I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,095

Prince Harry is doing his bit to combat climate change by helping to plant a tree in Botswana.

My own feelings about climate change are based on a situation somewhat closer to home: if increasing temperatures means there will be fewer British pensioners freezing to death every winter, that doesn't seem to be an entirely bad thing.

Yes, I know increasing temperature is reducing the population of polar bears but, when we consider that human beings are slaughtering 500 of them every year, I don't think global warming is the bears' main problem, do you?

At the current rate of hunting, polar bears will be extinct within the next 50 years - regardless of global warming.

So, I say to Prince Harry: "Stop performing for the cameras in Africa. Come home to Britain and put a few bob into a pensioner's gas meter!"

You know it makes sense.

Tears in the House of Commons. It's really not a place for girls.

I do think they're being cheeky expecting no criticism of their constant defiance of the referendum result. Obviously tensions are rising since their manipulating the courts on their side and in so doing completely changing the hierarchy in politics. To have yet more unelected bods overriding elected govts. decisions makes a mockery of sovereignty and the long established chain of command.

They have done everything possible to stop us leaving the EU, seem to be incapable of admitting to it and now they are bringing up the murder of an MP to stop valid criticism of their actions. They are so self righteous they cannot get that they have defied a democratic instruction by the public they are supposed to represent, and people are rightly angry. They seem to be blaming the public and the govt. who are backing them for the outrage and not themselves.

It should come as no surprise that the powers that be are refusing to act upon the result of the EU referendum.

At around the same time as the EU referendum, the public were invited to vote for the name of a new polar research vessel and the name "Boaty McBoatface" was the overwhelming winner with 124,109 votes.

Well down the list of suggested names was "David Attenborough" with only 10,284 votes.

It would have been undemocratic enough if the authorities had named the ship "David Attenborough" but they didn't: instead, they went for "Sir David Attenborough" - a name that wasn't even a contender!

It's an outrage!

Quote: Rood Eye @ 27th September 2019, 8:39 AM

At around the same time as the EU referendum, the public were invited to vote for the name of a new polar research vessel and the name "Boaty McBoatface" was the overwhelming winner with 124,109 votes.

View original

Which only goes to prove that you should never ask the British public anything.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 27th September 2019, 8:57 AM

Which only goes to prove that you should never ask the British public anything.

View original

Amen.
Do you thing homosexuality would have been legalised if it had been put to a public vote in the 60's?

Democracy shouldn't be wasted on the people.

Quote: beaky @ 27th September 2019, 11:00 AM

Democracy shouldn't be wasted on the people.

View original

I'm sure I read somewhere that Churchill said something along those lines.

Quote: Lazzard @ 27th September 2019, 10:38 AM

Amen.
Do you thing homosexuality would have been legalised if it had been put to a public vote in the 60's?

View original

Which with respect is just one very tiny reason among about 200 why the current ultra liberal so-called representative democrats of Parliament need to get on with Brexit. Only in doing so will Parliament find the way of not talking/arguing itself out of existence.

Direct democracy will come as I said. That much is obvious because of recent technological change. The question is whether it will arrive via a natural evolution in 30-50 years or (B) be speeded up on the coat tails of a far right reaction - that would be bloody - to the lack of delivery on Brexit within just a few years.

A reaction which when successful, ;politically or militarily, will then lead to more bloodshed as it too will be overturned by moderate liberal and conservative forces among the general public combining on a matter about which both will by then agree : that Parliamentary democracy really is dead and direct democracy is the only answer. Call the entire two part process the next 10 years maximum in the event of no delivery.

Of course, the other thing extreme liberals may wish to consider is that 50% of Muslims in the UK (4 million currently and rapidly rising) already believe that homosexuality should be made illegal and there are a few other types on the far right who agree. Consequently there is no better topic on which to unite the far right and Muslims who are currently always at war with each other, not least of all as half of their disagreement now tends to be on sex (the hijab, gangs in Rotherham etc).

Labour's new policy is to have no limits on immigration. Anyone can come here and indeed vote. The Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and liberal Tories are all much the same.

So as part of their insanity which is considerable now they are building up numbers and an alliance which will smash the gay thing to pieces and very much more. They have all become completely mad. The entire lot of them and their influence is not having a good impact on the mental health of many of their supporters either.

As one ex MI5 head said, the entire country is having a nervous breakdown. That emanates not from the girl in Tescos or some old geezer on a haystack three miles out of Yeovil but entirely from the politicians, the judges and the media. Economic trickle-down theory was always bogus but trickle-down craziness has no bounds.

It is probably worthwhile pointing out that Henry VIII who made buggery illegal was not a member of the general public, let alone all of the electorate, and furthermore when other homosexual acts (although they are not really homosexual as they are now commonplace - almost certainly more commonplace in numbers - in heterosexuals in 2019) were made illegal in 1885 that was done by Parliament.

One that was in some ways elected but not by the blokes who were living in Dickensian London as they didn't have the vote (and often any roof or any clothes or any food but, hey, they all had "white privilege" and were not at all slaves. My arse). No. The bans were wholly imposed by the well-educated. Many at that time of little medical provision would have had physical health in mind but only of their own classes.

Plus, regrettably in my view the importance of "the law" today is overstated when for example cannabis is illegal, cocaine is illegal, driving at 60mph in a 20mph zone is illegal and half the public take absolutely no notice so whatever the future law many men will still be sticking their genitalia into others' mouths and rectums, male or female.

Liberal women generally support such things as they feel that if more men are focussed on men sexually that gives women greater power and among those men who aren't for men but for women the more "creative" the range of sexual activity which is encouraged to enter their heads the better.

That is because it gives women the power to be able to say no to a man ten times as often (though in order to maintain it she has to agree to an attempt of it sliding in and out of her nostrils or whatever once in a blue moon otherwise she has no additional power at all).

This is believed to be enjoyed by both partners when it isn't faked and the divisions between those two things increasingly blur in this gaming world. But frequently the main part of the enjoyment for the woman subconsciously is that she can then go into the office as boss and take it out on the staff by sacking half of them. It gives her more balls.

(As an aside I did observe closely the way ex PM walked and often wondered about the nature of her sex life but I concluded that it was very conventional on the basis that she was unable to get Brexit done. The slightly unusual quality of it is possibly down to her long term choices of footwear).

More to the point, it is precisely that drift to lawlessness (all but two of the Tory leadership candidates had engaged in criminal drug practices and that's just for starters : the opposition benches will be worse) which has led to a drift into chaos and a disrespect for the referendum outcome.

Most of them have egos so over-inflated and such an unreal fantasy world sense of their own superiority that when told to respect the vote they only have the "skills" to transform themselves into intense fury. One that is linked to their equally intense worries about their own personal security and with the view "sod the personal security of everyone else in the country : that's irrelevant compared to us and our money".

The criminal law all over the world should concern itself with activities that involve a victim.

I have a relatively vivid imagination but I find it exceedingly difficult to see any victimless activity as justifiably "criminal".

Yes, I know God isn't a big fan of gay sex but he also advocates putting people to death for wearing clothes made of two differing fabrics.

All in all, I think God-fearing folk should do a little less fearing and a lot more thinking.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 27th September 2019, 6:09 PM

The criminal law all over the world should concern itself with activities that involve a victim.

I have a relatively vivid imagination but I find it exceedingly difficult to see any victimless activity as justifiably "criminal".

Yes, I know God isn't a big fan of gay sex but he also advocates putting people to death for wearing clothes made of two differing fabrics.

All in all, I think God-fearing folk should do a little less fearing and a lot more thinking.

View original

That is one of the standard tropes actually. God versus gay. Ostensibly they are alternative frameworks for father and son and to some extent holy ghost (there is a lot of holier than thou stuff on each side with each claiming to be sacrosanct). But when you get two sides of the same coin, it is still the same coin. It removes the scope for considering any other coin,

I don't have any religion to speak of myself. To the extent that I believe in God, it is where the music of Van Morrison elides with the natural environment. And this is why any questioning on my part is rejected by most because it can't so easily be batted away with any taught argument. The likes of Ann Widdecombe are far easier to smack down with words.

I am not pursuing this at length. I am best advised to steer clear but reality starts with some comprehension that there is not one version of straight and one version of gay as those tin labels imply but very many of them in each case and I am not speaking here about the sexual orientation spectrum. I am talking about the nature of the ways these things work purely as straight or gay.

There is plenty of stuff on the internet on legal sites fully endorsed by this political and economic order (so it will exist too in some bedrooms and clubs) which has women and men spat into, urinated into, gagged, drugged up with crack cocaine, and used by 20 men plus (and in some lesbian cases 20 women plus) and this we are told does not involve victims because it is fully based on mutual consent. To which I say bollocks to use the liberals' favourite new word.

I say too that many of these victims are probably terribly poor. Many will be addicts and will do almost anything to pay for their addiction. Many will have been severely abused as children and will know no other way as adults but enter scenarios where they supposedly consent to the reinforcing of that abuse. That is, actually their brains are so damaged they couldn't possibly consent at all. Some of the films by the way are made in what we used to call Britain.

I look at the perpetrators who are not characterised by orientation but sadism which clearly goes beyond fantasy. I would say that they are on a par with those who were responsible for the holocaust. And I will recall my days in the library of a hospital for the mentally ill when I read the folders on many a patient to see why they had been locked up for 40 or 50 years.

And it was for pregnancy at 15 when not married or walking in Brixton High Street nude or not being able to tell the time and asking every other person on the street if it was ten past eleven in the morning when it clearly was not. And really those people were totally well when compared with a lot of those who roam free these days to do what they do.

Headline news story now on the BBC News website - Nigerian 'torture house': Hundreds freed in Kaduna police raid - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49850408 - note how this distances such things to Africa just as most abuse cases in the news are supposedly "historical" as if it couldn't ever happen here or now - but there is nothing fundamentally different in what is said in the article from what UK lawyers, politicians etc are wanking off to on legal porn sites while western banks make a mint out of those.

So - and as I say I shall get out here on good advice - but at the very least some nuances could be built in to concepts of consent. Just because some people consent on a form or even in a relationship does not mean that they really can or do consent in many instances in the way that those with easy backgrounds are able to say yes and no to things.

Not that I have read it yet as my ideas are my ideas but you might like to do what I am just about to do which is to order a copy of the book "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. A book in which Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing (and presumably vice versa).. It's on Amazon. Thanks very much.

In the news today, an entirely innocent Scouser called Thomas Cooke has been receiving death threats on Facebook from people who think he's ruined their holiday.

It's worth bearing in mind that the people making these death threats were qualified to (and probably did) vote in the EU referendum.

Letting such people vote in the EU referendum was crazy enough but the mind truly boggles at the thought of such types being allowed to vote for or against the legalisation of homosexuality or the abolition/restitution of the death penalty.

Quote: Rood Eye @ 27th September 2019, 8:18 PM

In the news today, an entirely innocent Scouser called Thomas Cooke has been receiving death threats on Facebook from people who think he's ruined their holiday.

It's worth bearing in mind that the people making these death threats were qualified to (and probably did) vote in the EU referendum.

Letting such people vote in the EU referendum was crazy enough but the mind truly boggles at the thought of such types being allowed to vote for or against the legalisation of homosexuality or the abolition/restitution of the death penalty.

View original

Agreed.

It says it all, that the people now causing trouble for MPs are Brexiteers. Ignorant thuggish bastards.

Had the Tories acted immediately after the referendum, I might have had a miniscule piece of respect for them, but more than 3 years have passed during which a lot of silly old bastards who voted Leave have died. Meanwhile more than 3 years of young people have been denied any say in the shit that's about to hit Britain and all we hear is how the idiot, racists and self seeking Tories are incensed that Brexit still hasn't passed. Pass me a machine gun, somebody.