Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Gandalf's Beard]

Hmmm...not sure...what about this one:



Maybe not!

[Gandalf's Beard]

No I can't I simply....must....not.....post.....Map of US.....from....European POV:



Only Fair! Map of Europe from Idiots point of view:

[Gandalf's Beard]

Odo should like this one:

[Gandalf's Beard]

OK! This one's hilarious:

[Ringdrotten]

I thought we were commies to the right wing people in the US

[Gandalf's Beard]

I thought we were commies to the right wing people in the US

Aren't you part of the...what was it..."Socialist Union?" In Idiot talk it is a synonym for Commie.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

Mmm, odd how Whores and casinos are next to mormons on one side and gays on the other- a really drunk night out in the fun state of whores and casinos could end badly (or interestingly) if you accidently drunkenly cross either border!

[Pettytyrant101]

The map of europe has nailed the German for the only thing the rest of europe considers them for (apart from genocide obviously)
Bit upset Scotlan dis lumped in with the English Mummys! Surely something for us? Drunkards? Skirt wearers- anything is better than being thought of as part of English culture (whatever that is, I'd ask an Englishman but they so clearly don't know anymore!)

[Eldorion]

Scotland is pretty much kilt-and-bagpipes-land in the world according to American stereotypes. So ... much ... tartan ...

[Ringdrotten]

Aren't you part of the...what was it..."Socialist Union?" In Idiot talk it is a synonym for Commie.

GB

I've heard it said

[Baingil]

...

Funny maps.

[Pettytyrant101]

Oxfam are making dire predictions for food prices;

'The prices of staple foods will more than double in 20 years unless world leaders take action to reform the global food system, Oxfam has warned.
By 2030, the average cost of key crops will increase by between 120% and 180%, the charity forecasts.'

The whole article is here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13597657

I don't know about anyone else but I struggle with food prices as it is, if they were to double I couldn't afford to eat, or feed my cats for that matter. In which case the logical thing to do would be to eat my cats! That's not a happy future.

[Ringdrotten]

The food prices are skyrocketing in Norway at the moment too, and they're already high enough. I was thinking, I should borrow some money from a bank, disappear, and then buy myself a huge piece of land under a different name and make my own living, just like in the old days! You in, Petty?

[Pettytyrant101]

So long as it has a buckie well and some, ahem, growing space, I'm in!

[Ringdrotten]

Us Norwayans, as Odo calls, us have long-standing traditions of brewing our own spirits, so that shouldn't be a problem

[Pettytyrant101]

Glad to hear it- good sound thinking that. All we need now is a patch of land with an internet connection!

[Ringdrotten]

We'll be fine with a mobile broadband, don't you think? Should probably find someplace where it's possible to grow some tobacco for my pipe too (when I get a decent one, that is! Can't go smoking all these cheap ones all the time)

[Pettytyrant101]

This is sort of a return to the rape debate, or rather to similar arguments being made. Glasgow City Council is coming under attack after sending a letter to parents in which they say;

'We believe that an appropriate school uniform (eg school trousers, knee-length school skirt etc) protects children from being targeted by sexual predators.
"There is recent evidence in the south of Glasgow of adults photographing school girls in short skirts and school girls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet.
"We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops."'

However it drew this response;

'The Scottish Parent Teacher Council said the letter to parents was not needed and unwise.
Chief executive Eileen Prior said: "Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved.
"It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress.'

Now if we still lived in more primitive times would it not be wise to say to a child "There's sabretooth tigers around here. So don't go out in your Lady GaGa meat dress or you might get preyed on." Or words to that effect. Is it not a responsibility of a parent to educate against dangers? And should that not include educating girls who are becoming women that they need to be aware of what sexual signals they are putting out and where and when, and judge if it is appropriate?

It would be great if we lived in a world where adults did not prey on youngsters, but sadly we do live in that world and in that world it seems to me to be sound advice not to inadvenrtently attract the tigers.

[Gandalf's Beard]

This is sort of a return to the rape debate, or rather to similar arguments being made. Glasgow City Council is coming under attack after sending a letter to parents in which they say;

'We believe that an appropriate school uniform (eg school trousers, knee-length school skirt etc) protects children from being targeted by sexual predators.
"There is recent evidence in the south of Glasgow of adults photographing school girls in short skirts and school girls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet.
"We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops."'

However it drew this response;

'The Scottish Parent Teacher Council said the letter to parents was not needed and unwise.
Chief executive Eileen Prior said: "Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved.
"It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress.'

Now if we still lived in more primitive times would it not be wise to say to a child "There's sabretooth tigers around here. So don't go out in your Lady GaGa meat dress or you might get preyed on." Or words to that effect. Is it not a responsibility of a parent to educate against dangers? And should that not include educating girls who are becoming women that they need to be aware of what sexual signals they are putting out and where and when, and judge if it is appropriate?

It would be great if we lived in a world where adults did not prey on youngsters, but sadly we do live in that world and in that world it seems to me to be sound advice not to inadvenrtently attract the tigers.

Actually, I'm with the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council on this one. The concept is rubbish if you really think about it. The idea that Sexual Predators lie in wait around every corner is silly to begin with. Statistics are very clear on this. The vast VAST majority of people, adults or children, are preyed upon by people they know well.

Another point that makes this ridiculous on it's face, is that pictures of kids in clothes are everywhere. There are kids in clothes on TV. There are kids in clothes in Films. There are pictures of kids in clothes in magazines and on billboards. It's the pictures of kids with no clothes on we have to worry about. Anyone can take a picture anywhere at any time of anyone. You're far more likely to catch perves at the Beach taking pictures of girls in Bikinls. Which isn't illegal, and nor should it be.

I can't really believe I'm saying this, but in a number of ways the UK is even further ahead than the US in the attack on civil liberties. Surveillance Cameras everywhere. And these sorts of arguments are just another ridiculous way to strip more civil liberties away. First it's the school uniforms, but that's not where the attack on civil liberties actually lies. Any school that has a school uniform policy can make school uniforms any way they like (within reason of course, no-one is suggesting that school uniforms be underclothes and nothing else).

No, the real attack on liberties is spreading the idea that people taking pictures are sexual predators. This idea, if it catches on, will lead to laws allowing police to confiscate cameras and cell phones from anyone at anytime without a warrant or legitimate reason. Which means that surveillance will only be one way. Catch a copper doing something wrong on film, and it will be confiscated. Catch a politician in a compromising position on film, and it will be confiscated. Catch Corporate Malfeasance on film, their security will confiscate it.

If a school wants to change their uniforms that's fine, and they are well within their rights to do so. The only reason that this is a fuss is because the City Council is going out of bounds, interfering in school policies. And they are doing it loudly, in public, to create a bogus narrative, a climate of fear. It is hoped that fearful parents will then demand laws to protect their children from people with cameras and cellphones.

George Orwell would surely be proud to see his vision of the future come to fruition.

GB

[Orwell]

GB: "George Orwell would surely be proud to see his vision of the future come to fruition."

Proud? Vindicated perhaps. But nah - disappointed... Can't see it happening anyhow, GB. Btw a lot of police like looking at bikini clad girls too - doesn't everyone ? - so long as they're not tiny tots!!! In the second case - and I hope I don't offend your civil liberties, GB by saying it! - maybe cops should seize those phones and get those sorts off our streets!

[Pettytyrant101]

"The idea that Sexual Predators lie in wait around every corner is silly to begin with. Statistics are very clear on this. The vast VAST majority of people, adults or children, are preyed upon by people they know well."- GB

I agree about the statistcs but in fairness to Glasgow Council they were responding to specific cases which had just gone through the Glasgow Courts in wich pedo's were found to have been taking photos of the schoolkids, and targeting n particular those with the 'skimpiest' attire. So in this particuar instance there was evidence, proved in a court of law, that some people were indeed 'waiting aroud corners.' But in general I agree completely with your statement GB.

Schools, their maintanance, rules and funding in Scotland fall under the auspicies of the Local Council so its up to them to set the rules. I see no problem with a school having a set uniform that does not overly sexualise. The difference in the last 20 odd years since I was at school is shocking- girls were sent home for having earrings, wearing makeup and if their skirt was higher than the knee. Boys had to wear proper shoes, shirts had to be tucked into trousers- standards in other words. And the biggest advantage was everyone looked pretty muh the same, the kids from poorer backgrounds didn't stick out a mile as they do now and the girls didn't look like they were about to do a shift in a knocking shop. Although a new inovation at the school I used to go to, and which my little brother is at now, is that the senior students (between 16-18) wear a different colour tie. So in this town if you happen to see some schoolgirls heading your way these days the first thing guys do is check the tie clolour- if its the right colour you get guilt free oggling as by the terms of the law (if not morality) they are legal. Not sure this is what the school had in mind when they came up with the different coloured tie thing but its been the effect of it.
And things change I know, fashions change etc, but I don't think the human reaction to young girls showing off too much flesh has changed in the last 1000 years let alone the last 20 or so. For most males this is not a problem. Most males are perfectly capable of drawing a distinction btween attractive and too young and would not themselves be comfortable approaching a young girl, even if she was beautiful. But there are others out there who seem incapable, or unwilling, to make that distinction. And whilst some of those react simply as a human animal we should I think be careful what signals we let our youngsters put out. And as by definition youngsters are too young to understand or always appreciate the full risks and ramifications of an act it is the place of the adult community to protect I think.

On the point about surveilance I agree. I think per head of population the UK is the most 'watched' of all the Western Countries and puts quite a few totalitarian regimes to shame in observing our own population- all for our own good of course. Yet in my local papers Police coloumn and Courts section it seems incredibly rare to see a case featuring CCTV footage. And most high profile cases in the UK which feature CCTV footage nearly always seems to be off the next to useless, too grainy/blurry/bad lightning/facing the wrong way, wearing a hat variety. So exactly how much use it is in fighting crime I am unsure- I suspect it works better as a deterrent (if at all).

[Pettytyrant101]

Just had to comment on this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13617196

Its about an undercover reporter filming in a Care Home and has caused outrage at the abuse. As these things do. As someone who has worked in Care Homes for more than 20 years now I can't say there is anything here which is suprising, or which in some measure I have not witnessed first hand.
There is another side to it however. I havent seen the full program this is from yet, and from whats here it looks completely unacceptable, but there are times when things can look bad out of context. Its not unknown for example to have to forceably move an elderly person to get them into a room or bathroom becasue they have soiled themselves. Depending upon what other ailments they have leaving someone in a soiled state can be a large health risk, but if they have dementia or some other mental incapacity they may scream, yell, call for help, beg visitors to help them or even lash out. But they still have to be gotten somehwere they can be cleaned up in private regardless. To someone walking in this sort of thing can look like mistreatment when it is in fact the opposite.
As I say, it doesn't look like this is the case in this footage but its worth bearing in mind. One of the hardest parts I find to the job is making people, or sometimes forceably making people, do something they do not want to , or which is casuing them distress, but which has to be done for their own good and health. Its hard to ignore as you clean someone, or attend to some ailment their crying or even screaming for help or, worse even, begging and pleading with you. Caring for those with mental health issues is not easy and as most people have little to nothing to do with such people on a daily basis it looks even more horrific to them when they do see it.

Another related problem is that where I am at least Homes get away with a lot of stuff. The Care Commision is suppose to monitor them, they do suprise inspections and rate homes. They draw up lists of things which have to be changed- I worked in one home for 8 years where we got the exact same list every year becasue it was jsut ignored. It was a home which only took dementia patients, and in a rural area such as this there were not enough places to put the residents if we were shut down, the effect of the Care Commision was zero- the Homes owners knew the Care Commision couldn't afford to shut the Home down as they couldn't house everyone elsewhere. So nothing was ever improved or addressed. That and we always got a tip off when the suprise inspection was coming so it was never a suprise and at the expense of carng for the residents Management would have us scrubbing the home top to bottom for a week beforehand.
Shortly after I left following a bust up with management over the treatment of residents, the home was shut down when two of the old folk espcaped during the night. One died on the beach the other within a week of pnemunia and finally the place was shut and is now a pile of rubble.
Like I said at the start, none of this latest outrage suprises me, or even shocks me, in the slightest.

[Pettytyrant101]

Well if this doesn't at least bring GB out of the wood work I don't know what will. Some prominent folks have writtten an open letter calling for the decriminisation of drugs, claiming the war on drugs has not only not been won but has produced many of the problems we now face in our society. Saying;

'"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.
Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.
It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

The UK government response to this and to a further open letter written by a mix of celebrities, health education people and former ministers has been this;

'We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful - they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.
"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer."
The spokesman said action was being taken through "tough enforcement, both inland and abroad" which would operate alongside introducing temporary banning powers and "robust treatment programmes" to lead people into drug-free recovery.'

And the US governemtn responded with this;

"Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated," said a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
"Making drugs more available - as this report suggests - will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe.

"Discuss!

[Eldorion]

How is it news that the "war on drugs" has failed to prevent drug use or lower crime rates? Are there really some people so out of touch that they think Prohibition is effective?

[Pettytyrant101]

"Are there really some people so out of touch that they think Prohibition is effective?"- Eldo

Apparently so, the UK and the US governments being among them.
What annoys me about this open letter is most of the people who have signed it, certainly on the political side, were in a position when they could have done something about it if they had spoken out whilst they were still in politics. For some very odd reason every politician in the world, from local to international level seems terrified of even suggesting prohibition might not be working. Yet as soon as they leave office, and can no longer do anything about it, they start saying this sort of thing. Well if they believe drug laws don't work and are harmful why did they enact and support them whilst in power?