silverfox

Whether you agree with religious schools/indoctrination or not, such schools and beliefs are part of the community the forum represents. Therefore it is a perfectly reasonable question to have asked.

Absolute nonsense Huguenot and Declan. This was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. What is it with your bile and hatred on this matter? Is Amelie supposed to interrogate and cross-examine a friend because you don't like/agree with Catholicism/religious schools? Go hang your heads in shame both of you. (edited for typo)

futz  (Pronunciation fuhts) As in "Futzing with the stratosphere? Verb Infinitive to futz verb - (used without object) to pass time in idleness (usually fol. by around). To be frivolous and waste time. To experiment by trial and error Verb phrase - futz with or around with, to handle or deal with, esp. idly, reluctantly, or as a time-consuming task: I spent all day futzing with those file folders. (third-person singular simple present futzes, present participle futzing, simple past and past participle futzed) noun - a fool; simpleton.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Greg appears to have developed the shakes in this series?

Just as a matter of interest, why does the forum have to close down? Surely it's hosted by a (bigger) third party organisation? Can't you delegate to others to keep it going? What do your advertisers think of the shut down? It seems a bit amateurish that someone goes on holiday and the show can't go on.

ARSEnal?

Nesbitt's got more hair these days than in the picture - surely worth a couple of slaps with a wet kipper?

I think you've misread this ????. I've given examples of both noun and transitive verb.

According to today's Daily Mail we all know that the longest word in the English language is Floccinaucinihili-pilification, meaning inconsiderable or trifling. I didn't. Floccinaucinihili-pilification (Pronunciation flok-suh-naw-suh-nahy-hil-uh-pil-uh-fi-key-shuhn] Noun: the estimation of something as worthless, or the habit of doing so. It has even spawned the back formations floccinaucical "inconsiderable, trifling" and floccinaucity "a matter of small consequence". Usage The first known written instance of floccinaucinihilipilification, as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1741, in a published letter by William Shenstone. The quotation is: "I loved him for nothing so much as his flocci-nauci-nihili-pili-fication of money." Other notable users of the word have included Robert Southey (in the Quarterly Review 14:334, 1816), and Walter Scott (Journal 18, 1829). Scott, however, replaced the "nauci" component with "pauci". The feminine noun construction, floccinaucinihilipilificatrix, can be found in the Robert A. Heinlein novel The Number of the Beast. On July 20, 1999, during the (ultimately failed) ratification process of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the U.S. Senate, North Carolina Senator and Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, an ardent opponent of the treaty, in response to 45 Democrats asking him to allow hearings on the treaty, left little doubt that he was enjoying his role as a spoiler when he wrote "I note your distress at my floccinaucinihilipilification of the CTBT [but] I do not share your enthusiasm for this treaty for a variety of reasons." Word Origin & History floccinaucinihilipilification "action or habit of estimating as worthless," 1741, a combination of four Latin words (flocci, nauci, nihili, pilifi) all signifying "at a small price" or "for nothing," found in a section of the Eton Latin Grammar. The word is said to have been invented as an erudite joke by a student of Eton College, who found in his textbook four ways of saying "don't care" and combined them: flocci facere (from floccus, -i a wisp or piece of wool) nauci facere (from naucum, -i a trifle) nihili facere (from nihilum, -i nothing; something valueless (lit. "not even a thread" from ni+hilum)) Example being: "nihilism" pili facere (from pilus, -i a hair; a bit or a whit; something small and insignificant)

Admit it Keef, you like Mars Bars

Yes, you're right and many have told how this sort of thing was widespread in the film industry (the casting couch). However, Polanski, on his own admission, is guilty of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. I agree he should face justice for that. As for the more titillating acts that surround this case they remain allegations and unproven. How do you proceed in this case given all the myths and half-truths that have grown up around it? In theory it is a simple objective sentencing issue. A guilty plea has been made and a judge will have a number of possible sentences he or she can impose. If prison, will that cause a howl of protest? if probation is that too lenient? If the judge is male will that upset women? If the judge is a woman will her objectivity be questioned? This one will be tied up in legal knots for years.

It's obvious from a number of posts on this thread that there's a lot of myths surrounding this whole subject. The more I look into it the more unclear the whole thing becomes. The Guardian article Sean has referred us to is indeed shocking if what is stated therein is actually true (which it may be). Can anyone help me out here in establishing the facts? 1. Was there ever a trial? There was an indictment, a plea bargain of guilt to the lesser offence which was accepted, a court decision ordering Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation (he was released after 42 days). I cannot find anywhere that a trial took place before a jury and many of these plea bargains can take place in a Judge's chamber. 2. If a trial never took place then he was never found guilty of the alleged acts. Ie The rape and acts remain only allegations, not proven 3. Wikipedia quotes the source "Grand Jury Testimony" from 'thesmokinggun' website as the authority substantiating Samantha Gailey's (now Samantha Geimer), allegations. See http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html for a 'transcript' of her testimony. The Smoking Gun website doesn't look too professional to me though and doesn't qualify where the document came from (ie no official stamps etc) 4. I don't think Grand Jury testimony is the same as court testimony. Further the questions asked to Samantha Gailey in the Grand jury testimony above don't appear to me to have been asked by a professional lawyer (again there's no reference to say who was speaking that I can see), and the alleged facts being elicited are all over the place. However, I realise she was only 13 at the time and her responses are understandable but the questioner didn't seem to be asking questions in a thoughtful way which suggests they weren't a lawyer. 5. Has Polanski ever admitted he carried out these acts? So, unless someone can help me out here, it appears there was no trial by jury to find the alleged rape and sexual acts proven, only the testimony of a 13 year old girl (who may be telling the truth) to go on. If this is so the Guardian article is irresponsible journalism as reporting the alleged acts as fact and without qualification. If there was a trial with testimony can someone please point me in the right direction.

Oh no, Sir Stuart Rose is on Breakfast telly reporting on M&S's results and despite sales being down for the eighth month in a row everything's hunky dory etc etc Hold me back, hold me back!

Will there be a free buffet, scampi and chips in a basket and a float behind the bar?

Sky News has this tit-bit that seems to raise the question about the timing of his detention: "During a visit to Paris, Swiss Economy Minister Doris Leuthard rejected suggestions that Polanski was arrested to help patch up ties strained by a high-profile US tax case against Swiss bank UBS, which agreed a settlement over charges it helped wealthy Americans stash assets in secret accounts..."

I suppose we shouldn't assume he'll be sentenced to incarceration. As far as I can see he hasn't yet been sentenced because he scarpered before that could happen and it could yet be probation or some other sentence

From Wikipedia (now unlocked after yesterday's row about contributions to his entry) "...Polanski was initially charged...with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor... Following the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens. An extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities..."

The philosopher Professor AC Grayling covers this subject quite thoroughly in today's Times ".. . Let us first clarify one thing about the case of Roman Polanski: the film director was convicted of a crime, and skipped the jurisdiction before he could be made to pay the penalty for it. His is not a case where it is still moot whether he committed a crime or not: he pleaded guilty. Nor therefore is it a case where a ?statute of limitations? might apply, that is, a statute saying that a prosecution can only be brought against a person within a certain period after a crime occurred..." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6852996.ece While I don't agree with all his points in the article I'm afraid I have to conclude that he shouldn't get away with it - justice has to be seen to be done.

What's your view on the subject?

I agree with all that Sean, and with Keef who sees it as a form of torture. On the whole things are probably much better now than ever before and it's easy to forget that it wasn't too long ago that places like Whitechapel were full of cut throats with murders an everyday occurrence despite draconian punishments being in place. It's probably also true that too many of our young tearaways have been on the receiving end of physical abuse. Also, if you allow me to quote Wikipedia on Singapore's caning: "...In 1993 the number of criminals caned was 3,244 ... By 2007, this figure had doubled to 6,404 criminals sentenced to caning ... " This seems to question the deterrent effects of the punishment and I can't find any facts to say crime would be worse in Singapore were it not for caning. There is a perception though that violence and criminality are spreading and are no longer confined within violent subcultures or groups and part of the reason for this is the drugs trade. Whole communities are now being affected by the activities of ruthless gangs in a way they weren't affected even by gangs such as the Krays who generally only dealt with their own kind. Obviously things here haven't got to the stage of Mexico where the army has had to be called in. But how do we prevent young people joining gangs, where being a 'gangsta' is seen as cool, gives people identity and a sense of belonging once they have proved themselves by stabbing someone? etc. I can't count the amount of times I've seen young people driving around in top of the range cars who look as if they've never done a day's work in their life. It's easy to see the attraction even if their life expectancy may be low. Would tougher sentencing work? There's a view that people come out of prison more of a criminal than when they went in. Preventative measures don't seem to be working and shaming people by putting up posters in local areas has caused a fuss because of 'Human Rights'. I wouldn't recommend Vigilantes and having private security guards patrolling posh parts of town looks like an admission that we've lost confidence in the ability of the police to protect us. Somehow we have to get tough without becoming authoritarian and undemocratic.

It's probably better not to try to analyse me Sean, however there is a serious side to this. Things are getting out of hand in some quarters with people too frightened to speak out for fear of retribution from local thugs or organised crime. Caning may be a brutish uncivilised remedy but Singapore doesn't seem to agree. Our liberalism has created a paradox whereby we've outlawed many punishments which we quite rightly feel are unacceptable today and in doing so have created a situation where crime and violence can breed with little concern for existing deterrents. Surely, if a caning prevented a person from adopting a life that lead to prison (and let's face it, far worse can and does happen inside prison) wouldn't you be doing that person a favour as well as making his peers think twice? The real questions are would it work? Does it work in Singapore? If it does/did work why shouldn't it be reintroduced if it would cut down street robbery, knifings, rapes? etc. As a society we have to ask ourselves some serious questions if we really want to address some of the problems facing us.

Why would a policeman advise you to feed his little colleagues to a wolf Ted Max? Sounds like the boy who cried wolf to me.

Yes I did, old fashioned sized 10 plimsole on the backside and caned on the hand/wrist. And yes, it did lend a certain street cred when you showed off the welts. However, I'm talking about a much more severe form here. A quick look at Wikipedia's explanation of the punishment is enough to make your eyes water.

Some people say we have a broken society with crime out of control, widespread drug and alcohol abuse, feral youth, no-go problem estates and a general breakdown in respect for each other and manners. We all know the reasons advanced - decline of religion, breakdown of the family with absent fathers, the pressures of modern living etc. Whatever the causes, most people would agree that there is something absurd about the threat of being stabbed or shot by a young child because you have 'dissed' them, and that gangs and drug barons cannot run around as untouchables meting out their own notions of justice, whether it's 'just business' in their eyes or not. Is it not time for us to say enough is enough and consider bringing back corporal punishment along the lines of caning like in Singapore? I realise Amnesty International objects to the practice but I understand that even the most hardened criminals can be reduced to blubbering wimps after a thrashing applied to the buttocks by a karate black belt. It may also humiliate some of the young toughs in the eyes of their peers and provide a genuine deterrent to a life of crime. It may be cool to have an ASBO but I doubt many would strive for a caning.

I realise it was in bad taste and could have quickly beome offensive. It was hardly a serious Capital Punishment debate.