Gwadien
Uneducated Northern Cretin
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,135
I love it when the Church gets upset they can't afford a new £10k roof.
Entire lead roof stolen from church
Entire lead roof stolen from church
There are individual parishes that operate on a tight budget. And then there is the church as a corporation that has shed loads of money. Thats why the parishes complain when some dick steals all the lead.I love it when the Church gets upset they can't afford a new £10k roof.
Entire lead roof stolen from church
They won't spend the money they have, just expect the local community to rebuild or pay it. I bet they wish they could bring back the dark ages minus the Catholic bit of course.I love it when the Church gets upset they can't afford a new £10k roof.
Entire lead roof stolen from church
My mother used to be a secretary for a financial manager that looked after the CoE property in London. Back when she worked there they were the shitiest landlords going and in the seediest parts of London. She never trusted them after that experience.I support people stealing lead off Church roofs, it's tax in my point of view.
As for the parishes that operate on a tight budget?
LOL, our whole welfare state is broken, everything is massive underfunded, they can get fucked asking for more money when they're balling and not paying tax.
The biggest joke of the Church is schools - they contribute like 5% of a total school's budget and they still get to call it a religious school, fuck off, they're rolling in it.
You truly have to wonder what goes through some people's heads:
![]()
There was something like that awhile ago, guy got shot in the head while he was live streaming in his car and showing off his gun, his girlfriend picked up the gun and pointed it at his head and it went off, not sure if he died but there was fucking blood shooting out of his noggin.
If it was the same one I'm thinking of I think she got done for attempted murder and he actually survived.
I was close:
View: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CqzGS_1522716819Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
As of August, the guy is alive and is sitting up and speaking. The woman is being charged with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and tampering with evidence.
Is wrong.Not indiscriminate, and not murder. Whether you like it or not, both cities were legitimate targets with factories, docks and troops.
Wayy to crowded for me. Makes me shudder
Like the fire bombing of dresden, or the in descriminate bombing of coventry or london or berlin.Back from a weekend away.
Whether it worked or not is immaterial. This:
Is wrong.
The factories, docks and troops may have been legitimate targets, but the entire city, the children, families, people who may have profoundly disagreed with the war, or even civilian supporters of it (because they read what the press said) were certainly NOT legitimate targets.
They were murdered, en-masse, by a weapon that is indiscriminate by design.
It was a horrendous and despicable war crime, regardless of what any other outcomes may, or may not, have been. And the whole world is still now living under the dark shadow of nuclear weapons and the threat, however remote or not you may think it is, of annihilation by our own hands.
Again. Disgusting. The fact that it went on like that (more ordinance was dropped on Dresden than on Hiroshima - and it was a city with no military value whatsoever, it was simply the "Florence of the North" and everyone was murdered to make a point.Like the fire bombing of dresden, or the in descriminate bombing of coventry or london or berlin.
Bull. Wrong is wrong. We can understand the thought processes but we can absolutely condemn them - because they were horrendous crimes against civilians.It was a different time and should not be judged on todays values but on those of the time.
All the Allies had agreed they wanted unconditional surrender of the Axis as early as January 1943, before the Bomb was even designed and the Manhattan Project was barely four months old. That would be some pretty prescient thinking to predict events two and half years down the line.
NB. Japan never once sent out a peace overture that didn't insist on the preservation of existing Japanese Government and Society (and no occupation). They weren't taken seriously because they weren't serious. Even after Hiroshima, the Army was preparing to stage a coup rather than let the Government surrender.
Back from a weekend away.
Whether it worked or not is immaterial. This:
Is wrong.
The factories, docks and troops may have been legitimate targets, but the entire city, the children, families, people who may have profoundly disagreed with the war, or even civilian supporters of it (because they read what the press said) were certainly NOT legitimate targets.
They were murdered, en-masse, by a weapon that is indiscriminate by design.
It was a horrendous and despicable war crime, regardless of what any other outcomes may, or may not, have been. And the whole world is still now living under the dark shadow of nuclear weapons and the threat, however remote or not you may think it is, of annihilation by our own hands.
Again. Disgusting. The fact that it went on like that (more ordinance was dropped on Dresden than on Hiroshima - and it was a city with no military value whatsoever, it was simply the "Florence of the North" and everyone was murdered to make a point.
And this:
Bull. Wrong is wrong. We can understand the thought processes but we can absolutely condemn them - because they were horrendous crimes against civilians.
Don't be an apologist for mass murder. You can understand why it happens, but absolutely condemn it as a war crime that must never be repeated.
Same here..went mtbing instead.Wayy to crowded for me. Makes me shudder
Nothing will stop anything when the shit hots the fan..our nukes can be turned down to 500 tonnes.You could actually argue that the dropping of those two A-Bombs is now a very large deterrent to using them ever again.
I find this interesting.
A quick quote from the article:
"The St. Petersburg-based online magazine Bumaga found and interviewed one of the men appearing in the recording, who said that he was paid for acting as a victim.
So, if the video is fiction, and if In The Now even openly states this – what is then the purpose of promoting the story to international audiences? What is in it for a Russian state media outlet?"
There's many of these kind of articles that puts men against women, either on social media but also in regular newspapers. Some more intricate and well produced than others.
It's almost like someone is trying to put down the leftie-snowflakes on purpose.
Why does Russia want a powerful Right?