kirinclassic Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ... How expensive England is for anything other than (supermarket-bought) alcohol... Boo! KC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On the subject of cyclists, I have mixed feelings about London. The place is crawling with the bastards, on the roads, footpaths, river embankment, fecking everywhere... and they don't give a toss about pedestrians. However, on the plus side, I quickly found out that it is entirely socially acceptable to punch them so hard they fall off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 On the subject of cyclists, I have mixed feelings about London. The place is crawling with the bastards, on the roads, footpaths, river embankment, fecking everywhere... and they don't give a toss about pedestrians. However, on the plus side, I quickly found out that it is entirely socially acceptable to punch them so hard they fall off. And Bristol proudly proclaims itself "Britain's First Cycling City". There's bloody great signs hanging off lamposts encouraging people to cycle, "Motorists, watch out for cyclists", and cycle paths criss-crossing the city like a mjor road network. So much priority has been given to them that they think they own the soddin' city, aiming at pedestrians, ignoring red lights, pedestrian crossings and one way streets, squeezing between moving vehicles and generally being a pain in the arse. And, for the benefit of razza, don't be shocked. The hard implement I was thinking of was my fist, foot or any available steel bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The hard implement I was thinking of was my fist, foot or any available steel bar. I think he was concerned you meant you had some wood handy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 1) TV commercials (or is it adverts?) that quote 'If you phone in the next 2 minutes blah blah' are Americans really so dumb? Yes they are 2) People that have mega-trucks so big to compensate for their small penis and then need 4 parking stalls to accomodate them 3) Walmart 4) Yanks Canada FTW Agree with all of those plus: 5) the American media justifying practically no gun control by portraying every "shooter" as a loner/loser/member of the occult. Oh and: 6) Sarah feckin Palin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 6) Sarah feckin Palin Otherwise known as Sarah "I put a representation of Gabrielle Gifford in Cross-hairs up on a map and told people to "don't retreat, reload" after Gifford won her election, but don't blame me that she got shot in the head" feckin' Palin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Otherwise known as Sarah "I put a representation of Gabrielle Gifford in Cross-hairs up on a map and told people to "don't retreat, reload" after Gifford won her election, but don't blame me that she got shot in the head" feckin' Palin Precisely. And even more annoying are the people in the media defending Palin after the shooting!! FFS, how THICK can some (American) people be???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Precisely. And even more annoying are the people in the media defending Palin after the shooting!! FFS, how THICK can some (American) people be???? The answer is indeed, "very," and Palin does indeed have the brains my mother wiped out by dipping my dummy in brandy to make me sleep, but there is more to it than that. It's a demonstrated fact that easing gun regulations to law abiding citizens reduced crime of all types in the USA. Hard cases make bad laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The answer is indeed, "very," and Palin does indeed have the brains my mother wiped out by dipping my dummy in brandy to make me sleep, but there is more to it than that. It's a demonstrated fact that easing gun regulations to law abiding citizens reduced crime of all types in the USA. Hard cases make bad laws. It's also a known fact that increases in police numbers and community policiing and increases prison sentences reduced crime in this country in the last 13 years, yet the Tories want fewer police and fewer in jail. People do the strangest things. I like the Chris Rock argument. I goes something like this. Keep guns. Have as many guns as you like. But bullets are $10,000 each. Fire away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martjs Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It's also a known fact that increases in police numbers and community policiing and increases prison sentences reduced crime in this country in the last 13 years, yet the Tories want fewer police and fewer in jail. People do the strangest things. I like the Chris Rock argument. I goes something like this. Keep guns. Have as many guns as you like. But bullets are $10,000 each. Fire away. Doesn't the US have more people in prison per % of the population than any other "western" nation? And I'm sure the main reason for that is that prisons are big business. I prefer Eddie Izzard's line from his standup DVD "Dressed To Kill": "It's not guns that kill people, it's bullets. People should be allowed to have guns but no bullets". Maybe Chris Rock saw it too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It's also a known fact that increases in police numbers and community policiing and increases prison sentences reduced crime in this country in the last 13 years, yet the Tories want fewer police and fewer in jail. People do the strangest things. I like the Chris Rock argument. I goes something like this. Keep guns. Have as many guns as you like. But bullets are $10,000 each. Fire away. I agree with your underlying sentiment that the prison population should be decreased by way of greater use of victim-repayment labour schemes and, in carefully selected and well considered cases, the noose. Bullet taxation however, whilst a joke, shows up how ridiculous the gun crime argument in this country is. You can't use a gun for Olympic target practice in England now. But plenty of people can buy bullets for a gun. And a gun to fire it from. Just not good people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Doesn't the US have more people in prison per % of the population than any other "western" nation? And I'm sure the main reason for that is that prisons are big business. I prefer Eddie Izzard's line from his standup DVD "Dressed To Kill": "It's not guns that kill people, it's bullets. People should be allowed to have guns but no bullets". Maybe Chris Rock saw it too... Or maybe Eddie Izzard saw Chris Rock! Prison works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Or maybe Eddie Izzard saw Chris Rock! Prison works. I am aware of the whole discourse on the subject, so am expecting you to follow up by pointing out that so do concealed weapon permits, and allowing home gun ownership for none criminals? All statistically shown to reduce murder, hot robbery and rape, on the most detailed parish by parish study ever undertaken in the US following the liberalisation/not liberalisation following the Republican landslide in the 90s PS - this was more topical when I started, but I had to do the dishes to gain good points for plainly being drunk around the house on a Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Different culture. Anyway, you don't need to arm the citizenry to reduce crime - you just need a succession of Labour Home Secretaries and it's job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Different culture. Anyway, you don't need to arm the citizenry to reduce crime - you just need a succession of Labour Home Secretaries and it's job done. Blunkett, Clarke, Reid and Smith.....all Labour Home Secretaries and all have something in common......all useless......no different to any Home Secretary we've had from either party for many, many years..................all bluddy soft. What did Blair spout? Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.........bollox!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Otherwise known as Sarah "I put a representation of Gabrielle Gifford in Cross-hairs up on a map and told people to "don't retreat, reload" after Gifford won her election, but don't blame me that she got shot in the head" feckin' Palin Sweet irony in Palin claiming she is in no way connected to the recent shootings, these are the work of isolated extremists. The world's muslims had a wry smile on their faces when they heard that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Blunkett, Clarke, Reid and Smith.....all Labour Home Secretaries and all have something in common......all useless......no different to any Home Secretary we've had from either party for many, many years..................all bluddy soft. What did Blair spout? Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.........bollox!!! Useless how? If your Home Secretary presides over an extended period of falling crime - including violent crime and property crime - are they: (x) Useless (y) Functioning as Home Secretary or (z) Phenomenally successful, given that Home Office civil servants operate on the principle that crime always goes up? If you want soft, look no further than your Tories and Liberals. They want fewer people to go to jail, fewer police, lighter sentences. Why would they do something like that? Because crime mainly affects people who don't vote Tory or Lib Dem. Edited January 12, 2011 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 people They're alright really. Nice picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 They're alright really. Nice picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If you want soft, look no further than your Tories and Liberals. They want fewer people to go to jail, fewer police, lighter sentences. I have to take that comment with a pinch of salt. If they were really interested in fewer people in the jails, they'd be working to abolish any and all drug offence laws in relation to consenting adults. But to do that you need a far more enlightened bunch of politicians than most of the ones we have to choose from currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Useless how? If your Home Secretary presides over an extended period of falling crime - including violent crime and property crime - are they: (x) Useless (y) Functioning as Home Secretary or (z) Phenomenally successful, given that Home Office civil servants operate on the principle that crime always goes up? If you want soft, look no further than your Tories and Liberals. They want fewer people to go to jail, fewer police, lighter sentences. Why would they do something like that? Because crime mainly affects people who don't vote Tory or Lib Dem. (x) Useless because none of them were around long enough to get a key to the ministerial toilet. The statistics as you well know do not always represent the true picture and the last administration were masters of spin. Yes, there were more police available during the Labour years but were they productive due to being tied to overly-complicated administration and having to adhere to a target system? Aspects of violent crime went down, but gun crime went up slightly and knife crime went up significantly, facts not generally reported as they didn't fit into the overall picture of crime statistics (ie "there's bigger news stories elsewhere in the world, a good time to release quietly our poor stats"). Not sure whether your last statement is said "tongue in cheek", deliberately provocative or just plain dumb-ass stupid!!! I'm going for the second but then again..............??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 knife crime went up significantly Show me. Not sure whether your last statement is said "tongue in cheek", deliberately provocative or just plain dumb-ass stupid!!! I'm going for the second but then again..............??? What's your explanation? Why would you want fewer police, fewer people in jail and lighter sentences if you wanted to tackle crime? Anyways... Daft things that make your blood boil No. 69: when you're advised not to go to the doctors' surgery because you might transmit your flu virus to all and sundry, but when you can't get through on the phone to get a quack to come see you. I'm glad I'm not old and infirm. When I beat this bug, I'm going round to Somerford Grove to give someone a piece of my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Cyclists riding on pavements and refusing to get out of the way of pedestrians. I want to poke them with something hard as they ride past, apologising obviously. Following from that, Cyclists who carry to ride on at top pelt through Pelican Crossings, when the green man is on, and fail to even worry about the pedestrians crossing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Daft things that make your blood boil No. 69: when you're advised not to go to the doctors' surgery because you might transmit your flu virus to all and sundry, but when you can't get through on the phone to get a quack to come see you. I'm glad I'm not old and infirm. When I beat this bug, I'm going round to Somerford Grove to give someone a piece of my mind. Isn't that a form of leprosy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.