
Thought this was very sweet.
An online mass of female Johnny Depp fans each made a square, sent it to the organiser who sewed them all together and fashioned a quilt for him.
Even more lully is the thank-you note he sent back.
*Faith in humanity: restored*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:57, Reply)

Although the cynic in me thinks that there is probably a restraining order featuring those signatures in effect, but nice internets, nice.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:15, Reply)

a lot of adjectives in his letter... the sentences are a little long.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

I have always wondered about Jakob Neilsons tips...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:29, Reply)

The new series of 'Clue' started last night on Radio 4. For all of you who missed it, here it is.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:22, Reply)

20% just seems way more than 17.5% and it's easier to work out.
I wonder if more things are going to try to be classed as food now. How about edible DVD cases?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:32, Reply)

and set VAT to 40%, accept 'for this week ONLY!' when VAT is 50% off!
Then everyone would go to the shops thinking they're getting great deal, only for the exact same offer the next week!
Are those sofas ever full price?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:51, Reply)

Apologies just noticed this has already been posted, should I delete it?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:57, Reply)

... I may as well pimp my image challenge suggestion:
www.b3ta.com/questions/imagechallenge/post763382
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:16, Reply)

Shameless spammy pearoast because it got no love last night.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:42, Reply)

...but you really should eat a little bit more!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 17:34, Reply)

Pretty interesting stuff.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:23, Reply)

Equalling £48bn out of everyone's pockets?
M****rf****r.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:31, Reply)

( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:34, Reply)

/Zimbabwe
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:37, Reply)

...put up the bank levy much further and all the big boys (JP Morgan, Citi, Credit Suisse etc) will just leave the UK. They really don't need to be here, and half their London staff aren't British anyway.
And the poor showing from CGT is due to the fact it's just phenomenally ineffective. The truly rich and big corporations hire clever accountants and lawyers to pay virtually none, so it's only the kind of upper middle class speculators who pay it. And there aren't that many of them playing with a lot of money...
VAT is indefensible philosophically, but one of the easiest taxes to actually generate money with.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:38, Reply)

lots of the big banks will be eyeing Singapore and Hong Kong if the UK taxes get too large.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:42, Reply)

Where would they go? Most other developed places have already hiked up their taxes, and they need to be based somewhere connected and central in order to function. Plus London is on the meridian, which makes time keeping and all that way simpler...
I'm not saying that it's an empty threat, just that we should properly assess this risk rather than just accepting the blithe threat that they would all just piss off and take all their non-dom directors with them.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:43, Reply)

... makes not the slightest difference.
The obvious answer to your question is Switzerland, specifically Geneva and Zurich.
That's a very real, obvious threat. Well developed, big finance centre already, low crime, low tax, good flights to everywhere.
And would they? Well to some extent many have effectively. When banks were making redundancies in their global teams, they hacked hardest where taxes dictated. The point is that when they next hire, we'd like some of it to be here...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:28, Reply)

It seems globalisation* has allowed megabanks to commoditise nations: if nation A does not bend over, the megabanks will simply move to nation B.
If these megabanks were doing something criminal, citizens of all nations would demand cooperation (something like Interpol) to prevent these banks just changing nation to avoid justice. But as it's not criminal, nations are doing the opposite: competing to attract these banks, and at least earn some tax rather than none.
With crime, it's a pretty easy mental leap from small scale examples in our personal experience (eg. getting mugged) to demanding that our governments take large-scale action (eg. Interpol, sanctions against states harbouring terrorists, etc), cooperating between nations.
It won't be anything like so easy to get the whole world to agree on what is a just contribution -- ie. a just level of taxation -- that should be taken from the profits of banks (who trade on society's commerce), and given to the (elected governments of the) billions of ordinary people who actually constitute that society and that commerce.
(* "globalisation": I mean reduced barriers to international trade and finance, making it even easier for megabanks to switch from nation A to a higher bidder).
Caveat lector: I probably don't know what I'm talking about, as though that wasn't obvious.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:56, Reply)

Yes, banks are not "misty eyed" about their responsibility to Britain - and most of them are not British, so why should they really?
It's what used to happen on a national scale (let's move our Head Office to Milton Keynes to save rent) but happening on a global scale.
But I think we should remember the reason they do this: it's their job. The people who run big companies are responsible, BY LAW, to shareholders. And actually quite often that IS us, through pension funds etc. If they can see a way to legally reduce overheads and pay increased dividends to shareholders, they have a moral responsibility to do so.
The inequitable thing about these global businesses in many ways is the fact that most of them pay most of the tax they do pay in countries that need it least (here, the US etc).
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:36, Reply)

If everyone thinks such flight from tax is bad, the proper mechanism to prevent it is to enact new law.
Pessimistically, I don't see that happening. It's unstable: there's too large a reward for being a defector nation. (Nation X decides to relax its bank taxes, and sees an influx of bank trade).
It's prisoners' dilemma / tragedy of the commons territory. To overcome that, it takes a really simple, powerful, personal mental image to get everyone to cooperate, and to effectively shun defectors. Perhaps one day.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:46, Reply)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHV4qy6CEXTPufLxX7emismvbp3QD9GGCV1O0 -- "Germany, France, UK commit to bank tax"
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:41, Reply)

and you don't think you'll have enough bullets or bombs for the people you believe hate you if you lower military spending a bit?
strikes me as a very american way of thinking
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:54, Reply)

partially because Britain is one of the biggest weapons manufacturers in the world, and partially because all the MP's fathers got rich in the arms business. They'd never cut it, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, to pun.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:48, Reply)

that there is a world of bad publicity involved with soldiers losing jobs or getting cut pay. The Daily Mail will literally eat its own face.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:11, Reply)

It puts military budgets of different countries into better perspective (I'm not saying I support the spending, just thought it was interesting)
www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/01/information-is-beautiful-military-spending
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:30, Reply)

If you liked that, this is Des Lynam reciting Rudyard Kipling's "If" www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuihw2q_Ts
EDIT: Thanks to Darklord for This
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:17, Reply)

Rip this video and post it up somewhere where I can see it? BBC doesn't let me watch it. They think I'm a filthy Australian convict.
Cheers
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:25, Reply)

So try This instead
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:46, Reply)

Lamnia
Worked for me in the Caribbean, works for me in Spain.
Works with BBC and Sky Player.
P.s. Also works with XBOX Live if you share the connection from your pc.
P.p.s. I don't work for Lamnia.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:16, Reply)

"The coalition government says we are all in this together. A one-litre Merlot wine box at Asda costs £10. They know what they have to do. They should sell the government wine cellar."
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:14, Reply)

All they do is make themselves and their mates rich!*
*steps off soapbox
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:18, Reply)

glass cock says no!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:53, Reply)

I love it when cats has that pissed off look on their face :-D
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:56, Reply)

* Dogs in fact may and frequently do do ^ this
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:33, Reply)

A sharp whack with a hammer would have sorted that out much quicker.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:24, Reply)

you decide what the cuts the Govt should make it today's emergency budget
On my first gut feel, I achieved £75.7bn - that means an extra £1.7bn to spend on beer and chips!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:34, Reply)

but I don't see a problem in raising VAT to a European standard, perhaps even going the way of the Scandinavians and hitting the big 25%
It's really hard to take into account the subtleties of things like reducing public order, defence and the NHS, and especially the last one "other". I managed to save £28.2 billion on "other" alone.
25% VAT generates 36 billion smackaroonies.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:40, Reply)

if you don't want something - then don't buy it - it sounds daft but many things are too cheap at the moment. Products that are overpriced anyway will be reduced in price to make up for the vat increase
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:45, Reply)

I believe that the bare essentials, like food and baby type items are VAT free and therefore a raise in VAT only affects the "luxury" items (and ahem, businesses).
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:51, Reply)

So when VAT goes up, so does your food. Even though its VAT-exempt.
Besides which, Georgy Boy has just raised VAT to 20%
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:15, Reply)

hence the brackets... but still less of an impact hopefully than other cutbacks. For example the 15% to 17.5% affected me and my business marginally at best..
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:43, Reply)

...but last week, did tory mp Eric Pickles tell councils to stop saving money with fortnightly bin collections?
Is it just me, or is once a fortnight perfectly adequate for the bins we have (your mileage may vary - I have a blue wheelie bin for recyclables, a green one for compostable waste and a black bin for 'other')
Shouldn't councils be saving money any way they can?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:47, Reply)

as our garden is about 8 feet square. I don't want rotten refuse that close to my house for a fortnight, bagged up or not.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:52, Reply)

as long as they did the recyclables every week
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:02, Reply)

I have a compost heap, and recycle paper, bottles, cartons and cans. (Manchester City Council is reasonable about recycling.)
I have my wheelie bin emptied about once every two months, and it's only about half-full even then.
My neighbours manage to have theirs overflowing every week. I genuinely don't know how they manage it.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)

I live in quite a poor area - and yet the MASSIVE Tesco down the road is stacked to the rafters with plastic food.
Result? The people around me end up spending unnecessarily large amounts of money that they don't have on food that leaves them obese yet malnourished. Yes, I do count obesity as malnutrition.
(On a similar topic: I noticed the other day that Tesco sells special hubcap-cleaning fluid, and - and I could barely believe this - special dashboard polish. Really, you have to admire their genius for squeezing money out of chavs.)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)

hubcap cleaner is specially formulated to dissolve brake lining dust and dashboard cleaner is the only liquid on earth that smells like lemons
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)

*searches*
*fails to find flaw in this account*
*emulates*
*profits from chavs*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)

the same amount is produced.
In my area, recyclables tend to get collected weekly and the rest fortnightly
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)

give me the option to cut local govt high earners pay, MPs expenses, over cost not wanted and poorly performing govt IT projects etc
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)

I'd cut a lot more.
The UK is no longer a world power, and should stop pretending to be one. What it is very good at is providing special-forces type support. Were it down to me, I'd cut a large chunk of the Army, and significant bits of the RAF and Navy, on the basis that they're just not necessary for the foreseeable future: the UK won't be fighting any defensive territorial wars for at least half a century, and possibly ever again.
I'd also cut all nuclear weapons, and give up the UN Security Council seat. Canada and Germany seem to do perfectly well without either.
What it can, and ought to, do is concentrate on small, acute operations, and on cyberwarfare.
You don't need many people for that.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)

no expenses in travel as they all work from their Mum's basement, and all it costs is a monthly World of warcraft subscription per operative
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)

Territorial warfare is basically economic warfare by other means. But it's an inefficient method.
The future will be all about disabling infrastructure without damaging it, and in a manner that can be repaired in a matter of hours rather than decades.
I appear to be turning into Jean Baudrillard...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:24, Reply)

the publicity will be like for the presiding government who cuts that level of forces. Can you imagine the red-tops?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:21, Reply)

:)
EDIT FOR ELABORATION: I don't see any moral reason why government policy should have to have anything to do with popular sentiment. Of course, it'd be nice if the population supported a good policy - but it strikes me as being more important that it's a good policy to begin with.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:42, Reply)

...and are not always viewed kindly in hindsight - or indeed at the time.
Democracy may be ****ed up, but it's less ****ed up than someone deciding they know best, and then not bothering to convince everyone else.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:21, Reply)

as you say, we should reduce the amount of spending on the forces, and some of the big defense projects. I mean the eurofighter, who are we going to use those against that we haven't already got treaties with, or can overpower with our existing ones, as well as the trident replacement.
however, i reckon that we'll continue to have a large ground based army, not only for political muscle and existing agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, and our "special" relationship with the US, but for the future, especially Argentina, now that they've found oil offshore.
As you say, we should be funnelling money not only into cyberwarfare (especially with the number of attacks from China), but also into drones, since that will allow us to reduce costs if we're going to continue in pointless wars.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:08, Reply)

You don't need a large army: you need a disproportionately well-trained and equipped one. I take your point about the Malvinas - but there's NATO and the UN to act as policeman there (assuming you think they ought to be British anyway, and assuming you think it'd make any difference at all in the long run) - and the WHO.
With peak oil on the horizon, there'll be a big shift away from petrochemical resources around the world; and when that happens, noone'll be fighting over oil wells anyway. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
Besides: if there ever was a serious threat to the UK's integrity, and assuming you give a toss about that, conventional re-armament'd be quite easy within a few years.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)

inevitable spin off;
tubedubber.com/#Ljrv979j7tw:zJv5qLsLYoo:0:100:0:0:true
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:29, Reply)

not the topic, but the total biased nature of it. One token Atheist against a room of believers. Never lets a word in edge ways and laughed at at any opportunity. It just turns into a 'mmm, mmm, explain THAT Mr Scientist'... 'ok, here goes'. 'There is no way you can explain that', 'well, give us a cha...' 'HA stupid, you cant can you' kinda debate.
Is there evidence of any God? Is there any evidence of rationality at the BBC more like.
Rant over, time for a cuppa...
part 2 here
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:02, Reply)

God is REAL, he made the internets!
And he Loves you (but not in a shirt lifting way)
*and I need to lay off the love drugs, in the mornings
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:07, Reply)

I seem to have a sore arse...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:09, Reply)

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10321466.stm
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:28, Reply)

"God is LOVE*
God is REAL, he made the internets!
And he Loves you (but not in a shirt lifting way)"
No! No! No!
God is a cunt!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 18:52, Reply)

that smug twat at the start talking shite was enough for me. utter wanker talking utter shite.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:09, Reply)

They were going to be talking about assisted dying and euthanasia, and found my name - the topic is among my research interests. Apparently, the Archbishop of Canterbury was going to be another panellist.
The researcher rang up and asked me some questions to see if I would have something interesting to say. We chatted for about half an hour, and it seemed to go well.
At the end of our conversation, she said, "That sounds great - exactly the sort of thing we need. Now, the problem is, we'll be filming in Southampton, and that's quite a long way from Manchester. So do you know of anyone further south who'd be willing to make the same kind of point?"
I lasted 4 seconds for this clip, btw...
EDIT: GAH! I watched some! I've seen Adam Deen speak. He's an idiot. The fact that he describes himself as a philosopher here makes my blood boil. Mr Deen: a philosopher - like a scientist - is someone who starts with questions, not with answers. ergo, you are not a philosopher.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:14, Reply)

I think I still would have made it, and just tutted all the way through it :-)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:17, Reply)

Were it a matter of the expense, I'd've stood that happily - or, at least, charged it to my employer. The problem was that the invitation was withdrawn.
:(
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:21, Reply)

I just think it was there way of saying 'you are far too intelligent for this program'.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:25, Reply)

how would you have coped with all the religious nutters and stayed calm?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:32, Reply)

I have no problem with euthanasia or AD - though I do have problems with the way a lot of the laws about it are framed.
I think Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was fatally flawed (badum-tish!) - he told me himself that he kind of agrees - and the current bill in Scotland, by setting a lower limit at 16, is unjustifiably ageist. I told them that in my written evidence to their current enquiry - let's see how far that goes...
EDIT: as for the staying calm - well, I'd have managed that. Even if I say so myself, I'm quite good at flattening people in argument with a smile on my face...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:39, Reply)

..with believers is that you just cannot win. They have nothing to go on, so they rest back on faith, and the fact that they dont HAVE to prove a damn thing through science. By resting on the faith argument, and essentially saying 'you just have to believe me', then they are above even debate, which makes them impossible to debate with.
Fuck em.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:07, Reply)

There is no point arguing with believers, they have their heads in a wooly safe place akin to putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and shouting "LALALALALALALA" while you try to talk to them.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:17, Reply)

I lasted up to 01:18 when my eye-balls started to roll around of their own accord and I began smearing my monitor with bogies.
Wouldn't it be great for someone to quote old Douglas Adams (gawd rest 'im) when he said something along the lines of "proof of God's existence would mean the redundancy of faith (when faced with the existance of the Babel Fish), without which God wouldn't exist". God pondered this for a nano-second before disappearing in a puff of logic.
I hate these self-satisfied pharasaical toss-pots. Can't you be sent to hell for being a smug show-off? Probably.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:20, Reply)

*converts*
Nice Adams quote btw :-)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:24, Reply)

... the first question from the audience was about whether non-Muslims would automatically go to Hell.
He said no: only those who were aware of Islam and didn't accept it would go there. Those who had been born before Islam, or who had never been exposed to it, would be treated mercifully (!).
The questioner was genuinely disappointed by this fact. It was a really strange experience.
(It was also strange that, at a public lecture on University grounds, they still insisted on segregating the men and women...)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:29, Reply)

In a corner, on its own was a Euthanasia machine. I got a stunned luck from her when I said 'ah, every home should have one'. I prolly shouldnt have said it so load. Museums are quiet places.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:35, Reply)

At school, I remember being told by our teachers to find out more about Youth In Asia. Never having heard the word 'euthanasia' before, I handed in a good piece about kids in India and was rewarded with a "you-smug-little-shit" look from my teacher. I was honestly dumbfounded.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:51, Reply)

so the next day I said 'urinate miss, but if your tits were bigger you'd be a 10'.*
may be a lie.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:56, Reply)

and am amused to see your good self with this from a few years back.
( , Thu 8 Aug 2013, 22:00, Reply)

knowledge without any actions. they talk the talk but don't wlk the walk. like most religious hypocrites.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:30, Reply)

Yes, i used the word 'pharasaical' in the "holier-than-thou" context of the word. Sorry for any confusion.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:46, Reply)

should not be allowed on telly. They have debates like 'does the NHS work?'. People stick their hands up and say 'Oh, if people believed in God they wouldnt get drunk and have to go to hospital'. Nobody was talking about God, they were talking about the NHS. Every question gets religion shoe-horned into it despite having no relevance.
This debate shows exactly how this show works. Sit a scientist down and throw a bunch of god-bashers at him. Why ois this program allowed? It's biased. I would argue that it goes against our British principals of tolerance. After all, Christianity supposes that all non-believers and subscribers to other religions are going to hell.
09:05 "Tell us about love". I have never wanted to kick someones protuding chin off their fucking head so fucking much in my cunting life.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:21, Reply)

and he was going to humour her, but wasnt aloud too...
I think you are right too, it should not be allowed to be on telly. There are/were some great religious programming this year (the history of the bible, the history of christianity) all very well balanced (apart from Anne Widdecombe, who is as batty as Mr McBat winning the battiest bat competition at Battington) and a joy to watch.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:31, Reply)

which can be done well - and religious programmes?
(It's analogous to the difference between rock music made by Christians, and Christian rock. The former stands at least a chance of not sucking - although, admittedly, the existence of Good Charlotte, Sixpence None the Richer and Feeder count against that claim...)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:36, Reply)

and kinda my point before I got distracted by a shiny thing...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:46, Reply)

..why is it even assumed that the religious opinion should have its voice on tv at all? Why is it deemed important enough to have it's own slot? I dont see a pro-muslim hour, or a a pro-hindu show, or a program to promote the idea that lemonade is a cure for aids, or some such other nonsense that is plucked from thin air.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:36, Reply)

bit as much as I am a Dawkins grade atheist, I believe that religion has had a big hand in how the world has been shaped. I find churches and cathedrals breath taking, and also have the viewpoint that I must understand something before I believe/not believe it. I also find how and why people believe things interesting also. Just a me thing I s'pose :-)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:41, Reply)

Cue endless stream of none-too-bright people going, "But atheism's just a religion, too"...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:50, Reply)

kinda. I made a similar comment about churches and such, now she thinks I am a closet believer, and is going to buy me a cross for my birthday.
(I know what you meant btw:-)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:55, Reply)

in ye olde times.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:10, Reply)

The BBC are honor bound to broadcast pro-religion propoganda
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:05, Reply)

except for the proffessor guy, but he isn't enough to keep me watching cos I heard it all before.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:33, Reply)

believers one side, non-believers the other. Agnostics in the middle, and one panelist to represent each section...
I was wrong...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:36, Reply)

are blind to the truth.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:37, Reply)

this stuff shouldn't be posted on here.. its distracting from the real world...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:38, Reply)

but i bet if those little dudes could talk 4 of them would ask you to explain "Skweeeee" if there was no god!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:46, Reply)

Or however you spell it, fuck religion god abandond me in my times of need. and don't get me started on all that relgious tripe.
Edit: rant mode
Christianity, was a member of the C of E, can't abide being a christian anymore. Evangelicalists can fuck right off. Islam, if i don't believe in your relgion i'm going to hell? fuck off. they can all fuck off too with their medeival religion. Buddism, Chill out? yes please but its not my cup of tea. Judasim, as bad as christinaity. 'Druidic cults' yes you are so new aged, go back to smoking your weed hippy. and to any other religion, Shut up and fuck off.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:42, Reply)

Most people would have said 'well, I suppose it wasnt my turn for god to be kind to me'.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:47, Reply)

A non religious person would have turned religious O.o
And i had an evangelical girlfriend who would mention the church almost all the time... never again (but she did have some massive tits)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:56, Reply)

Me again. Just been onto the blog of Adam Deen (the smug, sanctimonious punchbag in the first bit) and he's a man with some very strong views that he's more than happy to share. adamdeen.blogspot.com/2008/05/next-stop-muslim-homosexuality.html
The quiet religious people are OK (my nan etc). It's the ones who shove it right down your throat, think they know what 'God' was thinking when he neglected to mention dinosaurs in the bible and don't tolerate other people's views that really get on my tits.
Whoever mentioned "kicking the chin of someone's face" is talking my language.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:44, Reply)

really need a cup of tea and a quick go on red dead before the missus comes back...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:48, Reply)

Deen is an idiot, and oughtn't to call himself a philosopher.
A philosopher starts with questions, not with answers.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:53, Reply)

In a tiny sentence you have done two things. Described a philosopher and rubbished Mr Deen's smug, shit-munching face. Awesome.
Notice how he looked up into the air when he was talking. That just made him look even more like a deranged lunatic. And his eyes are too close together.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:02, Reply)

*Ker-ching!*
[edit]: Also, amazingly he writes "If the Muslims don’t have a dedicated support network to facilitate this matter [curing homosexuality]"- can you imagine that? "Iman, I am fighting gay feelings." "That's okay, we have a dedicated support network" *pause* "BRING OUT THE SHARPENED STONES!"
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:31, Reply)

They're hardly going to spend a great deal of time doing the research and getting a balanced audience for a 20 minute filler slot inbetween trisha and jeremy kyle.
It's obviously completely biased, and the one poor bastard with any reasoning hasn't the chance and/or the oratory skills to deal with the baying mob surrounding him (I imagine he would have been furious afterwards at being almost ridiculed like that).
I suspect next week they'll be trying to work out the cure for cancer in 20 minutes as well. Plus I imagine the producer of the show moonlights as an editor for one of those weekly mags that feature stories about people giving birth to their own mums, falling in love with their dogs, or being abducted by aliens, etc...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:49, Reply)

then they had a chance of at least making it 50/50.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:52, Reply)

I imagine it was all arranged a bit last minute, and the only people wanting to attend something like this would be the over zealous religious type, whereas all the atheists probably couldn't give a fuck, apart from that one fella who was probably retired and fancied a day out at that there london.
None of the panelists appeared to support the arguement about the lack of evidence for god, one was a priest/vicar/whatnot, a smug bitch and another journalist looking to appease the audience and having a weak arguement that he himself failed to support.
Should never have been commissioned, but then it's probably a low cost program to produce, so it's more of a filler than anything.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:02, Reply)

but not that one which you rubbed your bell end on please.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:06, Reply)

is like telling teenagers that drugs are bad for them. It almost seems to reinforce their beliefs by having something to push against, shouldn't even have to dignify their nonsense with a discussion.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:57, Reply)

mutated monty commented on one of my posts!!!
*shakes hands*
*faints*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:00, Reply)

www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/
and you know the rest
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:59, Reply)

but isn't it a bit daily mail to complain about programmes you didn't see in the first place and were not targetted at you?
Having said that, I do resent my licence fee being spent on pro-religion propaganda...
edit - thinking something similar, sorry - little bit of a brainwrong there...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:40, Reply)

paid for my first licence, and i didn't see it first time around. and im sure it wasn't aimed at me.
but that wasn't a programme, it reminded me of some shows they show in southern america/bermuda area.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:57, Reply)

Are all religious types unemployed or do they work flexi-time?
I think we they should have put this guy on the show to discuss this topic.
wouldn’t’ argue with him!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:08, Reply)

I mean fair enough BBC, by all means try and organise a debate about God Vs Science, but why the fuck would you have 99% of the room as religious types.
It's like - let's have a debate - who's better, Chelsea or Arsenal and we'll invite 99 members of the Chelsea Supporters club and Arsene Wenger. It's ridiculous, the BBC should be ashamed.
Furthermore apart from that first guy "Deen" needing his face pummelled, he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about both points of view and about discussions. Worst of all though was the woman from the Daily Telegraph, the smug bitch who took the moral high ground and instead of engaging in discussion and blanked everything the atheist had to say and just shouted over the top.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:36, Reply)

A musical ode to the dreaded myspace pose
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:46, Reply)

Joanna Lumley was championing this 20 year old invention by a guy called Ken Frogbrook (great name) who designed this straw-like mattress that rolls out and absorbs the oil and can be used as fuel afterwards in an environmentally friendly way. I have tried to find information about it, but am surprised at the little attention that it has made.
I can't find a video of it being used like on the Graham Norton show EDIT: This is a link to the the time on the Graham Norton show: bbc.co.uk/i/swm5p/?t=25m53s , but this is a case in point of how it works eyescoops.ca/2010/05/environmentally-correct-oil-spill-cleanup-solution-with-hay-straw/
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:41, Reply)

Due to the size of the spill these types of solutions are more or less useless. They need something to break apart the oil on an industrial scale that will do limited damage on its own.
Same applies to human hair, BP have asked people to stop collecting it. Though it might have some use in keeping oil away from coast lines for limited amounts of time.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:54, Reply)

They need to buy 10 gazillion barrels of Fairy!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:10, Reply)

It appears to work. Whether that would work outside the kitchen is to be seen. I like the idea of that. *clicks*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:54, Reply)

or I may have imagined it.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:04, Reply)

I think I'd rather shag Lt Worf or Jake Gyllenhaal than Amy Winehouse!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:31, Reply)

Level 5, the choice between madonna and elton john is like choosing between a rock and a hard place.
Sarah Palin was an inspired choice though :-D
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:33, Reply)

a hotel in germany is being sued by the leader of a far-right political group after they barred him from staying.
"There is a debate to be had," Mr Baumeister admits. "Should you discriminate against those who are guilty of discrimination? It's an interesting subject, but in the end decisions have to be made."
for all teh link board nazis (yeah, i am one too)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:08, Reply)

Plus I wouldn't have admitted him to my hotel. Not for his political views, but because of those piggy little eyes. LOOK AT HIM! He looks so much like a paedophile he might as well be put on the register now.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:14, Reply)

It's the managements right to refuse service. So yeah, I wont serve you because I can't stand intolerant people
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:32, Reply)

to gay couples as happened in England a while back?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:34, Reply)

...management presumably don't have the right to refuse service to black people, or those with disabilities. But then people don't choose those things, but they do choose to be right-wing racist types. Or at least they choose to join organizations which tell everyone that's what they think.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:51, Reply)

becuase discriminating against race or sexuality is different to discriminating against a point of view...it just is
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:52, Reply)

But I wasn't the owner of the establishment so it wasn't my choice.
If someone wants to refuse business for personal reasons then they have the right to do so. Just as the couple had a right to complain about it.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:53, Reply)

...personal reasons would be "I don't like you, you're a cunt" as opposed to "I don't like you, you're a gayer". You can discriminate against cunts, but not against homosexuals or people of races you find objectionable. That's kind of the law, but is also just wrong.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:01, Reply)

this is a difficult area. the guy is a nazi but has human rights that he would deny to others if he got into power.
let him in, if other guests leave due to this, sue him for loss maybe? is this even possible?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:06, Reply)

If you open your house up to the public as a b&b then it would be breaking descrimination laws to ban people because they're gay.
In my eyes there's no difference between this & the "No Dogs, No blacks, No Irish" signs that occasional b&bs sported in the 50s.
Except nowadays there are laws in place to stop this.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:46, Reply)

Irish Wolfhound shit on the front porch
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:34, Reply)

Look at the love in his eye's as he shakes hands with David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan)

( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:28, Reply)

images.cutelittlekittens.com/files/images/general/464222602_m_151.jpg
But, I deserve a damn holiday!
(and here is the original link www.purpleholidays.com/purple/dreamjob/vote/5)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:04, Reply)

just couldn't be arsed doing another begathon...you guys have been good enough to me anyhow.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:08, Reply)

if so, GC. Not clicking cos, yeah, it is cheating. You are Kader Keita, AICMFP.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:10, Reply)

But enjoy Greece if you do win.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:11, Reply)

and post the original link in the text box, I'm curious now :-/
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:35, Reply)

this is true
however more bum fondling/crying is required to be completely authentic
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 10:02, Reply)

oh yeah...
www.b3ta.com/board/10085243
GO ME!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 11:03, Reply)

Possibly the YouTube video that has everything. Cute boy on donkey. Donkey goes too near an ostrich, ostrich gets aggrieved and chases donkey and boy. Boy falls off donkey and is in genuine peril, before the dad intervenes and administers an almighty shoeing.
Steven Spielberg's already bought the feature film rights.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 8:36, Reply)

Funny if you're watching...but wouldn't be that funny if you are the victim of a fall off a donkey and attacked by an Ostrich
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:37, Reply)

( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:46, Reply)

but I guess that is why British kids are such pussies.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 18:02, Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »