Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pamplemousse

  1. What more do they need to know?? Sorry but I think this is so black-and-white. You're not Anne Widdecombe are you? If as you say teenagers are in possession of all the facts but there is still an extremely high rate of teenage pregnancy, then there are obviously other underlying reasons why they're taking risks with unprotected sex. Perhaps it's for reckless kicks...or perhaps it's because the girl has poor self-esteem and is being badgered into it by the guy - let's not pretend this isn't still an issue. Maybe, at the risk of sounding like a bleeding heart liberal, some of these kids already feel like their lives are going nowhere. Sex is everywhere in Britain - telly, mags etc - but when it comes down to it the sexual climate is still furtive, repressed, nudge-nudge, embarrassed. British, in other words. For teens there's still a lot of fear, confusion, awkwardness, no matter how well briefed they are in the technical facts of sex. And wider social factors - their upbringing and family life, their environment, the quality of their schooling, and good old peer pressure - all affect the way they see themselves, and so have an impact on their actions. What you're saying is 'they have the facts = they ought to know better.' Well yes but....weren't you ever young?
  2. It is when it comes to American Pit Bull terriers though. Aye, I know that. What I meant was, issues like are clouded by a great deal of fear and prejudice about dogs which are thought to be dangerous because they're bull breeds, when there are potentially extremely dangerous dogs wandering around off the leash and unmuzzled, which get nowhere near the same amount of bad press because they don't come with negative associations (chavs, hard men, dog fighting etc). I was only saying, because in a lot of cases that same fear and prejudice seems to inform people's opinions as much if not more than what the actual facts are. That's all.
  3. So we repatriate not only dog but owner too, the former because of a presumption that it may harm someone and the latter, to pander to your unpleasant social prejudice? That's one hell of a can of worms you're opening. I'm not sure who you think 'our Island' belongs to, or who you speak on behalf of, but it's the Island I was born and brought up on, and you do not speak for me. I understand that technically, this dog - if it is an American Pit Bull - is banned. But it's banned because it is considered dangerous. So, here's an aside - when I was growing up, we had two Staffordshire Bull Terriers which were the sweetest, least volatile dogs you could imagine. Then a few years ago, I suffered a completely unprovoked attack by an unleashed Irish Wolfhound. It knocked me to the ground and inflicted puncture wounds on my stomach and arms but I was 'lucky' in that the owner called it off before it could do more damage. I reported it to the police immediately but heard nothing further. Follow-up phone enquiries produced no further results. It wasn't until a year later, when I prompted a policeman I knew to enquire as to whether anything had been done, that I got a phonecall from Douglas HQ. They had "had words" with the owner. That's right - words. I don't need to ask you to imagine the possible consequences if the dog had attacked a small child, and the owner had not been in the immediate vicinity. I'm not saying I know what the answer is. MANY breeds of dogs, in the wrong owners' hands, have the potential to harm people and even within a breed which is not considered dangerous, you may still get a 'bad apple' - and it doesn't seem pragmatic to start banning left, right and centre. But equally, it seems inadequate to wait for an attack to happen before taking measures, whether it's muzzling or putting the dog down. I just hate the kneejerk fear and loathing of bull breeds when in reality, it's not that simple.
  4. That's a fair shout, I didn't know that. Aye, well, fair enough, that's because only one side of the story has been heard, and it's a very unreliable one. Yes, it was only her opinion that the kids were becoming emotionally damaged but, with her former partner appearing constantly pissed, aggressive and abusive, who else's opinion should she have deferred to? A kangaroo court of strangers on a forum? And how long should she have waited? There's a lot of sanctimonious bullshit flying around about what might be the 'right thing' for the children but if a mother believes that her kids' emotional welfare is increasingly at risk, then surely she would be negligent not to take action. Not once did she act selfishly or out of spite.
  5. Well, in her opinion anyway. That'll be the same opinion that concluded moving in nearby to Kershaw with new bloke would all work out fine? He needs professional help and I think they both need counselling for the sake of the kids. I'm sorry but I have to weigh in with cathelsa here who, along with don fugazi, obviously knows a great deal more facts than most posters on here. It's more than a bit upsetting to see people falling for Kershaw's poor-me schtick and being critical of his ex-partner's motives on the basis of pure speculation. The idea that she has contributed to his illness is, frankly, ludicrous to anyone who has been witness to the whole sorry episode. This is not some Kramer vs Kramer tug of love over the kids with both parties fighting dirty - it is about one party going totally beyond the pale in every respect and the other being forced to take action. Does no-one consider that his ex might have been pushed to the limit in turning to the police, and that therefore compassion is due to her and their children? As cathelsa has already pointed out, he was never denied access to the kids. And his ex did only involve the police as a last resort, believe me. It was certainly not, as some people have suggested, a way of 'getting back at him.' What was she supposed to do? Keep being subjected every day to verbal abuse, threats and harassment, while the kids looked on? PK, she did not 'move in nearby' to Kershaw with a bloke. She returned to a second home they already owned. On her own. Yes, it was round the corner - this meant that Kershaw could see his children at the drop of a hat, as often as possible. But for months after his partner left him, he preferred to ricochet around the pubs in Peel while pursuing (aka being a downright nuisance to) half a dozen other women. It was when she did meet someone else that his behaviour became worse - not because he was heartbroken, but because he refused to accept that his ex would have the temerity not only to finally leave him but to meet another man. In common with many alcoholics, his behaviour has been that of a spoilt, nasty-tempered child who, if he cannot get what he wants, lashes out at everyone around him. His ex-partner stood up to him, and had to be punished - hence texts calling her a 'f*cking whore.' Nice, eh? In all of this, his ex has kept silent - because she has better things to do than become involved in a game of tabloid tit-for-tat, namely, look after their children and keep them on an even keel. I seriously doubt that contact with their father at this point would have anything other than a detrimental affect on their psychological and emotional wellbeing. If you want an example of someone who is doing the wrong thing by the kids, using them as pawns in a domestic battle, have a look at Kershaw - selling his sob story to national papers... or how about sending abusive messages to his ex via his kids' phones? If his kids were really his top priority right now, he'd come home, face the consequences, do the time and sort himself out. But other people's needs and rights are seemingly absolutely meaningless to him - he is the centre of his own one-man universe. But that said, he is an alcoholic who also, I agree, now needs professional help. The problem is, before you can get help, you need to recognise and admit that you need it or, in extreme cases, be forced to seek it.
  6. Nothing to do, masses of potholes - it would be a home from home. Mr Sausages for President!
  7. Yeah, that's right, he only won four stages of the tinpot Tour de France - he's got too cocky for his own good and should be cut down to size.....right? Have you heard yourself? I really hope you're not Manx; you make me feel disgusted.
  8. I agree with slinkydevil - the dummies who get stuck should cough up the rescue cost. If you don't know the basics of how tides work I don't know if you should even be living on an island, let alone footling around the Tower of Refuge.
  9. I'm sorry but that's just silly. It's not 'our territory' and at any rate, animals don't make distinctions between our stamping ground and theirs. I do not believe for one second that people are being 'attacked' by gulls; the birds are simply trying to get at the food people are either carrying or eating. This is what they do. They have evolved to survive. Nor do I think they are getting more 'aggressive.' This, again, is people projecting human behaviour onto animals. Gulls are scavengers and with more people eating more crap and chucking more crap away, they're going to do more scavenging. As with so many of these so-called menaces, it's people who are at the heart of the matter. I've lived by the sea on the IOM my entire life and not once been attacked/molested/roughed up/mutilated by a herring gull. Personally, I find people who park on double yellows in Peel just so they can sit cocooned in their cars on their fat arses eating their ice cream much more of a hazard and a nuisance.
  10. Why be so harsh? People look up old friends/flames all the time, most often when they get to midlife or thereabouts, and start wondering about all the paths their lives could have taken. This lady has just been brave/foolhardy enough to air her request on a public forum. It's sadly so predictable that a woman tracking down a guy instantly gets the bunny boiler tag slapped on her.... So Finding Dave Wall, I hope you find Dave Wall... it can be a very risky venture opening up the past so I hope it goes well....good luck.
  11. I wouldn't argue with some of your points on this thread but if you're really only 21 and not employed by the Government, I'm the King of Old Siam. I've never seen a thread where your name appears where you don't appear to be vigorously defending the Govt's position. Anyway...
  12. Agreed - it's amazing we got passed over for Beijing when you think about it. Utter cr*p. Summerland might have been a shambles but that was one hell of a pool. The scummy botched effort at the NSC doesn't compare.
  13. Oooh now we get to the nub of the matter. So, he's never been with someone in a relationship - until now. Was the temptation of being propostioned for the first time too much for him? Would the nasty lady not take no for an answer? Time to bolt the stable door, then. While your friend is worrying about whether he's 'going to get hurt', has he considered that he has already been complicit in hurting the woman's unsuspecting partner? Forgive me but I'm beginning to think your pal is a bit of an arse.
  14. I didn't say it did. Aye, I know, but you did put up a link to a news item about STDs. Was that just chosen at random?
  15. Well there you go. What more can you tell him? I would say that's fairly solid advice. But now you've explained the situ more, what you're really asking about this woman is - is she trustworthy or not? It has nothing to do with her sexual appetites and everything to do with her emotional integrity. Ought your friend to respond to the advances of someone who is in a relationship? It might be that he could never trust her if their relationship came about via the wreckage of a previous one. If she is a 'grass is greener' person, how could he trust that she wouldn't begin courting attention from someone else, just as she did with him? He also needs to ask himself whether he is the sort of person who is attracted to forbidden fruit? If this woman responded in kind and freed herself up so she could get with him, would he still feel the same about her? Ultimately, he'll have to weigh things up between his head and his gut instinct. She might be a disaster zone but on the other hand, most post-school relationships come with complications. I know a girl who flirted openly with a guy in front of her boyfriend, raved about him, always created opportunities to be with him etc. It was awful to see - she obivously wanted out of her relationship but her boyfriend should have been the first to know. Anyway, they split and she instantly got together with the new guy. They moved in together immediately. It looked as though they were just trying to justify what had been hurtful behaviour by saying 'look, this was meant to happen' - they must have felt like they had something to prove. But then they got married and now have a child, and I believe they are very happy - so maybe it was meant to happen. Ach, who knows....
  16. It's not something I thought I'd find myself typing but...I agree with keyboarder. Chinahand, this "friend" of yours - has he taken into consideration his OWN sexual past? And let me get this straight, he already thinks he might want something 'longer term' with this girl but he needs YOUR opinion on OTHER people's petty gossip regarding her? The Godfather is right - it's her who should be steering clear of him. If you are genuinely concerned for your friend, I'd remind him to take the word 'reputation' with a skipload of salt given that double standards are still very much alive and well, particularly in festering small town corners. And blue monday, being 'promiscuous' does not necessarily mean 'unsafe'. Jesus christ, I feel like I've stumbled through a portal into the Middle Ages.
  17. There was a black and white cat lying dead in the middle of the road from Peel to St Johns this morning. Perhaps whoever hit and killed it did so in the night and thought it was a rabbit etc etc. I do hope it was that, and not some coward who just drove off after killing someone's pet Poor thing.
  18. Everybody knows that David Callister is made of titanium and has an angled outer shell that makes him undetectable by enemy radar. Spat my coffee back out at that one. Lovely
  19. Yep, I've heard Colin Skillicorn is fab if you can get him. I would second the thumbs-up for Dave Hamilton too. I had several attempts at passing my test with different instructors over the years - he was the one who finally got me through so I am eternally grateful :-) Very calm and no-nonsense and he has good tips and strategies for getting things right. Good luck!
  20. Thanks fellas - advice much appreciated.
  21. Hi there. Clue's in the title. I'm after a new mobile and wondering if anyone's got any opinions on which outlets are the best value? Are prices pretty standard? It's for a parent who just wants a nice user-friendly phone for phoning, not a painfully clever one with a fish-finder and dishwasher incorporated. Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks x
  22. Utopia - specifically a lass called Gemma. She does my hair and I've only ever come out beaming from ear to ear. That's after years of going to different places, trying to find someone who could a) cut curly hair and b) would listen and give me the cut I wanted, not the one they felt like giving me on the day. Good luck.
  23. There is a place called the Hotel de Nesle, on the Rue de Nesle in St Germain, which is surprisingly reasonable. I seem to remember it being 60 or 70 Euros a night. The location couldn't be better - it's really close to a lot of the main attractions and is surrounded by bars and cafes. But it's a very particular, eccentric kind of place which may or may not suit your taste. It's a really old building and the nicest rooms are all themed with different murals and decor. You can't book in the conventional sense - the woman who runs it just expects a couple of phone calls from you to confirm you're coming, and then she may or may not give you the room you were expecting! If you check it out on Trip Advisor, you'll find some people found it fantastic while others hated it and thought the woman was rude. She was fine with me and we had no problems. It wasn't so hot on the mod cons but it had bags of character....bonne chance!
  24. There are always two sides to these stories. Firstly I don't think jailing the father of your children on a chance encounter (if that's what it was) is the action of a responsible parent. There is also the question of whether or not the children would ever be at risk while with him - something that has simply not been touched on but should be the only basis on which he should be prevented from seeing them - and the answer to which is almost certainly "don't know". His histrionics don't help that's for sure. Secondly you said it yourself "because he can't cope" he needs help, not a jail sentence. I'm aware there are two sides - I've seen both sides unfolding. All you ever hear in the press, however, is Kershaw's side, and he is, to say the least, an unreliable narrator. I'm not sure what you mean by 'at risk' but ans is right, the children have the right to be protected from the distress of their drunk father hurling abuse at their mother. Has it occurred to you that the children did not want to see him?
  25. PK - perhaps his ex couldn't cope with the situation HE put HER and their children in. You don't know the half of it. His 'meltdown' has as much to do with Andy Kershaw not being able to get what he wants and treat people how he wants as much as it has to do with not being able to see his kids. He DID have complete access but couldn't stop getting drunk and being abusive. Should she and the kids have to walk through landmines every single day because he can't cope with the consequences of his own behaviour and is intent on blaming everyone but himself? Someone had to keep on being a responsible parent in the thick of all this and that's exactly what she's done, making tough decisions and keeping her mouth shut about the whole sorry affair - for the sake of the kids. Lonan3's assessment is absolutely 100% spot on.
  • Create New...