Spanish but my race would not be one of the Iberian races (there are many, Catalan Basque etc). British is not a race but a nationality and therefore anyone can become British if they meet the legal requirements. You sound incredibly stupid.

So because you were born during a certain world event you are allowed to use words that you don't understand?? really? Re the bold, it doesn't actually please me, but at least you are making sense so I will settle for that. However your arguments continue to be preposterous in their nature. With guns you can ONLY destroy. Yes some people enjoy it, that doesn't mean that it should be permitted.

Next month the trial of Bradley Manning starts in Washington . He is charged with aiding the enemy after he was believed strongly to be behind secret military files to Julian Assange, the guy behind wikileaks. These include the video "collateral damage". Should he be on trial? Did his actions improve political stability in the world? Were his actions morally right? I think he was wrong to release the files, alot of us realised what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not sure that releasing the cables achieved its goal, it was very doubtfull to ever do any good. His defence is based on his gender confusion and that's about it