Jump to content

Vulgarian

Regulars
  • Posts

    1,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vulgarian

  1. Outside of the TT there is no tourist economy here. Who are these hordes of trippers who need to be welcomed at 11pm at night? I used to work in the Tourist Office, years ago, and we used to open specially for the late ferry, but no fucker ever came in. Like Roger Mexico said, the visitors were eager to get to their digs and get their shoes off. It was just a waste of an evening for us, and poor value for a load of government cash. Besides, most people have no need of tourist information centres these days. They can access the information they need on their phones. For those who don't have phones or need some special kind of assistance, they can visit during office hours.
  2. Even tourist offices in major cities are usually only open during office hours. City of London Tourist Information Monday to Saturday 9.30am-5.30pm Sunday 10am-4pm TImes Square Tourist Information 9am - 6pm daily You people live in a fucking dream world.
  3. The way this incident has been reported sends out a misleading message to the public by suggesting that there is something illegal about filming the police, when we ought to be encouraging people to film them at work more often.
  4. What assumption? I never said that such structures are impossible, though from what I've read it seems their existence is implausible in the extreme, but as you say, it's perfectly valid to investigate the possibility of their existence scientifically. What I'm saying is that the reporting of them is sensationalist, and typical of how the popular media misrepresents scienctific research. While astronomers are trying to determine whether such things are even possible, and what they might look like if they were, the media gallops ahead to reporting that possible alien megastructures have been discovered.
  5. Alien megastructures? Sensationalist rubbish. Astronomy is interesting enough without aliens being involved.
  6. People are allowed opinions, and sometimes those opinions are going to offend others. You shouldn't have to apologise for having them or expressing them. People need to recognise that not everyone has to agree with you or be nice to you. What exactly should Stu be apologising for? For saying that you shouldn't allow your offspring to disrupt other people's enjoyment of something they've paid for? Whether they are disabled or not there is no discrimination involved. It's not the child's disability that is being discriminated for, but their disruptive behaviour.
  7. I agree with Stu. Why would you take a wailing retard to a quiet restaurant where people have paid to eat good food in quiet surroundings? They're going to be about as popular as a turd in a swimming pool, and presumably you wouldn't let them do that either. Whatever the reason for your child's behavioural problems don't let them spoil things for other people.
  8. The police actually have a lot of scope to decide how to approach enforcing the law. It's not the case that if you break the letter of the law you will be prosecuted. Many forces in the UK no longer take action on small amounts of cannabis, for example. So this is a discussion we should be having. Saying that because someone committed an offence they should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law is ignorant of how policing actually works.
  9. Maybe he's got a knife. Maybe he hasn't. Maybe he's just going to use his fists and then when you're down dizzy and confused he'll sink his teeth into your neck and rip at your jugular. Or maybe he won't. Hard to identify "real physical intent". Hard to identify "racism" and "abuse" too seeing as they are some of the fuzziest and most debated concepts we have yet designed. Doesn't seem to worry the police and courts a great deal, not when it comes to drunken ranting anyway. Until our imaginary assailant actually rips out my jugular, or just hinders my progress, he's just a bag of hot air.
  10. It's very clear that neither you nor your loved ones (let's assume you have some) have never worked in retail Yeah, I've worked in retail and a bunch of other public facing jobs. The abuse you get is usually just people letting off steam, and if you can't handle it without getting the police involved you shouldn't be in that sort of job.
  11. If they were carrying a spoon I would laugh at them unless I happened to be carrying a knife, in which case a game of knifey spooney would ensue. If they were carrying a knife that's a different matter. They would present a real physical threat to my life and that's when it would be right for the police to get involved. Some random pisshead saying 'I'm gonna slash your throat mate.' without any real physical intent is not worth getting police and courts involved.
  12. 'Threatening words or behaviour' just shouldn't be a criminal offence IMO. Waste of public money attempting to police verbal exchanges between adults. Nothing inherently wrong with frank and vibrant expression of our opinions or emotions. There should be no state interference in that area.
  13. Drivers don't need advanced training, they just need basic training. At the moment there is no requirement for that. In order to get a driver's licence you only have to display competency in pootling around Douglas and pass a basic theory test. There's a lot more that drivers ought to know about using the roads before they are set loose in a vehicle. Many drivers lack basic mechanical knowledge. How to change a wheel, how to check and replace oil, how to replace a bulb, windscreen wipers etc. Any training should also include information on road traffic collisions, how and why they occur, and what their physical and psychological effects can be. A training course that covers these and others things should be a requirement for getting a licence.
  14. Nobody from Manxforums anyway......
  15. If our representatives are shit we only have ourselves to blame. I don't know who in their right mind would be an MHK. We bleat on about how we want experienced, intelligent, worldly people in the Keys. But what sober minded executive is going to put their carreer on hold for 5 years and take a pay cut for an extended bout of villification and abuse by a public who write foamy mouthed personal attacks on them on social media, and don't understand the first thing about how a country is run.
  16. It doesn't take much thought to understand why there is such a thing as the Celtic League, and why it might have an issue with England. These so-called celtic regions have historically been the home of people who are culturally distinct from the English (the one thing that they do have in common is that a celtic language was spoken there in recent history). England has been the dominant cultural and political influence in the region for a long time and the so-called celtic regions have a history of being marginalised, oppressed, and villified in one way or another by England. You also mentioned France, well Brittany comes under France's influence rather than England's but the same apples. This isn't a phenomenon that's unique to this region but has happened everywhere, when a power with cultural and political hegemony causes problems for marginal groups. One of the results of this interference frequently found is language loss. This is why the Celtic League places emphasis on supporting indigenous languages in these regions. It's all pretty interesting and a lot more complicated that all that obviously. I'm not sure what the Celtic League actually do in practical terms though, tbh.
  17. Has your account been hacked, bees, or are you having a bad day or something? Really, nobody deserves to be bullied like that in public. You might have a private tittle at some unsightly flab but to photograph it and post it publicly is ugly. If she lost her job and has been banned from gyms it's a proportionate response to her behaviour. Who wants someone in their gym or workplace who takes secret pictures of other patrons and posts them online to encourage mockery? If a man did this there would be question about his being banned.
  18. If people committing offences can hide behind data protection laws then 'the law is an ass' ... to quote Mr Dickens As TheTeapot said, the men haven't actually been convicted of anything. A caution is not a conviction. Their names are not released. Even though my sympathies lie with the hen harriers and lichens. Besides, i often think that it's not in the interest of all parties concerned to have the offender's name made public. Every week the local papers almost seem to take a lurid delight in publishing details of minor offences such as possession of drugs, drunk and disorderly, or threatening or abusive words or behaviour. These are not high risk crimes that we really need to know about, and it seems difficult to argue that it's in the public interest to have the offenders' names published. For offenders in these cases who may be struggling with personal problems unknown to us, having their name the subject of common gossip among people who may not even know them is another barrier to them getting back on their feet and moving on with their lives.
  19. Too many coffin dodgers about. Hoping for a cold winter.
  20. Disrespect for authority should be encouraged. What would you rather, a situation where everyone does as they are told without question? Anyway, police escalate these situations by retaliating. So a drunk says 'oink oink' to you? So what? Grow the fuck up.
  21. Not reading 20 pages of this shit.. but I'm assuming that this is another one of those semantic mix-ups where people are arguing about different things. NATIONALITY is a bureaucratic designation. It has to do with passports and bits of paper and laws. Few people are of Manx nationality, i.e. have "Manxman" status. NATIONAL IDENTITY is a fuzzy concept about how you feel about where you "belong" and all that. I'm guessing people are mixing them up here?
  22. Another one of these threads.. It's easy to believe that there aren't many drugs going about if you live in a middle class bubble. The fact is that cannabis especially is everywhere. Various pills you can get pretty easily. Coke too. The question we should be asking is what is approach to bring about the best outcome. That is, as with any problem (when drugs become a problem), we should look at it rationally in a problem-solving way. But that's not how decisions are made here. They are made by politicians with political agendas. Several governments have approached the problem in this way with some quite astounding success. If only we could be so forward thinking.
  23. Nothing wrong with a bit of coke anyway. As with everything else it only becomes a problem for those with addictive personalities - they spoil it for the rest of us by getting fucked up on it.
  24. But all that is required for an arrest to be lawful is for it to be carried out in the appropriate way, it doesn't suddenly become unlawful if it turns out the reason for it was untrue or a suspicion not verified. And if a search was wanted of a suspect, then nothing being found doesn't mean the search was invalid. All that is needed is reasonable suspicion, which could be that it was felt that someone was acting oddly or whatever. Even being outside a nightclub might be enough. Absolutely. Conversely, an unlawful search does not become lawful if something illicit is discovered. If there was not a valid reason for the search to begin with it is still unlawful. What needs to be clearer to people I think is under what circumstances you can be searched.
×
×
  • Create New...