View Full Version : 28 years for homosexual's murder
landmarker
16-Jun-06, 22:04
Beaten to death on Clapham Common,London. a well known haunt for opportunist homosexual encounters.
I've no problem with the length of sentence here. Anyone who commits such a crime as kicking a defenceless man to death deserves at least 28 years. However, why is the sentence so dramatically extended because of the sexual proclivities of the victim. Surely, in this violent country (England) this is meant to be a deterrent to people who want to kill homosexuals. The sentences for racially motivated murders are of a similar length. If such policies are designed to deter then why not extend it to all such heinous kilings?
Surely, the lawmakers and sentence setters wish to deter murder generally.
What happens to someone who kills a black homosexual? Is it double or quits?56 years?
A life is a life, and there should be no greater emphasis on retribution just because the victim was in some kind of minority , be it a celebrated one or not.
When one compares this latest outcome to recent cases for paedophiles where judges have been criticised for undue leniency then it is no wonder that ordinary joes like me get confused and exasperated.
When the average 'lifer' is out after about ten years yet murderers of 'gays' are told they will face a minimum of such length something is out of kilter. The judiciary seems skewed.
I don't apologise for re-introducing a subject of weight and controversy, but merely ask you exactly what do you think of this?
These men may not get life imprisonment but the law is taking the bit that matters from them.
When there is public outrage at any sentences I usually take that as a good barometer reading for unrealistic sentencing and that the judges have got it wrong.
SandTiger
16-Jun-06, 23:28
...
When the average 'lifer' is out after about ten years yet murderers of 'gays' are told they will face a minimum of such length something is out of kilter. The judiciary seems skewed.
I don't apologise for re-introducing a subject of weight and controversy, but merely ask you exactly what do you think of this?
Just wondering, what is an "average lifer"?
I too don't really see the relevance of the guy’s sexuality. The murderers simply set out with they intention of killing somebody.
To my mind the fact that they decided the victim would be a “Gay” should make no more difference than if they decided to choose a victim with a particular hair colour or particular height or, for that matter, any other, I won’t use the word reason but rather call it exactly what it is, excuse.
They are guilty of a totally unprovoked murder and it should be treated as such. Who ever, or whatever the victim is does not make them any more or less dead and no differentiation should be made.
Personally I would have preferred that life should mean life, especially in such circumstances.
This, by the accounts given, was not a murder as an extension of some other act which escalated or was as a result of them setting out to do something else such as a robbery gone wrong.
They wished to do nothing less than murder somebody and that was the only reason for the crime. As such they should never be trusted amongst the public again.
Murdina Bug
17-Jun-06, 09:19
I totally agree that a lot of sentencing is too light for crimes against others and I also feel that life should mean life. Why are they eliglble for parole after a certain period of time? Is it hoped that they will have reformed their characters after 5 or 6 years - when locked up in a segregation wing for their own safety with a bunch of other violent and/or sexual offenders?!
I think the tough sentence of the murders above must have taken into consideration the pre-meditation and intent to kill, the complete lack of remorse and the previous record of the individuals. More lenient sentences may be handed down because crimes were 'opportunist' or the criminal has expressed regret.
I am in favour of minimum sentences for sexual or violent crimes to unify the system and a 3 strikes and you're out (or IN prison)!
I don't apologise for re-introducing a subject of weight and controversy, but merely ask you exactly what do you think of this?
Here's what I think, and I ask you landmarker, could you do anything different to help change the attitudes of homophobic murderers?
One of the underlying problems with homophobic or racist murders, is that the motives that drive the murderers are inherited from their society. Ordinary and respected people harbour homophobic thoughts, dressed up in many cases as morallity or religious dogma, but usually at the expense of the ethnic minority, and always derogatory. That's why there are laws in place now, to protect minorities from the unreasonable and personal fears of homophobes and racists.
OK, so Landmarkers homophobia does'nt turn him into a killer, but, in some twisted way, might not the killers see his homophobia as justification and support for their dasterdly deed?
Once again this thread is a case of "what can I do to change this attitude compared to "what have I done to keep this attitude alive?
What have you done Landmarker?
In reading the posts I have wondered if the the word "homosexual" was used in the judge's pronouncement. It may be that the press has added the "assumed" bits and that the issue here is really with the reporting rather than the sentencing.
Once again this thread is a case of "what can I do to change this attitude compared to "what have I done to keep this attitude alive?
What have you done Landmarker?
Ok Gleeber I'll ask you the same question, "What have you done?" and what would you suggest the rest of us lesser mortals do
brokencross
17-Jun-06, 16:03
The more generic name for this type of offence is Hate Crime which is defined as:-
"If someone commits a crime against you or your property because of your age, colour, sex, race, national origin, religion, sexual identity or disability, this is called a hate crime."
In the case of race crime "If you've been the victim of a crime and you THINK that you were targeted because of your race, you should make it clear to the police officer when you're giving your statement." So it is the perception of the victim which has a large bearing on whether it is a hate crime or not.
Regarding punishment "If it's proven that the offender's main motivation was based on prejudice or their hatred of another race, then the sentence can be MORE SEVERE than for the same offence without a racial motivation."
"What is homophobic crime?
If someone becomes a victim of crime because of their sexuality, then this is classed as a crime where homophobia is one of the main motivations."
Punishment "Sentences for crimes proven to have a homophobic motive behind them will be TOUGHER and the reporting of homophobic crimes will be treated as seriously as racial hate crimes."
For more look at:- http://www.direct.gov.uk/AdvancedSearch/SearchResults/fs/en?NP=1&PO1=C&PI1=W&PF1=A&PG=1&RP=20&SC=__dgov_site&PT1=Hate+Crime&Z=1
I may be old fashioned but I would rather that under the law any crime against a citizen would suffer the same punishment. This disparity in sentencing does nothing to harmonise society, in fact it can inflame the situation.
I agree brokencross, the crime is the same, only the excuses differ.
The very idea behind separating some crimes as "Hate Crime" is "exclusive" rather than "inclusive" if that is still the current jargon.
The official labelling of some violent offences as being "Hate Crime" is to say that legally the victims of such crime are in some way "different" and not to be treated the same as rest of Society. To my mind such people, for whatever reason, are being marked out as not being a part of "normal society" and therefore should be treated differently.
The law tells me that they should not be treated differently and then the law tells me they will be treated differently.
What is the difference between me saying I murdered somebody because of some label attached to them and my saying I murdered somebody simply because I felt like murdering somebody.
Which ever way you look at it, both the offender and the law are of the firm opinion that the victim of "Hate Crime" is to be singled out as being an "Outsider" and, to my mind, the thought process behind both is the same.
"Look at them, they're different from us!" Should we really be incorporating such distasteful attitudes into the laws governing our behaviour?
celtic 302
18-Jun-06, 00:28
[quote=gleeber] That's why there are laws in place now, to protect minorities from the unreasonable and personal fears of homophobes and racists.
quote]
i may be wrong, but i thought laws were there to help everyone, not just minorities? if what your saying is true, you think someone who kills someone because of there race, sexuality or anything that seperates them from the rest of the people should be dealt with more severly. your wrong. when someone kills someone, they should be punished because they killed, not because they killed a jew, or a black person, or a disabled or elderley person. murder is wrong. murder can have no excuses. murder is murder, who you killed is of little importance to the sentence. :~(
landmarker
18-Jun-06, 19:27
What have you done Landmarker?
I haven't done anything to foster tolerance of homosexuals. Nor have I done anything to encourage their victimisation either.
What have you done, apart from use words like 'homophobia' which are mildly hysterical and straight off the bandwagon of censorious pc thought.
No killer of homosexuals deserves a heavier sentence than child killers.police killers, sex killers. They should all be treated the same way. Locked up for as long as they can draw breath. Better still perhaps, and it is arguable, executed.
I haven't done anything to foster tolerance of homosexuals. Nor have I done anything to encourage their victimisation either.
What have you done, apart from use words like 'homophobia' which are mildly hysterical and straight off the bandwagon of censorious pc thought.
No killer of homosexuals deserves a heavier sentence than child killers.police killers, sex killers. They should all be treated the same way. Locked up for as long as they can draw breath. Better still perhaps, and it is arguable, executed.
I think one of the problems with racist killings or homosexual killings is what I mentioned in my post. When ordinary, and respectable members of society (I include yourself in that group) harbour thoughts, like you have often expressed on caithnes.org, towards homosexuals, or people of a different culture, then, I am of the opinion that that may just send out the wrong message to people amongst us who have no control over the beast in themselves.
Whilst I agree that murder of any kind is unnacceptable, even the law expresses that there are degrees of murder, and I agree with that.
We don't get guys like yourself having a beer with the boys and talking about children in an unnacceptable way, when there may be some idiot amongst you, who, with a bellyfull of beer and the wrong message, may go out and murder a couple of innocent children.
I wonder how often those two homophobic idiots heard ordinary guys like yourself having a laugh at the expense of homosexuals?
Don't you see, how, in some twisted way, those two guys may have picked up the wrong message from ordinary guys like yourself?
Thats why there are laws to protect people from vulnerable communities, because of the subtle content of the prejudice they have to put up with.
As for what I do to combat my homophobia. One of the most important thing is that I challenge people like you.
landmarker
19-Jun-06, 16:40
[QUOTE=gleeber]
I wonder how often those two homophobic idiots heard ordinary guys like yourself having a laugh at the expense of homosexuals?
QUOTE]
To this comment, perhaps more than any other , I take great exception.
I do not 'have a laugh at the expense of homosexuals' I see nothing amusing in their preferences whatsoever. I think of them as infrequently as possible and am not in the habit of drunken banter with macho fools, exchanging jokes about anything.
Do not assume to 'know me' I am far from 'ordinary' as you have chosen to bracket me, howsoever you define 'ordinary' I'd wager I ain't!!
I think outside the box on many matters but always write honestly to convey an opinion, which is worthless or not - take it or leave it.
A natural non-conformist I just will not bow to the lefty liberal trend of 'approval' of all minorities however bizarre. You're out of order here.My opinion is as valid as yours is so do not presume to belittle it with accusations of behaviour that simply does not apply.
To this comment, perhaps more than any other , I take great exception.
I do not 'have a laugh at the expense of homosexuals' I see nothing amusing in their preferences whatsoever. I think of them as infrequently as possible and am not in the habit of drunken banter with macho fools, exchanging jokes about anything.
Do not assume to 'know me' I am far from 'ordinary' as you have chosen to bracket me, howsoever you define 'ordinary' I'd wager I ain't!!
I think outside the box on many matters but always write honestly to convey an opinion, which is worthless or not - take it or leave it.
A natural non-conformist I just will not bow to the lefty liberal trend of 'approval' of all minorities however bizarre. You're out of order here.My opinion is as valid as yours is so do not presume to belittle it with accusations of behaviour that simply does not apply.
Just for the record, I would like to say, I am both flattered and pleased that my challenge gives you great exception.
I assume nothing about you, apart from the uncomfortable feeling many of your posts evoke in me. That's what I respond to.
You have a high opinion of yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you'r not unique. I hear the same stuff you punt on Caithness.org, every day of the week, but your ability to dress it up as reasonable opinion is what makes it so outrageous. Your party leader has the same ability.
As for being out of order. On yer bike! Yes, your opinion is as valid as mine but if you post it on a public forum like caithness.org, then, like mine, it's up for challenge.
What's homophobia, please?
What's homophobia, please?
A totally misused word. I may not have benefited from a classical education but to me it sounds like "an irrational fear of men".
On the other hand it could be accurate; maybe "hate crimes" would be better described as "fear crimes"
The sad thing about the way these crimes are treated is that being a straight, able-bodied, white, English speaking male, my well-being is of little interest to the law; I merely give thanks that I wear glasses or no doubt I'd be earmarked for scientific hunting ;)
landmarker
20-Jun-06, 22:41
Just for the record, I would like to say, I am both flattered and pleased that my challenge gives you great exception.
I assume nothing about you, apart from the uncomfortable feeling many of your posts evoke in me. That's what I respond to.
You have a high opinion of yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you'r not unique. I hear the same stuff you punt on Caithness.org, every day of the week, but your ability to dress it up as reasonable opinion is what makes it so outrageous. Your party leader has the same ability.
As for being out of order. On yer bike! Yes, your opinion is as valid as mine but if you post it on a public forum like caithness.org, then, like mine, it's up for challenge.
My party leader? What the heck are you talking about?
Thanks for the positive comments about my ameliorative abilties.
I agree though, I am far from 'unique' and you are even less so.
Keep the challenges coming , I see them as fair game for some political & social banter. I fear you see it as something more. I'm not very important you know, I hold no sway. Relax a bit. You 'outrage' too easily. A bit like Peter Tatchell and his cronies.
A totally misused word. I may not have benefited from a classical education but to me it sounds like "an irrational fear of men".I'm glad I'm not the only one who translates the word in that way. Put another way it is yet another example of a word being deliberately misused in order to present it as a form of accusation or abuse towards the person "labelled" as such.
I do wish people would not hide behind such misuse of words and come straight out in the open and say exactly what they mean instead of dressing it up with pseudo-medical terminology.
Anybody who did suffer from "Homophobia", be they male or female, would be suffering from a debilitating Medical Condition which, no doubt, would tend to keep them housebound and living in dread of coming into contact with half the population of the world.
My knowledge on the subject may not be complete but, personally, I have never heard of anybody suffering from such an extreme condition and if there were many sufferers I am sure that it would be widely reported.
What puzzles me is why those who complain that some people place unwarranted labels on certain groups immediately find it necessary to hang a label on the very people they claim should not be labelling others.
George Brims
20-Jun-06, 23:46
Actually (having a small bit of a classical education) I would point out it means literally "fear of the same". That makes as much sense as "fear of men". However there is no rule that says a new word has to be exactly accurate in its translation from Greek or Latin. "homosexualphobia" would be cumbersome if more precise.
As for the preceding discussion, I have a great distaste for those who would maintain that they are in some way being victimized or discriminated against, just because something is being done to redress a wrong against some group to which they don't belong. It's like a child who feels slighted because another child got an ice cream.
Actually (having a small bit of a classical education) I would point out it means literally "fear of the same". That makes as much sense as "fear of men". However there is no rule that says a new word has to be exactly accurate in its translation from Greek or Latin. "homosexualphobia" would be cumbersome if more precise.
As for the preceding discussion, I have a great distaste for those who would maintain that they are in some way being victimized or discriminated against, just because something is being done to redress a wrong against some group to which they don't belong. It's like a child who feels slighted because another child got an ice cream.
I would describe it more like the child who receives no protection from the Teacher who sees him being bullied whilst the same teacher protects other children from being bullied because the teacher thinks blue eyed children need more protection.
One of the aims of any civilised society should be that all are equal before the law and to make special treatment available to some to the exclusion of others is anything but equal.
It doesn't seem right to me that if I go out and murder somebody with ginger hair that my sentence should be greater if I say it's because I hate ginger haired people than if I say it was because the victim just happened to be there when the urge to murder overcame me.
The victim is just as dead whatever my reason and to differentiate between the two reasons is to say that one victim is more deserving of justice than another. My sentence should be the same whatever my reason.
The only difference in my sentence should be if there is a likelihood that my reason for murdering is likely to suggest I am more likely to re-offend.
Using that criteria for sentencing does not make distinctions between victims but make a judgement about my behaviour on the grounds of keeping the public safe from the effects of the likelihood of my murdering again.
(To put people's minds at rest, the treatment worked, the Psychiatrist assured me I was cured. He had a lovely mop of ginger hair. For some reason I haven't been invited to the Funeral) :D
I would describe it more like the child who receives no protection from the Teacher who sees him being bullied whilst the same teacher protects other children from being bullied because the teacher thinks blue eyed children need more protection.
But we all do get the same protection because we are all different in some respect.
Equality isn't everyone being the same, equality is recognising that being different is normal.
If a group of homosexuals were to kill someone because they were heterosexual the law would apply the same. As an Englishman living in Scotland you enjoy the protection of the race relations laws just the same as a Scot living in England would.
Motive has always been a factor in the sentencing of any crime, the penalty for killing a policeman has always been greater than for killing someone else, why do you see homosexuals as recieving preferential treatment when the same rules are applied to them?
why do you see homosexuals as recieving preferential treatment when the same rules are applied to them?
I think it's something to do with the subtle nature of the prejudice. Racism is another one. It's been called institutionalised. That really means it's there, but not acknowledged. How often have you seen it on here. I'm not racist but..........., I dont mind homosexuals.....but??
When I use the word homophobic I take it to mean, an irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals. I recognise that meaning because I have it myself, the homophobia not the homosexuality :eek:
When Landmarker stands on his privelaged platform of whiteness, I recognise that position too. Although we have opposing views of human behaviour, I have the same white sense of self as he does. I take my whiteness and hetereosexuality for granted, and would be puzzled to see some black homophobic Landmarker coming onto caithness.org using the evocotive language our very own white one uses to protect his superior position.
He comes onto caithness.org complaing about all the injustices and social implications that come with them, but does nothing to consider his own part in the plot. He votes for a fascist party whose leader is a holocaust denier. They will certainly sort his irrational fears out and mine and everybody elses too.
If golden words are allowed to cloud sinister motives, what chance civilisation?
If golden words are allowed to cloud sinister motives, what chance civilisation?
Golden words have have clouded most sinister motives since politics was invented. At the rate it's going, civilisation has no chance, no matter what words are used.
But we all do get the same protection because we are all different in some respect.
Equality isn't everyone being the same, equality is recognising that being different is normal.
Crikey fred - im just picking myself up off the floor - i agree with you absolutely:eek:
landmarker
21-Jun-06, 17:08
He votes for a fascist party whose leader is a holocaust denier. They will certainly sort his irrational fears out and mine and everybody elses too.
The party I have voted for at two of the last three elections have no chance of ever gaining power in this country and you know it. They will need to completely replace their leadership with top drawer thinkers and charismatic votewinners, as well as re-defining their policies to include and embrace anyone who really WANTS to be 'British' Until then they will only ever flirt with the margins of national influence, albeit holding some sway in local hotspots. Be grateful you don't live in one gleeber, I am.
The cause of a largely white England meandering along century after century is now lost & the corpse of anglo-saxon/norman Brittannia twitches and jerks in the minds of people like me. The old, the young with a yen for the past. The middle age dreamers, and yes some thick, ignorant people no-one of taste would want to join on ANY viable bandwagon. This last group aside, the rest of us who remain unbowed and vocal are consigned to the ranks of verbal desperadoes by political correctness, the only logical answer is to vote BNP, knowing it's might scare the pants off those in Westminster.
Time has moved on, wars have been won but peacetime direction lost and wayward. What was once a great country has been squandered by a ruling elite, backed up by people like you with an arty farty attitude to life and liberty. The latter is fast sliding away from us all. We are headed up a dead end with no turning space. Reverse gear seized up long ago through lack of use.
For now the BNP serve some purpose as a refuge for the totally disaffected and alienated who have lost faith in mainstream politicians, who seem to do little to satisfy the needs of working class white people when it comes to housing, jobs, training, law and order, and immigration.
Incidentally, you must really enjoy typing the word 'landmarker' because you do it a heck of a lot. I know you're talking to me, or about me you know, and there seem few other regulars who grab your attention quite as much.I can't believe many others are taking notice of our continual spats.
If I provide some motive for your crusading attitude then carry on regardless.
'Tis all gryst to the mill.
I think it's something to do with the subtle nature of the prejudice. Racism is another one. It's been called institutionalised. That really means it's there, but not acknowledged. How often have you seen it on here. I'm not racist but..........., I dont mind homosexuals.....but??
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/gop_in_white.jpg
The party I have voted for at two of the last three elections have no chance of ever gaining power in this country and you know it. They will need to completely replace their leadership with top drawer thinkers and charismatic votewinners, as well as re-defining their policies to include and embrace anyone who really WANTS to be 'British' Until then they will only ever flirt with the margins of national influence, albeit holding some sway in local hotspots. Be grateful you don't live in one gleeber, I am.
The cause of a largely white England meandering along century after century is now lost & the corpse of anglo-saxon/norman Brittannia twitches and jerks in the minds of people like me. The old, the young with a yen for the past. The middle age dreamers, and yes some thick, ignorant people no-one of taste would want to join on ANY viable bandwagon. This last group aside, the rest of us who remain unbowed and vocal are consigned to the ranks of verbal desperadoes by political correctness, the only logical answer is to vote BNP, knowing it's might scare the pants off those in Westminster.
Time has moved on, wars have been won but peacetime direction lost and wayward. What was once a great country has been squandered by a ruling elite, backed up by people like you with an arty farty attitude to life and liberty. The latter is fast sliding away from us all. We are headed up a dead end with no turning space. Reverse gear seized up long ago through lack of use.
For now the BNP serve some purpose as a refuge for the totally disaffected and alienated who have lost faith in mainstream politicians, who seem to do little to satisfy the needs of working class white people when it comes to housing, jobs, training, law and order, and immigration.
Incidentally, you must really enjoy typing the word 'landmarker' because you do it a heck of a lot. I know you're talking to me, or about me you know, and there seem few other regulars who grab your attention quite as much.I can't believe many others are taking notice of our continual spats.
If I provide some motive for your crusading attitude then carry on regardless.
'Tis all gryst to the mill.
As I see it, one of the problems for your disastisfaction is your own inherant racism. You have never, in all your posts on caithness.org, about your gripes with immigration, offered any other solution to the problem, apart from taking the risk to vote for a far right party. And no, I am not sure that your thugs dressed in silk suits wont be able to swing the dial in years to come, and nothings sure if golden mouthed supporters like yourself are given free reign to punt their poison. You and your ilk prey on an animal instinct just waiting to be energized.
Another thing, you may not have noticed but life outside of landmarker moves on. Your disatisfaction with modern ideas is no more than a final attempt to retain the power of your little English fathers. The empire grabbers. Their legacy is as much to blame for the present problems and hangups being suffered by some of the immigrants who have made Britain their home. and also the white families whose hidden fears are now coming home to roost. You see life from a privelaged position, that of a white anglo-saxon protestant jerk. Havnt you noticed, ordinary people are trying their damnest to intigrate and make things better for everybody, whilst you vote for a bunch of fascists.
As for being arty farty, ive been called many things but that one takes the buscuit. Whether anyone else is paying attention to this, or not, is of little consequence. What matters is that bigoted little Englanders like yourself are not allowed free reign on caithness.org to spout your racist diatribe, without being challenged. Is that motive enough?
As for being arty farty, ive been called many things but that one takes the buscuit. Whether anyone else is paying attention to this, or not, is of little consequence. What matters is that bigoted little Englanders like yourself are not allowed free reign on caithness.org to spout your racist diatribe, without being challenged. Is that motive enough?
Well Well, I never thought I would see the day, that Gleeber the Enlightened one, The Oracle of the Glebe, would lower himself to the common level of us unenlightened as he has so often told us in Caithness.Org, especially me. And refer to another Orger, no matter who he is as "a bigoted little Englander", That Gleeber, smacks o the kettle calling the pot black. If you are to be seen as the snowy white person you make out to be, then dont throw stones.
George Brims
21-Jun-06, 23:59
Well Golach although I have often disputed things with gleeber in the past, I will have to disagree with you and side with him this time. There is a time and a place for civility in discourse (most times and most places to be exact), but when someone takes a position of supporting the ugly creeps of the BNP, I believe that time has unfortunately passed.
Landmarker, your vision of this world as a place of a white "us" and a non-white "them" is pitifully outdated. Many years ago the National Front (the spiritual ancestors of the BNP) used to save time on spreading graffiti by covering the place in stupid little stickers. I saw one that read "Say no to a multi-racial Britain". Underneath someone (I wish it had been me) had written "I agree. Send the Anglo-Saxons back, they've been nothing but trouble, Signed, A Pict". Britain is and always will be a melting pot, just like everywhere else on the planet to a greater or lesser degree. For example, I used to know a guy in college, name of Singh, whose family had been in Britain since the SIXTEENTH century. Grow up man, it's a great and interesting world out there, embrace it.
In many of his posts, Landmarker has said many things that would justify the appellation "bigoted little Englander". Gleeber, as a worker of stone, is one of the least arty farty people I know.
Well Well, I never thought I would see the day, that Gleeber the Enlightened one, The Oracle of the Glebe, would lower himself to the common level of us unenlightened as he has so often told us in Caithness.Org, especially me. And refer to another Orger, no matter who he is as "a bigoted little Englander", That Gleeber, smacks o the kettle calling the pot black. If you are to be seen as the snowy white person you make out to be, then dont throw stones.
lol:lol:
oops, needs 10 characters
landmarker
22-Jun-06, 14:58
...........You see life from a privelaged position, that of a white anglo-saxon protestant jerk...........
three out of four ain't bad. I have also discovered this afternoon that you are a bloke. Much to my surprise. Also, a hewer of stone. Marvellous.
Contemplate your raw material for a moment. Cold and unfeeling as it maybe, eternal as it undoubtedly is, and then consider this spat in terms of the blink of an eyelid in the miasma of deep and black infinity.
So did you eally have to call me a jerk?
I'm not exactly cut to the quick, more re-assured you're human after all.
I'm not exactly cut to the quick, more re-assured you're human after all.
Whatever or whoever gave you the impression that Gleeber was human???:confused
Gleeber an arty-farty woman?
I can barely type because I'm laughing so much. :lol: :lol:
That's made my day - it really has...
landmarker
22-Jun-06, 17:15
Gleeber an arty-farty woman?
I can barely type because I'm laughing so much. :lol: :lol:
That's made my day - it really has...
..always happy to oblige Doc. You can't beat havin' a laugh eh?
LMAO, gleeber an arty farty woman. Positively delicious.
and if landmarker views an intelligent, compassionate response as an impossible composition by a "bloke", and only capable of being written by a woman, its even more hilarious.
Rock on gleeber, our hewer of stone friend.
landmarker
22-Jun-06, 19:11
LMAO, gleeber an arty farty woman. Positively delicious.
and if landmarker views an intelligent, compassionate response as an impossible composition by a "bloke", and only capable of being written by a woman, its even more hilarious.
Rock on gleeber, our hewer of stone friend.
Yes, the yolks on me and egg is all over my face. However htwood please do not put words into my mouth. There are ample number there already. I just thought gleeber's cogent, consistent responses to diametrically opposed views to her own without resorting to overtly antagonistic language pointed towards a more delicate gender.
Some blokes are capable of that, many are not. I might include you for those who guffaw loudest are often the most obtuse.
My mind is not made up about you - too little to go on & too little motivation to ponder it - but on balance I'd say you were a bloke.... then again..............???? I guess boys can't really be boys on such a rigorously regulated board. Suits me.
So what's wrong with arty farty weemin? Bunch o bigots the whole o ye. ;)
So what's wrong with arty farty weemin? Bunch o bigots the whole o ye. ;)
They are covered in paint an smell thats whats wrong with them [lol]
I guess boys can't really be boys on such a rigorously regulated board. Suits me.
I used to think I was a boy too until I discovered the arty farty woman in me.:)
Before that I needed to conform to certain standards of behaviour and ideas of what it meant to be a boy. That's what's behind all this nonsense.
Not long ago I was part of a group of women (12 of them) and a homosexual bloke who were discussing just this very thing. It was heavy going because when women get started one of them's enough but 12! Anyway, I learnt a lot that day, and so did they. We discovered that much of what is expected of us as men, and women, go against the natural human tendancy to be what we really are, whatever that is. We grow up with preconcieved ideas about what it is to be a man or a woman.
Sure, there are marked differences but how much are these differences manufactured by our cultures and some invisible rule that we should all know our places?
My mind is not made up about you - too little to go on & too little motivation to ponder it - but on balance I'd say you were a bloke.... then again..............???? I guess boys can't really be boys on such a rigorously regulated board. Suits me.
I celebrate both my masculine and feminine qualities, they make me who I truly am.
But why must you continually label people, can you not see them simply as human beings, unless they fit into a certain box? It appears the infinite human characteristics are narrowed down by you to either man or woman, either homo or heterosexual, either black or white, with attendant qualities of right vs. wrong and desireable vs. undesirable.
landmarker
23-Jun-06, 21:22
I celebrate both my masculine and feminine qualities, they make me who I truly am.
But why must you continually label people, can you not see them simply as human beings, unless they fit into a certain box? It appears the infinite human characteristics are narrowed down by you to either man or woman, either homo or heterosexual, either black or white, with attendant qualities of right vs. wrong and desireable vs. undesirable.
Label? I think I merely respond to those who have labelled themselves.
The overt homo - on a mission. Listen, I don't care a damn what people do in their own space, so long as it's not public and they do not go looking for converts.
The devout self-labelled muslim garbed in black from head to foot almost that's fine, but I'm sorry, they don't really 'belong' in Britain. We tolerate them because this is Britain.
I have a problem when the tail starts to wag the dog.
The habitual career criminal - waste of space, no good to man nor beast , there should be a three strikes you are out policy for burglars. Two strikes for violent offenders,drug dealers and child molesters. A life sentence should mean life, and there should he a huge expansion of the prison building programme. Burglary should carry a five year mandatory sentence for the first offence. It's all down to upbringing. I could never stray into someones house for nefarious purposes. Such people are selfish insensitive oiks. There is no good in them. The victims anguish too often goes ignored, it counts for little it seems. Well, it is time the system was skewed the other way - in favour of the victim.
I'm glad you are in touch with your feminine side, I can empathise with that and feel the same way myself. I'm not afraid to cry sometimes and am quite an emotional person. I vent my inner feelings on a regular basis, and yes, I do find 'sounding off' in here a form of therapy. I love to write. I've been happy to answer your politely put observations.
The great Albert Hammond once wrote and performed a fine song called 'Names,Tags,Numbers,Labels' You have just given me reason to think of it for the first time in twenty years - thanks for that, if now't else.
I'm constantly in touch with my feminine side.
We have been apart for over a decade and now live 500 Miles/800 Kilometres apart but my feminine side still thinks I should be at her beck and call. My feminine side is also prone to temper tantrums when not in total control of my every movement. I have never come across a masculine side who can spend three hours on a phone telling you that you are not worth the effort of talking to.
Provided you keep your sense of humour your Feminine Side is well worth being in touch with. Like a good Magician it can keep you constantly amazed with it's slight of hand and feminine intuition. Who else can phone you out of the blue and tell you the exact contents of your wallet even down to the serial numbers on each Bank Note.
Get in touch with your Feminine Side? That's easy. What I need is a good Magician who specialises in the Vanishing Lady Routine.
pultneytooner
24-Jun-06, 01:23
I'm constantly in touch with my feminine side.
We have been apart for over a decade and now live 500 Miles/800 Kilometres apart but my feminine side still thinks I should be at her beck and call. My feminine side is also prone to temper tantrums when not in total control of my every movement. I have never come across a masculine side who can spend three hours on a phone telling you that you are not worth the effort of talking to.
Provided you keep your sense of humour your Feminine Side is well worth being in touch with. Like a good Magician it can keep you constantly amazed with it's slight of hand and feminine intuition. Who else can phone you out of the blue and tell you the exact contents of your wallet even down to the serial numbers on each Bank Note.
Get in touch with your Feminine Side? That's easy. What I need is a good Magician who specialises in the Vanishing Lady Routine.
All will be well in the end.;);)
Once someone has crossed the line of social responsability then I can agree that the full force of the law should be used against them. However much I find their crime reprehensable, I dont think anything can be learnt from using words like scum or animals to describe people who were once innocent children. That type of language further alienates already alienated people. If we are ever going to meet the demands of modern living, crime is one of the ingredients that will need to be understood.
Maybe its a very idealistic position but part of the political correctness some of you are always moaning at, is an attempt to combat the archaic attitudes that have got us into this conflictory position in the first place, not only on caithness.org but nation wide.
Political Correctness is just a method used by Self-interest Pressure Groups to convince the general population that they are suffering from some sort of character defect which is in need of correcting.
Political Correctness is just a method used by Self-interest Pressure Groups to convince the general population that they are suffering from some sort of character defect which is in need of correcting.
Spot on Jaws. ;)
celtic 302
26-Jun-06, 18:26
Equality isn't everyone being the same, equality is recognising that being different is normal.
wrong. equality is realizing that everyone in the world is equal and that no-one is better than another because of race or anything that seperates them from everyone else. equality is realizing that you are equal with everyone else. equality only works when everyone knows what equality is.
landmarker
26-Jun-06, 18:43
wrong. equality is realizing that everyone in the world is equal and that no-one is better than another because of race or anything that seperates them from everyone else. equality is realizing that you are equal with everyone else. equality only works when everyone knows what equality is.
...but all people are not 'equal' it's sad but true. We might be born equal but environment, economics and the luck of the lottery of life means we cannot all be 'equal' If the more fortunate amiongst us were to all gravitate downward so we could all meet up on some notional line of equality then everyone here would have to sink a long way indeed.
Your sentiments are fine and noble but this is not Utopia we're all living in, it is planet earth, for most a hostile environment. Your closing phrase confirms equality as a myth, surely?
Equality isn't everyone being the same, equality is recognising that being different is normal.Sorry fred, I should have picked this up earlier.
Shock, horror! Confusion for everybody! I couldn't agree more with that sentiment.
I look forward to the day when phrases such as "---, is the first (whatever difference) person to become -----" are as irrelevant as saying the first person with green eyes or ginger hair has some particular job or position.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.