Shriek! More PC madness! *wave Daily Mail angrily*

[Tom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

I mean come on, whoever called the police must be losing their marbles!

 

[Brynn]

fucking fags!

 

[Wij]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

I mean come on, whoever called the police must be losing their marbles!

Sending the coppaz round was perhaps a tad much

 

[JBP|]

If gay people made the decision not to think gay, they would not act gay.

Only a Christian would come out with a statement like this

 

[nath]

They look like a couple of nazi bastards but I'll defend their right to spout their foul hateful shit to the death*. Bringing the police in was absurd.













*Or not, perhaps just continue to spout bollocks about it on green message forums.

 

[throdgrain]

Happy Christmas Nath

 

[nath]

Bah Humbug :|






(you too)

 

[Scouse]

Only a Christian would come out with a statement like this

Really? How about all the muslim countries that would see botty sex between men resulting in a death penalty?

Personally, what the fuck is a council doing spending the taxpayers hard-earned printing gay lifestyle magazines? Couldn't the local NHS do with the cash to spend on nurses salaries or something useful? Why are they even involved in commenting on people's sexuality.

The real crime here is that, regardless of how you feel, you're being told by the government that you're not allowed to hold an opinion.

Mr Roberts had asked if the council would display Christian leaflets, and was told all applications would be considered, but nothing that would offend minority groups would be approved.

What about offending majority groups?

Bah-humbug everyone!

 

[Turamber]

So what is it ... are people not allowed a different opinion to the Powers That Be, or is it just wrong to express it? It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuals were legislated against by Governments, now Governments (or at least this one) like to be seen as pro-gay. Rather than being sheep and just thinking what we are told to, why not make our own mind up about things?

 

[Furr]

I see it this way, gay men = more women for the rest of us, and yes what about the lesbo's, well from my experience the image of extreemly fit lesbians in those porn fantasies... is a fantasy. Soooo let them eat cake, doesn't bother me.

As long as a gay bloke doesn't try and chat me up in the mens room... then i might get scared and run far far away!

Also when meeting a bunch of strangers don't let you mates make a gay joke and laugh... only to be told that a couple of the strangers were gay... oh dear... that was bad...

 

[Scouse]

Rather than being sheep and just thinking what we are told to, why not make our own mind up about things?

Since Labour got in I've felt increasingly like, if they could, they'd put a camera in my head that would video and report anything I did that wasn't to their liking.

Speed cameras have been put up everywhere with no noticeable result on reducing the overall deaths on our roads but massively noticeable infringments on our civil liberties.

Anti terrorist legislation that most of the legal profession think should be illegal, not to mention going to war on false pretences. (Who can blame the terrorist wankers when we act just like them, just on a larger scale?)

We're about to become the first country in the world to introduce ID cards when we're not at war. (Which is what it's taken other countries before they would introduce them).

Now the mind police are taking trips to the pensioners because they write letters expressing their opinions.

They've not beaten anyone up. They've not sent hate mail to gay people. They've written a letter to their council objecting to their policy. Isn't that how we're supposed to act in a democracy?

 

[Furr]

Oh Oh Oh

What about that the police are asking Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is to give officers a right of access on private land to check hunting activity and make arrests.

erm... No!

Im sorry but the police have to get a warrant if they want to search private land/property, thats the way it is, this protects the public from the police being given the power to search and intrude into people homes willy nilly.

 

[Scouse]

Oh Oh Oh

What about that the police are asking Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is to give officers a right of access on private land to check hunting activity and make arrests.

erm... No!

Im sorry but the police have to get a warrant if they want to search private land/property, thats the way it is, this protects the public from the police being given the power to search and intrude into people homes willy nilly.

Vote Labour, vote well-meaning 1984-ness...



On a lighter note, my girlfriend can't find her "spring break shennanigans" My Little Pony that she got for Christmas.


Edit: /scouse realises that the last line makes him look like a paedophile. She's 26 actually. 6 years younger than him. Nice, nubile but definately legal... WINNER!

 

[Tom]

Im sorry but the police have to get a warrant if they want to search private land/property, thats the way it is, this protects the public from the police being given the power to search and intrude into people homes willy nilly.

Actually, I think the police don't need a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is in the process of committing a crime. Could be wrong though.

 

[Scouse]

Actually, I think the police don't need a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is in the process of committing a crime. Could be wrong though.

You're right.

But if the police are asking the home secretary for new powers they are asking for the right to intrude onto peoples private lands with nothing that you can call "reasonable grounds".

If they had "reasonable grounds" they'd already be there.


What'll have happened here (IMHO) is that they'll have gone to a judge saying "we want a warrant to see if a hunt is performing illegally, see if we can arrest anyone".

Judge would have said "have you reasonable grounds for suspicion?"

To which the police probably answered "no, we think that everyone is a nasty piece of shit who we'd love to spy on, and since we've got Tony Blair in our pocket if you don't give us the warrant we'll go and get the law changed so we can do what we like. Just like we did with the terrorism laws."

To which I hope the judge replied "go piss up a rope, fuckstick"

 

[Milkshake]

How come Schizophrenia isn't as widely accepted as Homosexuality?

The mind boggles

 

[Scouse]

How come Schizophrenia isn't as widely accepted as Homosexuality?

The mind boggles

That fucking rocks on so many different levels m8

 

[Yoni]

I think it was just a sign of their era rather than a religious point of view. I wouldn't talk to my dad about the nature / nurture debate about homosexuality because I know what his stance would be. Although he is a catholic he is quite open to discussions about "modern day living" (sex before marriage, children out of marriage, divorce etc etc etc) but not this issue...

I think it was just how that generation were brough up......

 

[Scouse]

I think it was just a sign of their era rather than a religious point of view. I wouldn't talk to my dad about the nature / nurture debate about homosexuality because I know what his stance would be. Although he is a catholic he is quite open to discussions about "modern day living" (sex before marriage, children out of marriage, divorce etc etc etc) but not this issue...

I think it was just how that generation were brough up......

Have you considered that, as he is "open to discussions", that you're the one who can't consider any of his points of view as valid because, currently, society is telling everyone that he's wrong?

There is no debate on gay issues in this country - there is only a huge media voice telling the current majority that how they feel about gay men is wrong.


Personally, I don't give a fuck what anyone gets up to in their bedroom. I'm not going to say "I have gay mates" or anything like that - I don't. I do work happily and closely with four gay men though.

On the other hand there is a real inequality in any arguments. For example the gay's cause aids "debate".

Until the late nineties the number of gay people with HIV in this country outnumbered the number of straight people. That's quite an astounding fact considering straight people outnumber gay people ten to one.

Up until then the main route of transfer of HIV to the straight community was through bisexual men sleeping with women and then women passing it on to straight men. (Since the turn of the century the numbers no longer stack up like that because enough straight people are now infected to be the major source. The other major one now is immigration from countries like Africa etc).

There's been a huge effort by charitable organisations/the media/pressure groups/the government to get the message across that AIDS is not a "gay disease". And right now, they're right.

Then, they weren't. The actions of gay men are such that HIV spreads like wildfire in that community. It's not their fault but the gay lifestyle (many anonymous partners) was responsible for the very quick spread of the disease in this country.

Now, I'd never hate gay people for that. Like I said - it's not like they went around wanting to spread HIV. However, if you go round fucking loads of people then that's your choice and you are responsible for your actions.

Therefore, the inescapable fact is, if gay men weren't so promiscuous then HIV wouldn't be half the problem it is now.


Now, if I wrote that in a paper or said it on the street I could be locked up for that.

There's no debate. There's no "freedom of speech". There are laws that are designed to change the viewpoint of the majority of the population. - More government tinkering.

Now. I totally think that gay men should be allowed to live their lives how they want. Absolutely.

What I do get fucked off about is that, if someone does something bad and they're from a minority group we're not allowed to berate them for it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What i always wonder is "I don't care what people do in their bedrooms", as it seems to say that gay people are only gay because of the sex thingy.

All in all i don't find it personally threatening/offensive/bad/whatnot if people are gay or not, everythings cool if you don't try to change others.

 

[Yoni]

Have you considered that, as he is "open to discussions", that you're the one who can't consider any of his points of view as valid because, currently, society is telling everyone that he's wrong?

I have had the debate with my dad hence how i know there is no point in discussing it with him as we will never agree.. it has naff all to do with who is right and who is wrong....

 

[rynnor]

On the other hand there is a real inequality in any arguments. For example the gay's cause aids "debate".

Until the late nineties the number of gay people with HIV in this country outnumbered the number of straight people. That's quite an astounding fact considering straight people outnumber gay people ten to one.

Up until then the main route of transfer of HIV to the straight community was through bisexual men sleeping with women and then women passing it on to straight men. (Since the turn of the century the numbers no longer stack up like that because enough straight people are now infected to be the major source. The other major one now is immigration from countries like Africa etc).

There's been a huge effort by charitable organisations/the media/pressure groups/the government to get the message across that AIDS is not a "gay disease". And right now, they're right.

Then, they weren't. The actions of gay men are such that HIV spreads like wildfire in that community. It's not their fault but the gay lifestyle (many anonymous partners) was responsible for the very quick spread of the disease in this country.

Now, I'd never hate gay people for that. Like I said - it's not like they went around wanting to spread HIV. However, if you go round fucking loads of people then that's your choice and you are responsible for your actions.

Therefore, the inescapable fact is, if gay men weren't so promiscuous then HIV wouldn't be half the problem it is now.

Do you really mean this stuff or what??? Its horrible - AIDs is a virus not some kind of judgement by the gods - just because gay men were a major source of it spreading to the west in the early days does not mean they caused it - it would have spread without them maybe a bit slower but so what?

Its like blaming people in china for getting infected with bird flu!!!

In the early days nobody understood what Aids was - once people realised it was a sexually transmissable virus people by and large used condoms - but by then a lot of people had become infected.

You cannot blame human beings for having sex - its what human beings do!

 

[Draylor]

Its like blaming people in china for getting infected with bird flu!!!

Well if they didnt go around bumming chickens ...

 

[ECA]

Do you really mean this stuff or what??? Its horrible - AIDs is a virus not some kind of judgement by the gods - just because gay men were a major source of it spreading to the west in the early days does not mean they caused it - it would have spread without them maybe a bit slower but so what?

Its like blaming people in china for getting infected with bird flu!!!

In the early days nobody understood what Aids was - once people realised it was a sexually transmissable virus people by and large used condoms - but by then a lot of people had become infected.

You cannot blame human beings for having sex - its what human beings do!

He didnt say they causes it, he said becuase of their lifestyle they were more likely to contract and spread it.

If heteros outnumber homos by 10:1, and an equal number of hertos and homos have aids, than homosexuals are 10x more likely to have aids.

Its just statistics, not judgement.

 

[rynnor]

He didnt say they causes it, he said becuase of their lifestyle they were more likely to contract and spread it.

If heteros outnumber homos by 10:1, and an equal number of hertos and homos have aids, than homosexuals are 10x more likely to have aids.

Its just statistics, not judgement.

Well he actually said 'if gay men werent so promiscous HIV wouldnt be half the problem it is now' which the statistics dont support - most of the people in this country with HIV have migrated from Africa and are pre-dominantly straight - will we now blame people who have sex with them for spreading it around?

 

[Scouse]

He didnt say they causes it, he said becuase of their lifestyle they were more likely to contract and spread it.

If heteros outnumber homos by 10:1, and an equal number of hertos and homos have aids, than homosexuals are 10x more likely to have aids.

Its just statistics, not judgement.

Thanks

 

[leggy]

On an unrelated note... is anyone else getting fed up of "OMGZ DAILY MAIL!"?

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE DAILY MAIL YOU FUCKING UNORIGINAL CRETINS.

Thanks.

Leggy.

 

[Draylor]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE DAILY MAIL YOU FUCKING UNORIGINAL CRETINS.