fill

and it is comments like that which ought to exclude some people from taking part in a discussion as their mind it seems is already closed. they should not enter discussion........ they should instead just blog their view or diatribe, either or both could be right dependent upon the view of the reader.so we can all ignore it more easily i'm not stating the case for or against what is often termed the super-natural what i object to is one side or both claiming to have ...a more rational perspective. there is much that the scientific world has as yet failed to explain, which does not mean that they won't nor does it mean that they will. it does however not mean mean that they are the only people looking at things and events rationally.

if they don't or just pretend not to grasp the subtleties then to be honest they are not worth the time and effort of more explanation. if someone has a genuine problem let them pm me and i will try to help them of course it is..... any one that says different does so because they want their 'selection' of the truth to be the one we all accept. well I won't and i'm sure i'm not alone.....it appears Waldo we have some similar views

they are going to re-do all the roads they have done so far..... are you sure? its a massive job creation scheme .... i wonder who's paying for it all

wholeheartedly agree i'm just going to carry on using the gender specific pronouns i was taught by my parents which were re-enforced at school they have been good enough for many years and i find them to be quite suffice for the only two genders i recognise and currently i believe are also the only two the law recognises he she hers his.... and maybe it and it's ... if or when i'm not certain what the birth assigned gender of the person in question is... well you can't always tell can you? if anyone has a problem with that they can submit their concerns in writing and post them to me via any appropriately coloured wheelie bin

get in one at night they often do smell of foreign food ..... which is not to everyone's liking it appears the council is not at all concerned with the 'antics' of black cab drivers only with private hire cars do they seem to have all kinds of petty issues when it suits them

fortunately i am not in a position to comment on the activities of those few that scrabble for and handle dog crap. all i can say is that there are quite noticably far less of those than there are dogs

if discrimination is always wrong...... and i do mean if then that obviously also includes positive discrimination if you disagree then what you are really saying is that the discrimination you approve of is ok and any other discrimination is not. how bad is that? and if you 'claim' to mean something else then you are just trying to wriggle out of what you said to remain PC in the eyes of other equally deluded folk

to be clear if you are saying that ...you want me to tell all those you listed that drug related gang members killing other drug related gang members is doing the rest of us favour. sure why not.. its true.. i'll even tell their sons twice seeing as you asked.... some off your list might not like it but if they knew those that died were in drug related gangs then perhaps they should have done something about that before they were killed. i don't see you being overly concerned about these gangs making drugs more readily available to people that are too young and too ignorant to make informed decisions about using drugs and die as a consequence. Is that ok in your wierd world? I only ask as you don't mention it. i also have heard nothing and you mentioned nothing from those about how upset they were that their friends or family members were selling illegal drugs, not knowing exactly what they were to children. drug related gang members, drug pushers they know and choose to accept the risks when they try to emulate their american heroes..

on the subject of aldi why is it that a lot of comparison sites when searched for supermarkets don't include a the correct prices or of more relevance why don't a lot of them always include in their list of supermarkets aldi liddle netto farm foods or iceland ?

there could be any number of reasons why they don't want to allow back cabs near the dog track and casino. itits their carpark so its their choice. there are rules that apply to black cabs which are openly ignored and done so unknown toy the vast majority of the public and no-one seems to be concerned. not the media and certainly not the police who are after all busy enough with real crime why don't we move with the times and allow any of the legal taxis to pick up anywhere whether pre-booked or not. When businesses are emptying their customers onto the streets late at night its taxis not buses that are going to most efficiently remove all those people before there are incidents, often caused by the feeble minded being allowed too much access to recreational drugs like alcohol after all allowing preferentail treatment of black cabs over any other kind is surely some kind of discrimination the PC brigade have not latched onto ... but maybe its the kind of discrimination they approve of

Probably because the first person to put their bag on the top did not want to touch the handle. Hardly surprising really. ________________________________________________ On the subject of dog owners and the output they create and encourage by feeding their dogs is it not time that it was illegal in any circumstance to allow a dog to crap in any public place accessible to the public. With ASBOS and spot fines heavy enough discourage that antiscocial behaviour which also increase exponetially for repeated offences. There is an area of wood land near me into which I see many people take their dogs presumably to empty them yet seldom do you ever see anyone leaving those woods with their bag of whatever they allowed out of their dogs. Perhaps I am mistaken and they put the bags in their pockets, maybe in winter they use them as handwarmers.who knows what these sickos get up to. Some do use them for decoration though as some trees become festooned with the bags those responsible did not care to take home.

one poster on here claimed to have been mugged and it was drug related ..how was that conclusio reached i wonder? odd really how people can say these shootings are drug related. by implication then those involved were drug dealers ... not locked up drug dealers with guns ... not locked up i have long thought that other big sensational busts apart the police have no interest in illigal drug dealing or their illegal use now it seems the drug dealears are in the process of removing the competition well at least that wil be a few less to worry about. Of course its only a good thing if they are killing each other in a responsible manner and not endangering people who are not involved. Perhaps it all this pointless talking about and publicity given in the various forms of the uk's media and forums to the shootings in the united states that is encouraging our own young people to emulate them.

[/color] I can not help but agree with you wholeheartedly. And regardless of their political / religious views. Its their business and who they choose to serve and what conditions they want to put on agreeing to perform those services is also their business and certainly should not have to involve the need of solicitors. Clearly the whole case was about someone treying to get attention, which unfortunately they probably had to recieve in order that the cake shop couple got treat properly by 'The Law' . It should never even have got to being considered a matter for the law courts. I just hope that all their expenses are repaid in full by that attention seeker.

I think your generalisations are far too broad. Sure SOME will buy drugs and SOME will buy alcohol and did any of those ever promise that they would not. You forgot to mention SOME will go home to their partners and kids after a hard days scrounging and SOME will be immensely grateful for anything you can spare. Oh and what is this ....You'd give them a "bowl of water" ... and small sandwich ..of what pedigree chum? Perhaps you'd rather send them ALL to the workhouse.

and anything you say after that is equally credible.. watching you wriggle those times when you know can't win is always amusing .

Lose your access to banks and be herded towards a cashless society for all without protest and I'm confident you will live to regret it. i know am not alone in using cash when and wherever possible just to try and help us all retain that option. i'm not wishing to stop any individual from being cashless if that's genuinely what they want. all i want is for those of us that don't want all the negative aspects of that and prefer the positive aspects of be able to use cash not be forced into something they don't want.

And where would you have them go? If you feel you don't want to give then don't.. there really is no need to offer seemingly pointless advice without at least offering a potential solution.

i obviously read your post but would you please define OCGs. from Wikipedia and none of these seem to fit. OCG may refer to: Operation Clean Government Orchestre de chambre de Genève City of Granada Orchestra (Orquesta Ciudad de Granada) Outside Counsel Guidelines (in use by law firms enlisting other law firms in local jurisdictions on multi-jurisdictional deals)

my fault i did not accurately explain my intention so it is easy to make the wrong aasumption. that particular post was only intended as a friendly 'beware' i have no objection to people drinking alcohol when and wherever they choose. alcohol is a substance that it is quite legal to posess use and sell if you meet the given legislations Fair enough.. fill your boots and do so with impunity.

that may well be true ... but as i never have i had not really noticed

But if your wrong your wrong? oh you are ... most definitely alas some people just want to win regardless of them being right i'm more than willing to concede that you have by far more experience with fake news than i

you might find it prudent to re-think that thought or at least look into it properly before displaying what a ppears to be a knee-jerk reaction based only on wishful thinking. i am reliably informed by a solicitor that it is apparently quite legitimate to pursue a case of libel whatever the form of media was used and possibly even the provider of that media that allowed said libel.... its all interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by Michael_W View Post Not that many then eh ! Try to realise Michael_W cyclone's thing appears to be just proving wrong anyone that appears to differ from him.. and it seems he's got away with doing that for a very long time i'm told

it amuses me that YOU think that you understand something that YOU think I do not simply because that seems to suit you better than the truth..... your incapacity to accept you are not right all the time is well known. that is correct, then the state can not be held reposible for anything the inmates do to each other, inmates can not threaten or intimidate each other.. assaults on staff would be reduced as would the number and extent of injuries.... ALL in solitary ALL the time seems good to me.. and after all nobody made most of them, if, any commit crimes I did mention that sentences would be more effective deterents in less time and meant because of the mental effecst of solitary confinement over several years enhancing the deterent value of custodial sentences any anquish cuased to the convicted is only minor payback for their victims. you are right about one thing I probably do not care about the comfort physical or mental of the convicted anymore than most of them cared or care about their victims. yes we've all seen the crocodile tears being shed along with faked repentance that you probably don't 'know' may be because you are not or you are not capable of thinking it through .. thats ok.. the explanation is simple .... with less inmates out of their cell at any given time POs would be needed to supervise them. CCTV in cells would facilitate more efficient monoitoring of locked prisoners honestly Cyclone you give the impression you are normally far less naive than the impression you are trying to give in an attempt to what... ? i'd love to know.. twisting a definition from one of out most respected dictionaries so you can attempt ..and fail.. to put across your somewhat bizarre view is never going to work. i asked about libel and gave my reasons for asking do not try to attribute reasons of your own to my thoughts or actions that would just make you look silly and we all know you don't have to be that. a poorly applied incorrect analogy cyclone ...have i ever called you anything cyclone? i have said i believe you are naive i also believe you are so ego-centric that have to win any argument you are in even if it might mean at sometime you arguing that black is white. i honestly believe that you think your shallow victories over others are more important than the truth or reality so much so you have just shown you are prepared to twist the meaning of long established words, just so that it appears you were right about comething which were clearly not .. this is very sad cyclone ...i had expected better from you

Michael when you said those of the left wil attack anything right of centre I think you do underestimate the loony left I think its far more accurate to say they will attack anything that is not as left as they are.. they will even attack them to prevent them expressing views which are dissimilar to their own... which can never be countenanced in our free and democratic society which I believe they wish to bring down