55
   

THE BRITISH THREAD II

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 08:07 am
I didn't complain. I didn't moan. I simply pointed out what is obvious. Some women here are complaining about the aggressive tit show other women are putting on. There was an article in the Sunday Times a few weeks back on the very subject. It's body fascism.

I don't judge women on such trite criteria. But the ordinary girl is being landed with an inferiority complex and that causes her to look for solutions which media offer her and her bloke gets skinted and what use is that to her? Or to him? Or to their kids?

Mrs Bari is actually defining what she has covered up as "dirty bits".

There won't be any fundamentalist states entering the EEC. You are just scaremongering again. Turkey has its Eurosceptics just as we have and look at what they've done to the Tory Party.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 08:16 am
Oh dear. You are going to tell me next that pornography empowers women.

That Turkish woman I quoted, I'm not sure if you understood this but I don't see why not, was saying no "covered" women should be allowed into Turkey's official buildings- which is the status quo at present as I'm sure you know- and which is intended by the ruling party now to be changed.

If that were to happen, I would view that as a retrograde step. Wouldn't you?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:11 am
Mac wrote-

Quote:
Oh dear. You are going to tell me next that pornography empowers women.


Oh dear. You obviously don't understand. I never thought any such thing in relation to "women". And I don't much care for that " You are going to tell me next" trick in discourse.

But I'm sure pornography does empower some women. There are enough of them at it to suggest a lot of women agree that it does. If I was a good looking woman I would be bang at it. From what little I've seen of it it looks better than working in a shop or a packing plant. Better paid too I shouldn't wonder.

I assumed, as I think most people would, that by "covered" was meant the traditional Islamic dress for outdoors where other men besides the husband will be present. I can see their reasons for that. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to comment on another culture's practices unless they involve evil which covering doesn't.

I was simply saying that Mrs Bari would be covered herself. Were she to be uncovered she would get arrested. Even here.

The grades of burks, burqa, hijab and chador vary with region and class and tradition. I presume Mrs Bari meant any of those.

I don't see how I could know whether more traditional Islamic dress in Turkey would be a retrograde step or not and I can't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:21 am
I remember that Kingsley Amis, in Stanley and the Women, had the Superintendant (no less) say that whatever else Arabic men did they had the woman problem sorted out. Implying, of course, that we didn't, for which view there is ample evidence.

But Mr Amis had a lot of problems with women, as did his mate Philip Larkin, so I guess they were a bit jaundiced.

There's nothing like a henpecked husband being happy with his lot for providing the realists with a good laugh.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 09:38 am
spendius wrote:
But Mr Amis had a lot of problems with women,


He admitted having sexual problems. He talk about them nicely in "Jack's thing"...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:00 am
It was Jake's Thing here. Which was a partial pun on "jakes" which is a Shakespearean word for earth closet. Or bog.

And "thang" which is self explanatory.

FTSE down 200. DOW down 270. Gold down $11. Brent Crude $77.

Jeeps.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:37 am
Yeah, lost a lot of money..
0 Replies
 
Tarah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:49 am
spendi, do you think Shakespeare was having a laugh then with more than one Jacques in As You Like It.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:58 am
well thanks guys and gals for the last 20 posts or so

(except spendy obviously)

most illuminating and entertaining.

I had no idea records began in 1956, or that Her Royal Smorghshousness and Pussy were in danger of flooding.

(what was that woman's name? Mrs Salcombe?)

Anyhooway McTag is correct as usual, not only about flood risks but on my views on Turkey.

I am against Turkey becoming part of the European Union, not just because its not actually in Europe, has no European heritage, is too poor too populous and too big, with chronically porous borders to Allah knows where - but because I am a right wing bigotted racist and vehemently anti anything beginning with T. Except Tara.
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:13 pm
What about Tantric sex?

You can't be agin that!

Quote:
Brent Crude


Sounds like a porn star.

x
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:50 pm
or Titillation...


Brent Crude DOES sound like a porn name Smile
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 01:15 pm
spendius wrote:

I was simply saying that Mrs Bari would be covered herself. Were she to be uncovered she would get arrested. Even here.


Which is why I put the word in inverted commas.

Quote:

The grades of burks, burqa, hijab and chador vary with region and class and tradition. I presume Mrs Bari meant any of those.

I don't see how I could know whether more traditional Islamic dress in Turkey would be a retrograde step or not and I can't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion.


Simply because the more fundamentalist the regime, the more islamo-fascist they seem to get. Progressive elements in that country want to completely separate church and state. If they can not, a slide into something akin to Iran is possible, where women may not be educated and are not allowed out alone, etc etc. Total repression. That is why Mrs Bari spoke as she did.

But you knew that already.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 01:57 pm
Well of course Mac.

But I don't see what my views, or yours, which will be motivated by self interest, have to do with a how a nation that large and situated where it is decides to arrange its affairs.

I would prefer that they played cricket and went boating on the river in blazers and straw hats and shagged each other's wives but what that has to do with Turkey I can't think.

If they frighten you maybe you should contact the local neighbourhood warden.

( Mrs Slocum Steve. Slowcome --geddit? )
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 02:08 pm
spendius wrote:


( Mrs Slocum Steve. Slowcome --geddit? )
ah thanks S

your not so bad after all

as in she likes to stroke her pussy?

cat
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 06:09 pm
It means she needs a chap otherwise it takes ages and ages.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 06:15 pm
Whereas, according to a recent scientific study, it only takes 7.5 minutes in the UK with a chap.

7.0 in the US but they are always the best at speed records.

Which leaves them with a lot more time for thinking.
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 10:56 pm
spendius wrote:
It means she needs a chap otherwise it takes ages and ages.


I love men...

They are really daft sometimes.

x
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 04:52 am
Too daft for their own good quite often. Especially when encouraged expertly. According to Ms Greer anyway and I can't say that I have any evidence to contradict her. (see The Female Eunuch- a quite old fashioned publication.)

Hey up!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 12:41 pm
Just get your blimpers on this to see what a nice mess that last government of control freaks and interfereing, no-goods with too much time on their hands can manage to achieve when they arrogantly thought our traditional usages were in need of modernisation.

Quote:
From The Sunday TimesJuly 22, 2007

Seven days
Drink laws top up night crime

More flexible pub opening times have done little to curb Britain's excessive drinking habits, it emerged last week. There was a rise in nighttime crime after the new laws were introduced and one study suggests that the number of alcohol-related nighttime hospital visits has trebled.

Ministers hoped that staggered opening hours and later closing times introduced by the 2003 Licensing Act would limit offences committed by the drunken crowds that surged onto the streets at the traditional 11pm closing time. But a report published by the Home Office last week shows that many of the troubles have merely been postponed.

Crime is certainly down at the old closing time. In the year after November 2005, when the changes were introduced, there were 3,523 fewer offences of violence, disorder or criminal damage between 9pm and midnight. But in the hours between midnight and 6am the number of offences rose by 13,852. The bright spot, according to the Home Office, is a 5% drop in serious violent crime during the night.

The figures were collected by 30 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. They show:

- 319,846 offences committed between 9pm and midnight (down 1%).
- 242,999 from midnight to 3am (up 2%).
- 57,778 from 3am to 6am (up 22%).

There were also 9,609 crimes for which no time is recorded (down 24%).

The figures should be read against a fall in these offences - by 3% - during the day, from 6am to 6pm.

The effects of the changes are certainly being felt at St Thomas' hospital in London, which stands across the Thames from the House of Commons. Staff at the accident and emergency department report a threefold increase in drink-related night visits.

Dr Alastair Newton, writing in the Emergency Medicine Journal, says his team logged visits in March 2005 and again in March 2006. Before the introduction of allnight drinking, 79 out of 2,736 visits were alcohol related (2.9%). Afterwards, alcohol contributed to 250 out of 3,135 visits (8%).

There were 27 alcohol-related assaults at the hospital in March 2005, but 62 a year later. "If reproduced over longer time periods and across the UK as a whole, the additional numbers of patients presenting to emergency departments with alcohol-related problems could be very substantial," says Dr Newton.

Previous figures have revealed that drink-related deaths have nearly doubled in the past 15 years. There were about 8,500 deaths blamed on drink in 2005. Just to put this into perspective, if people continued to die at this rate for 10 years, it would be equivalent to killing almost the entire population of Jersey.


And these were the very same people who brought in the useless ban on smoking in all pubs on the basis of two lies. 8,500 deaths blamed on drink in one year compared to not one provable death related to passive smoking.

The smoking ban was simply a display of the power these silly sods have over the clodhoppers. Just for the sake of displaying it.

It is worth noting that the additional problems created by the "new" licensing times will all result in the expansion of the workload of the usual suspects and thus promotions, more funding and more opportunities to do the Nick Ross tango.

Somebody must be working hard though for the FTSE to be at this fantastic level.

Mr Cameron has a sitting duck. All he needs is guts to shoot it.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2007 02:09 pm
I can see it now!

Opening hours

6pm to 8pm...


You'll sit there and take it too!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 04:07:25