I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,736

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 19th May 2015, 10:39 PM BST

Yep, hard to see how anyone can get their knickers in a twist about a pub's name.
What are they afraid the name might do? Corrupt everyone into wanting to see cock fighting?

It seems it's no longer enough just to have one's way (i.e. to have the ban). Instead one now pursues a scorched earth policy, seeking to utterly obliterate any sign of a past of which one disapproves.

One is reminded of the puritans under Cromwell smashing stained glass church windows and beheading church statues.
Or Egyptian pharaos and Roman emperors having their defeated predecessor obliterated from history, even gouging out the relief carvings of their name or image from temples and monuments.

View original

Unless they thought it was a porn pub.

Quote: Chappers @ 19th May 2015, 11:23 PM BST

Unless they thought it was a porn pub.

View original

That's the way to deal with it.

If they change the sign to a porno one, the old sign will be back without any sort of whimper.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 19th May 2015, 11:17 PM BST

Well, it's hard to see how anti-discrimination legislation really has covered the gay marriage cake.
You see, the baker didn't refuse to trade with the customer because he was gay.
He has served him before and since. (Hard to argue discrimination in my mind)
He wasn't even refusing to make a gay marriage cake.
But he didn't want to produce a cake with a pro-gay-marriage slogan.

Now sure, the court found that anti-discrimination law applied.
But the baker, rightly in my opinion, argued he was being forced to produce a political message with which he disagreed.
Hence my BNP example.

View original

No, I'm sorry. Even if all those involved want the entire country discussing it and for them to be in the limelight from now until Christmas, they will be very disappointed. I am bored with their cake already.

I assume those of you who support these bakers would condemn the slavery abolitionists as 'politically correct' numpties. Truly, I'm sick of bloody Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Take this - probably 90% of their clientele blasphemes - God this, Christ that. Do they refuse to serve these people? No. They don't want to know that. If you take on a job that involves serving the public, you have to put your own religious beliefs on the back burner.
Here's another thought. We loathe paedophiles. Nobody chooses to be a paedophile - it's how they're born. We can't allow it because children can't make a choice about being involved. But should we really be abhorring these people? Progress was realising we can't allow slavery. Progress is realising homosexuality is perfect normal. What are we abhorring now which future humans realise should be tolerated/understood/ accepted?

Quote: keewik @ 19th May 2015, 11:41 PM BST

I assume those of you who support these bakers would condemn the slavery abolitionists as 'politically correct' numpties. Truly, I'm sick of bloody Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Take this - probably 90% of their clientele blasphemes - God this, Christ that. Do they refuse to serve these people? No. They don't want to know that. If you take on a job that involves serving the public, you have to put your own religious beliefs on the back burner.
Here's another thought. We loathe paedophiles. Nobody chooses to be a paedophile - it's how they're born. We can't allow it because children can't make a choice about being involved. But should we really be abhorring these people? Progress was realising we can't allow slavery. Progress is realising homosexuality is perfect normal. What are we abhorring now which future humans realise should be tolerated/understood/ accepted?

View original

But you do realise that any pub landlord can refuse entry into a pub on the basis that he doesn't like the way someone looks or just because he feels like it and the only people who could take him to court are those who could argue it was on the grounds of discrimination? There are also camp sites which prohibit groups of three or more males. It's totally accepted under the law. The idea that three plus males equals trouble whatever they are and whoever they are. There are similar attitudes at many B and Bs. Many groups of blokes will shrug their shoulders and just accept it as a part of life.

It's not just minorities. I've been in situations where you walk a few miles in a rambling group and try to find somewhere to stay. There's a cross on the door and an older woman in the window. You think even if she is going to say yes, she is not going to like the fact we will be going down to the pub for a few hours. Maybe it's better to try somewhere else as we don't want to make things difficult for her.

I like the irony that the entire previous page is people getting their knickers in a twist about how ridiculous it is when the 'PC brigade' get their knickers in a twist.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 19th May 2015, 11:28 PM BST

No, I'm sorry. Even if all those involved want the entire country discussing it and for them to be in the limelight from now until Christmas, they will be very disappointed. I am bored with their cake already.

View original

Detail bores you, doesn't it?
Typical revolutionary type.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 19th May 2015, 11:17 PM BST

You are quite close to cake and Germans, aren't you. I don't know what to make of it. To my mind, that is back to pub signs. It is history alive in the prevailing culture and if the prevailing culture can't handle it then it isn't as advanced or nuanced as it should be by now. Having gone off on a particular drift, I am struggling with my own concept of revolution as it is an odd thing. Obviously it stays in my head and has nothing of practical use to offer whatsoever. Still, it envisages the retaining of many of the basics - traditions, some of which dare one say it are small "c" conservative, albeit running in parallel with decent liberal modern reform - rather than wholly accepting the tide of brushing them away plus it is a return in many ways to post war economics rather than establishing something very new. This is why I'm comfortable with SOME broad monitoring as I see that sort of stance - mine - as a protection against the modern politics. That any monitoring should partially be protecting modern politics which is smashing up so much is disturbing but it's also wryly entertaining and deeply ironic.

View original

Well, hard to grow up in Zurich and not be connected to the German speaking world.

Incidentally, the Germans are very much opposed to your broad monitoring.
They have reasonably recent experience of it going wrong. Merkel herself is East German, I believe. Therefore she's experienced STASI monitoring.
It's also why the Germans were outraged to learn that the US and the UK had been doing a lot of electronic spying. Let's say, they found it felt very familiar.

Switzerland too had a scandal years back when it emerged the government had been spying on its people.

We meanwhile in the UK just keep telling ourselves that we don't need to be wary, because that sort of thing would never happen over here.
But you look at some of the personnel about in UK politics today and you shiver.

Hard to trust the likes of Theresa May.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 19th May 2015, 11:45 PM BST

But you do realise that any pub landlord can refuse entry into a pub on the basis that he doesn't like the way someone looks or just because he feels like it and the only people who could take him to court are those who could argue it was on the grounds of discrimination? There are also camp sites which prohibit groups of three or more males. It's totally accepted under the law. The idea that three plus males equals trouble whatever they are and whoever they are. There are similar attitudes at many B and Bs. Many groups of blokes will shrug their shoulders and just accept it as a part of life.

View original

That's wrong. But what the Hell has that to do with other wrongs?

Quote: keewik @ 19th May 2015, 11:52 PM BST

That's wrong. But what the Hell has that to do with other wrongs?

View original

I'm not sure it is wrong. It is irritating but if the Lulworth Castle people don't like three or more blokes at their campsites - and they own almost everywhere there - that's their choice at the end of the day.

Quote: keewik @ 19th May 2015, 11:41 PM BST

I assume those of you who support these bakers would condemn the slavery abolitionists as 'politically correct' numpties. Truly, I'm sick of bloody Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Take this - probably 90% of their clientele blasphemes - God this, Christ that. Do they refuse to serve these people? No. They don't want to know that. If you take on a job that involves serving the public, you have to put your own religious beliefs on the back burner.
Here's another thought. We loathe paedophiles. Nobody chooses to be a paedophile - it's how they're born. We can't allow it because children can't make a choice about being involved. But should we really be abhorring these people? Progress was realising we can't allow slavery. Progress is realising homosexuality is perfect normal. What are we abhorring now which future humans realise should be tolerated/understood/ accepted?

View original

Nope, I don't think I'll wear being likened to a slavery supporter.

Once again, they were not refusing to serve gay people.
They have served this gay customer before and since with no problem.
But they didn't want to produce a cake bearing what they saw as a political slogan which they opposed.

Again I bring the BNP example: If you were a baker and you are asked to produce a cake bearing the inscription, 'BNP - For a better Britain!', might you have something to say about it?

As for paedophilia; I completely agree with you.
I find the demonisation of the paedophiles to be the equivalent of a societal disease.
I doubt it will ever be greatly tolerated. But I do hope that future generations will look at the hype and paranoia and think our generations to be utterly unreasonable on this issue.

Quote: zooo @ 19th May 2015, 11:48 PM BST

I like the irony that the entire previous page is people getting their knickers in a twist about how ridiculous it is when the 'PC brigade' get their knickers in a twist.

View original

Pithy as ever.

And so engaging.

Quote: keewik @ 19th May 2015, 11:41 PM BST

I assume those of you who support these bakers would condemn the slavery abolitionists as 'politically correct' numpties. Truly, I'm sick of bloody Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Take this - probably 90% of their clientele blasphemes - God this, Christ that. Do they refuse to serve these people? No. They don't want to know that. If you take on a job that involves serving the public, you have to put your own religious beliefs on the back burner.
Here's another thought. We loathe paedophiles. Nobody chooses to be a paedophile - it's how they're born. We can't allow it because children can't make a choice about being involved. But should we really be abhorring these people? Progress was realising we can't allow slavery. Progress is realising homosexuality is perfect normal. What are we abhorring now which future humans realise should be tolerated/understood/ accepted?

View original

As for the other point raised, children's rights must come before any rights of an adult. That is the key point - and it applies to every sphere of life. However, the Royal Family will no doubt be pleased to hear that they have support from Scotland if and when any of them are required in a court of law.

Pithy is my middle name.

It was a cake. With Bert and Ernie on. I think they've made twats of themselves making such a big fuss over it. I don't know how engaging the discussion of that needs to get.

So, you have 3 men who're decent citizens - could be doctors or teachers or librarians - and they're unacceptable? Could also be joiners or plumbers who're law-abiding citizens. My older son, when 'home' meets friends in Glasgow. Tries to get a taxi home, is knocked back once in a taxi, because they don't want to go over the boundary. He gets out of the taxi and no other driver will take him because they assume he's a drunk and/or ned. Stupid, ill-informed prejudice (he's a PhD research scientist, by the way)

So, you have 3 men who're decent citizens - could be doctors or teachers or librarians - and they're unacceptable? Could also be joiners or plumbers who're law-abiding citizens. My older son, when 'home' meets friends in Glasgow. Tries to get a taxi home, is knocked back once in a taxi, because they don't want to go over the boundary. He gets out of the taxi and no other driver will take him because they assume he's a drunk and/or ned. Stupid, ill-informed prejudice (he's a PhD research scientist, by the way)

Quote: zooo @ 20th May 2015, 12:06 AM BST

Pithy is my middle name.

It was a cake. With Bert and Ernie on. I think they've made twats of themselves making such a big fuss over it. I don't know how engaging the discussion of that needs to get.

View original

I didn't know it was a Bert and Ernie cake. I like Bert and Ernie. If it was a religious position, it does annoy me that it's always religion that is involved in these sorts of conflicts. Because actually the more fundamental point is the insistence that individuals have to get things right as most people perceive them. Most individuals get most things wrong most of the time. That's the human condition.

Quote: keewik @ 20th May 2015, 12:11 AM BST

So, you have 3 men who're decent citizens - could be doctors or teachers or librarians - and they're unacceptable? Could also be joiners or plumbers who're law-abiding citizens. My older son, when 'home' meets friends in Glasgow. Tries to get a taxi home, is knocked back once in a taxi, because they don't want to go over the boundary. He gets out of the taxi and no other driver will take him because they assume he's a drunk and/or ned. Stupid, ill-informed prejudice (he's a PhD research scientist, by the way)

View original

Well, yes.

I did things like the Cleveland Way with other low grade Government employees which was a lot more of a laugh than it sounds. But we didn't look like Government employees when doing it and could see their point of view. We probably laughed that had they known we were Government employees, they would have even better reason to say no and that had we been them, we'd also have said no to us.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 20th May 2015, 12:05 AM BST

As for the other point raised, children's rights must come before any rights of an adult. That is the key point - and it applies to every sphere of life. However, the Royal Family will no doubt be pleased to hear that they have support from Scotland if and when any of them are required in a court of law.

View original

????

Quote: keewik @ 19th May 2015, 11:41 PM BST

I assume those of you who support these bakers would condemn the slavery abolitionists as 'politically correct' numpties. Truly, I'm sick of bloody Christians trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

View original

Yeah - just let IS do it eh?