Damian H

Tarot, every time you add to this thread you sink even further and provide additional evidence that you are a bitter and resentful person with little regard for evidence. Every criticism or challenge anyone has made to what you have said has been provoked by the nature of your comments, your arrogance in dismissing facts and evidence, your insistence that your blinkered world-view trumps the expertise and experience of others who have objectively explored the subject under discussion and your ridiculous decision to attempt to add personal insults as the icing on the cake of your ignorance. If you have been put in your place it is because you have asked for it. This is a serious and impactful subject and when someone like you comes along trundling notions and theories that are thoroughly discredited and that will only perpetuate violence, misery and harm, you can hardly complain if you are taken to task.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The demise of the reputation of intellectuals in > Britain seemed to coincide with the collapse of > the final vestiges of colonial power. > > It's almost as if the 'man on the street' held the > intellectuals responsible for the fact that > Britain can no longer enslave foreigners. > > Not unlike the 'man on the street' who blames the > bankers for the demise of the cruelly constructed > economic house of cards on which we perched for so > long. I despise the so-called 'man on the street'. Streets! Who has need of them except 'street-walkers'??? As an 'interlectual' I exist solely as a huge disembodied brain in a large bubbling tank of saline solution, where I think great thoughts to frustrate, tantalise and confound those with lower IQs. My grey matter is suspended in said fluid by electrical cables through which I telepathically transmit instructions to my enslaved minions to go forth and rape and plunder on my behalf after I have viewed endless hours of vile pornongraphy through the glass of my murky den. It's a fine life but the algae on the tank sometimes obscures my view of the looks of fear and terror I most long to see.

By the way, just out of curiosity, who are the "They" in "They say...." Other people like yourself who resent those who can think for themselves and 'analize' the facts objectively? Other people who feel so angry when their unsubstantiated views are exposed as nonsense that their only comeback is a pathetic jibe at the sex life of people they don't even know? Perhaps you could point us to an article on the correlation between 'interlectual'-izing and 'analizing' and sexual satisfaction in an appropriate peer-reviewed sexology journal? Just trying to help you instill some good thinking habits you understand?

Tarot's response can probably best be summed up as: "Don't confuse me with your fancy book learning, I knows what I knows!" I think that the faintly sad and irrational nature of Tarot's response speaks so eloquently for itself that no further comment other than that made above by others is necessary. I would merely add the fact that if anyone is demonstrating arrogance and superiority it is Tarot for expecting us to believe that her personal experience is more revelatory and profound than decades of experience, research and debate by probably hundreds of thousands of informed and intelligent people. If you really care to help these unfortunate people you say you come into contact with, Tarot, I suggest that you would best achieve that by following the evidence trail to the REAL causes of rape, sexual crime and oppression, rather than clinging stubbornly to thoroughly disproven notions. Failing to discover the real causes by holding up scapegoats and pursuing red herrings is almost certain to perpetuate the likelihood of further crime, violence and suffering. To offer a Peter Sutcliffe metaphor, continuing to pursue pornograqphy as a cause of rape, oppression and violence is as sterile a root as the lengthy pursuit of the hoaxer Wearside Jack which delayed the capture of Peter Sutcliffe for years and led to the deaths in the meantime of more women!

So, if we want to avoid creating sexual criminals....let's stop being down on sex and expressions of sexuality in our culture and let's be careful not to stigmatise children born out of wedlock (altough I am glad to say I think a lot less of the latter happens today).

Also in terms of Ted BUndy, bear in mind that Bundy did everything possible to distance himself from personal responsibility for his crimes. WHen he was confessing to the police he talked of himself in the third person, e.g: "He would then enter the dormitory..." I don't think that the efforts of an unstable multiple murderer who was attempting to externalise responsibility for his behaviour constitutes very compelling evidence. And....if we look into Bundy's background what do we find - negative sexual socialisation. Bundy was an illegitimate child who was raised by his grandparents to escape the social "stigma" of the circumstances of his birth. This led to a life-long resentment against his mother that seems to have been extended to many women. Furthermore, Bundy was a handsome, intelligent and successful person who was considered socially adept and charming. He had no shortage of female company if he simply needed to 'discharge' the urges stimulated by pornography. Bundy's motivation went far, far beyond a mere exposure to pornongraphy. I believe, however, that he was known to have consumed French Fries so maybe......

Furthermore, your notion of "lurid images" "corrupting" young children hints at a very sex negative attitude. What is "corrupting" about children knowing about sexuality I wold suggest that the best way to "corrupt" children is to convey to them that sex is "lurid" and nasty and dirty. THAT is what is known as negative sexual socialisation and THAT is what the research finds is one of the most common patterns in the backgrounds of those who go on to become sexual criminals - an upbringing in which the criminal-to-be was taught that sex was bad and dirty and wicked. If you want to reduce the incidence of sexual violence I suggest you instead encourage a healthy, relaxed and enjoyable attitude to sex and sexuality in the younger generation.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not everyone turns into sadistic murderers,but > people with early signs of personality > disorders,ei;cruelty to > animals,bullies,disruptive,tendencies come into > contact with pornography they can become sexual > predators. > The majority of sexually abused children do not go > on to be abusers either. > But many children are the victim of a lust filled > adult who has looked at porn. > Not enough thought is given to young children,by > those who think its ok to corrupt them with lurid > images everywhere. Tarot, you are WAAAAAYYYY off here. You are confusing correlation wth causation which is an A level standard mistake in research terms. WHat you are talking about (withour knowing it, I imagine)is what is known as a Faciliator in the Minnesota (?) model of psychological crime. The Facilitator is anything that a perpetratr uses to get themselves into the frame of mind to move from fantasising about crime to actually carrying it out. It is true that pornography has been used by some killers and criminals as a Facilitator. Guess what else has? Alcohol, women's magazines, the Chrsitian Bible is a VERY popular one (especially the bok of Revelations) and Geoffrey Dahmer used as his Facilitatr the third Star Wars movie, especialy the scene when the Emperor telekinetically tortures Luke Skywalker. If you want to ban anything that has been used by such criminals to facilitate their crimes yu had better start with all alcohol, the Bible and all sci-fi fantasy films. Perhaps then you could move onto pornography. If you look at some of the evidence that is cited in the linksI posted you will actually see that a strong case can be made fr suggesting that pornography REDUCES sexual violence and increases co-operation. Laboratory research suggests this and anthropological evidence shows that in countries where porngraphy is unlawful incidence of sexual violence are very high in cmparison with societies where porngraphy is readily accesible. In the latter societies there are usually also significantly better social conditions and opprtunities for women as a whole. Sorry, Taro, but from every perspective the case that pornography is a causal factor in rape is simply a non-starter. Even the US and UK government investigations (some of the most extensive ever carried out) came to this cnclusion but were then bried by the respective governments as it didnt suit their social agendas.

Thanks JL - will bear that in mind.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eh? That was an opinion piece too? > > Look, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that > reference has about as much validity as saying > 'look what Huguenot said'. Huguenot, if you are incapable of extracting the research and facts from the opinion that accompanies it, that is not my fault. There is a very considerable amount in there that goes way beyond mere opinion. Re-read it and you will see that the findings and conclusions of a significant number of experts who have been appointed to look at this issue have been reported and directly contravene the populist notion that pornography leads to sexual violence.

Let me make it easy - here is a starting point: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm

I think if you read my post and my reply to you you will see that I point you clearly in te direction of the evidence. Let me repeat it - 'Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures' by Avadon Carrol and Alison Assister. Whole chapter summarising the research on pornography and sexual violence by, if I recall, Alsion Reid from University of Reading. Another source would be the website of Feminists Against Censorship. Also search for the Home Office report into pornography - am sure it can be found smewher online. Am afraid I have not got the time or the nclination to distil decades of research and evidence for the benefit of the readers of this forum.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think you're gonna need to back that Damian H ;-) The evidence is easily available for anyone who wants to find it - I have no intenio of doing anyone's research for them. The book I mentioned is a good start for anyone who is interesed.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tarot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Take for example the freeview x-rated porno > > sites,fed into every home. > > Do you mean the phone line channels? X-rated? > Good grief. Google 'x-rated' and I suspect you'll > find a couple of websites that'll make your false > teeth fall out. > > And the porn/rape link theory was trashed years > ago. Loz is quite right here. One of the chapters in the book I referred to earlier, Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures, does a pretty extensive overview of the research into a supposed rape/porn connection and the compelling evidence is that the completely opposite state of affairs is the case - the avalability of sexually explicit material is associated with a decrease in crimes of sexual violence. The governments know that but it doesn't suit their agenda. A very extensive Home Office study was commissioned in the 1980s (think it was the 80s, might have been the 90s) which reviewed all the available evidence, refuted any connection between porn and sexual violence and recommended the legalisation of pornongraph. When presented to the government of the day (who were clearly hoping for an opposite conclusion to justify a populist stance against porn) the report was promptly ignored! Same with the US. Major scientific study commissioned by the government of the day failed to find a connection. That didnt suit the government so they commissioned a second report that more or less abandoned scientific method and instead focused on various weepy anecdotes from people "destroyed by pornography". The real, proper, scientific and anthropological evidence is as Loz says it is.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have Never heard the Term 'Chugging' before... > But understand what you are all on about. > > 'Chuggers' ?? Just ignore them. Simple. > > I give money to Genuine Collectors like Red > Cross, RNLI Life Boats, RNIB. > > I myself have been a Collector for The RNLI. Some > Years back. > Licenced Spot. > > Rules:- Do not approach people. Do not Rattle the > Box. > > Never give money at the door. > > NONE of the genuine Charities Collect at the > Door. None of the genuine charities collect at the door??????? Depends what you mean by this. All the chugging firms are employed by 'genuine charities', so although the specific door-knocker may not be directly paid by the charities themselves they are authentically there on the charity's behalf. This relates to both the door-knockers and the chuggers who acost you in the street. I used to work for a chugging company for a while so I know a little about the structure, process, arrangements and law. For example, all charity collections must be licenced by the appropriate local authority. Outside of London this is done by the Licencing Department of the relevant local council. Within London the various Borough councils have given broad authority to all charity colections that are regulated by the Institute of Fundraising. The IOF attempt to co-ordinate the various chugging firms so there technically should not be more than one in any particular area at any point in time. This is designed to avoid a sense of over-saturation but clearly it does not seem to avoid that impression in the minds of the public who understandably do not particularly differentiate being chugged by one company or charity and another. One useful approach is to ask them why they have not made their Solicitation Statement. By law they have to commence any approach by informing you that they work for a company that is being paid by the relevant charity to fundraise for them - this is called the Solicitation STatement. Not to do so is a breach of the law yet a huge number of chuggers ignore this or have never been trained to know about the Solicitation statement. Canny ones may say something like "I was just about to tell you that" but at least you will put them on the back foot.

Another interesting book is "Bad Girls and Dirty Pictures" written by two women involved in the Feminists Against Censorship campaign. It is a very compelling read and looks at how the activities of the likes of Harman (I think the book pre-dated Harman though) have actually alienated women from their own sexuality rather than liberating them, as LadyDeliah has quite rightly observed.

Haven't read all the replies here so maybe the points I am going to make have already been covered but here goes: 1. bailiffs can only enforce a court order or warrant. If they turn up with a warrant or order to seize the goods of another person then they simply CANNOT touch anything you own if you are not that person. They must know that and it is simply a matter of you showing that you are not the person they are after bry poresenting ID as suggested by someone else. Make it absilutely clear to them that you do not consent to them entering your home and that you will consider any attempt by them to do so or seize any of your property as a criminal act. Should they not accept this do not hesitate to call the police. This type of sitiuation is not a hugely uncommon one and the boys in blue must have sone experience in scrutinising warrants and assessing who is who. If you ask the bailiffs to show them the warrant and present your ID to them it should be pretty much case closed. If the bailiffs continue to attempt to secure entry or harass you, ask the police to arrest them for breaking and entering etc. The mere threat of that should be enuugh to deter even the most ardent bailiff. 2. As already suggested DO NOT LET THEM INTO YOUR HOME, no matter how casually or smoothly they ask to be let in. Once they are in they have more rights than otherwise (although in this case they clearly have none but you don't want the hassle even I imagine). Might also be an idea to video the whole thing on your phone if they do turn up. Putting the door on the chain and refusing to remove that would be a very clear indication thaqt you are prohibiting them entry. DO NOT let them in to "make a call", "sort this out face to face", "get a little glass of water" or the like. Any conversation can be had at the doorstep - it is not your job to make them comnfortable. 3. re: credit rating. It is possible that people linked by the same address can affect eachothers credit rating. Get a copy of your credit report from Experian and Equifax - legally they have to give you a copy although you may have to pay a small fee. All info on linked people is available on such reports. You can also register online to monitor your credit status through sites like Credit Expert etc. If information held abpout your financial status is innacurate you have a right to have a correction inserted but find out first what info is held. Hope this all helps.

Smug, conceited, self-loving a**hole award for this series? Gotta be Vincent surely. Any bloke who describes himself as very good looking and thinks he can flirt his way round Lord Sugar's female adviser must be a complete twonk. Apparently she and her hubbie have been wetting themselves laughing that he thinks she fancies him.

Why not have a wrd with Neil Johns who runs the Dulwich Film Club if you are int those genres? I dont know too much about it but he is my office landlord and if you are interested I will enquire for you.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > zeban Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Because he's got home and realised that's what > he > > did! > > > > I hope you find her. > > > Can you explain how that could possibly have > happened? What is your issue with this happening? A similar thing has happened to me in the past. I had a new phone and had incorrectly memorised the number as being ****************300 whereas it was actually ***************330. I realised that I had given the wrong number to a number of people who fortunately in my instance I was able to contact and correct the matter with. I can't see what your suspicions are about.

Whoever feels guilty about what, I think that one of the things that many people find offensive is the way it is portrayed that slavery was a one way street with innocent black people (good) and evil whites (bad). Let's just look at a pretty clear example of how all races have engaged in slavery in the past. Ever hear of the Barbary pirates? Perhaps you might all like to read the link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs#Barbary_slaves Basically North African pirates spent centuries raiding Europe to capture booty and (mainly white) slaves to take back to Africa. The Wikipaedia article cites a number of around one and a quarter million European slaves hoiked off to Africa by black slave traders in a 250 year period. STrange that this isn't mentioned much when people talk about the evils of slavery and attempt to portray it as a collective white offence against black culture! The Barbary pirates pre-dated European and American slavery. The latter slave trade certainly operated on a much larger scale but I suspect that was simply due to advances in maritime sophistication and capacity, rather than any greater moral evil. It should also be borne in mind that the efforts to abolish the slave trade by the likes of Wilberforce almost exclusively came from the moral conscience of white Europeans. As a white European myself I find it offensive that the suffering of European slaves is airbrushed out of history and a perception of slavery is advanced that it is something wicked white folk did to innocent blacks for which we should continue to wring our hands and flaggelate ourselves about. Although I find it offensive, however, it is not something that I am inclined to spend too much time lamenting as I have a life to lead in the here and now. Slavery is abominable. ALL RACES have engaged in it. No-one race's hands are clean. Let's remember that.

To express my opinion - as I believe is the purpose of the forum.

This whole thread is lamentable!

I think everyone should do the Brockwell Lido mid-winter swim every year - that would stop folk complaining about pool temperatures. Apparently the body can actually acclimatise very rapidly to extremely cold water and the inbuilt immunity can last up to a year. Let's stop being namby-pambys. On a separate note, Pugwash very kindly gave me a pointer about how to get prescription swimming goggles for those who have visual defects. I am extremely short-sighted which has always compromised my enjoyment of swimming/water-parks a little (althought I still love them). I bought a pair of prescription goggles from Paine and Hunter n LL. I could have had them made exactly to my prescription which would have cost over ?100 but I plumped for an off-the-shelf pair for ?35. They ordered them in and they had them in a couple of days. My prescription is minus 8.75 diopters or whatever it is and I went for a minus 8, so not quite a erfect prescription but the difference is remarkable. Swimming has been transformed for me and they are also a very good water-tight fit as a pair of swimming goggles. I strongly recommend them for anyone like me who has poor eyesight and enjoys swimming/water-parks etc.

jonny vantastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear James, > > Do you and Southwark Council have an opinion on > the release fees private car clamping companies > charge whilst acting for Southwark Council? > Yesterday I paid ?686.00 to have my vehicle > released over a ?60 PCN I challenged by email > which has yet to be responded to. > > Best, > > Jonny I swear when I hear things like this my blood boils and I think a little direct action similar to the Arab revolutions is called for. ANyone know what the legal position is re removing clamps with whatever tools are required?