Angry White and Thick

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byker28i said:
I did the same once with a CB1000, went back to a 500, but as you get older and wiser and realise you don't want to get hurt, you take less risks. I now have a zzr1200 :D
Click to expand...

My brother has settled around the 500 range now.

One of his part time jobs is doing the engine rebuilds and seat building/modifying for Cafe Racer Kits.

http://www.caferacerkits.co.uk/whats-in-the-shed/

Some of the photographs here are in his workshop (generally, the photographs of the more cluttered workshop!).


Steve.
 
dejongj said:
Well just one sentence was aimed at you, as I've just stated. ROFLMAO Well if you just ask the question then you'll get an answer....you danced around the hand bag and didn't ask the question, thus I couldn't possibly answer...Not that hard of a concept to understand, yet you still seem to be in denial about it, or at least that is how it comes across to me...
Click to expand...

It's/he isn't worth it. Trust me. Don't let their pugnacious behaviour spoil your time on the thread.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
And we're back on track...

So in what way would reducing our foreign aid feed back into the privatised rail system? Whilst the track is owned by by Network rail Ltd (and since 1 September 2014, Network Rail was reclassified as a central government body, adding around £34 billion to public sector net debt), the train companies who own and run the rolling stock are all private apart from East Coast trains, currently awaiting the franchise to be re granted.
Click to expand...

Upgrading track, grants to private companies perhaps.

Virgin have won the east coast contract. I've travelled both routes, the rolling stick on west coast is much better. The money used in foreign aid could have been put into upgrading the rolling stock for the Edinburgh/Aberdeen/Inverness - Kings cross route.

Or it could have been spent on road repairs, better flood defences, plugging the fiscal gap. Basically anywhere on British needs.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
It's/he isn't worth it. Trust me. Don't let their pugnacious behaviour spoil your time on the thread.
Click to expand...

Come on, its pretty obvious to all that read it, that the whole thing was aimed at me. Otherwise why include the Canon part on the end of it. He could at least be a man about it and be honest. If only that last sentence was aimed at me, it makes the entire post illogical in the way it was written.

Its not like im looking to take this anywhere Steve. When youve called me pinko, leftie etc, its obviously aimed at me and you dont try to hide it, and the same if I say something to you. Its obvious, we dont hide behind anything.
 
You obviously still aren't capable of reading what I wrote...Just like you weren't willing to ask what you wanted to ask via PM yet accuse me of not answering what you didn't ask....As I said, first part is generic and a description of a coping mechanism, last part was directly aimed at you...Perhaps just listen to the person who actually wrote it instead of making up your own story around it....
 
dejongj said:
You obviously still aren't capable of reading what I wrote...Just like you weren't willing to ask what you wanted to ask via PM yet accuse me of not answering what you didn't ask....As I said, first part is generic and a description of a coping mechanism, last part was directly aimed at you...Perhaps just listen to the person who actually wrote it instead of making up your own story around it....
Click to expand...

I think that explains it as a bystander in this. Let's get the thread back on track.
 
dejongj said:
You obviously still aren't capable of reading what I wrote...Just like you weren't willing to ask what you wanted to ask via PM yet accuse me of not answering what you didn't ask....As I said, first part is generic and a description of a coping mechanism, last part was directly aimed at you...Perhaps just listen to the person who actually wrote it instead of making up your own story around it....
Click to expand...

Instead of copying your post word for word, so that there could no confusion, I asked you to look at a post number. Its not like I was asking you to perform brain surgery. The post numbers are on the right hand side of the posts. Instead you spent time telling me to stop dancing round a handbag and ask the question. In the same time it took you write that, you would have been able to find the post in question.
 
Laudrup said:
Surely having a seven-hour debate in the UK Parliament and then voting 524 to 43 in favour of participating in military action against IS in Iraq is the exact opposite of wanting to 'tear up democracy and embrace fascist dictatorship'? Is anyone here arguing for such a dystopia? I don't know what Steve's ultimate vision of the UK is, but I'd bet it bears closer resemblance to your own compared to what ISIS or other Islamic extremists want.
Click to expand...

so far n this thread right wingers have argued for

- telling people what they can believe
-telling people what they can and can't wear
and
- government monitoring of what people say , in order to find and take action against those who they find unacceptable
- withdrawing cititizen ship from anyone who doesnt believe in the same things they do

That is closer to how ISIS operate than any reasonable definition of western democracy

throwing away hard won democratic freedoms such as the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech , in order to deal with a tiny minority of extremists is pretty much a road to that dystopian future,
 
big soft moose said:
so far n this thread right wingers have argued for

- telling people what they can believe
-telling people what they can and can't wear
and
- government monitoring of what people say , in order to find and take action against those who they find unacceptable
- withdrawing cititizen ship from anyone who doesnt believe in the same things they do

That is closer to how ISIS operate than any reasonable definition of western democracy

throwing away hard won democratic freedoms such as the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech , in order to deal with a tiny minority of extremists is pretty much a road to that dystopian future,
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this will just be another post that falls on deaf ears.
 
ST4 said:
"Tvat" is the "v" a "w" or a "h"

I've backed my views up with evidence, you just with mockery and abuse.

Others seem to share my view, perhaps I'm not alone.

Are you going to insult them, or just me.

Can you also please explain with factual evidence how my life is insular.

Because I don't strut around with tatoos on my face, go to metal concerts, I don't own a dog? If I did those things would I become a man of the world in your liberal pinko tainted specs view of the world?
Click to expand...

Really ? where ? - So far we've only seen links to the right wing press who have the same agenda you have

Also accusing Nick of insulting you while describing his world view as "liberal pinko" moves right past irony into cobalty "
 
ST4 said:
That's wonderful. Has everyone else who's agreed with me also blinkered in your eyes, perhaps you think people who don't share your views are blinkered? You've based your view on me, with regards to my views on what, not wanting to see the country I belong over run with Islam. Gee...gosh. Wow.

How is your dog Muslim? Does pray at mosques? I have to ask :)

My favourite colour is blue.
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point - Your argument is blinkered because you have tunnel vision that the UK is at imminent risk of being overun with islamic extremism , when all the actual evidence ( Muslims 5% of the uk population, extremist sunni/whabi muslims a tiny minority of that 5% etc) suggests that no such thing is going to happen

It also misses the point that a British born muslim has as much right to his faith as you do to yours

and the point that taking away democratic freedoms from british citizens based on what they believe , rather than what they do, is not a democratic action and thus not in anyway compatible with the "traditional british culture" you are seeking to preserve.

End of the day I do agree with the basic thesis - I have no wish to see the UK become an extremist mulsim country , however I equally have no wish to see it become a police state run by the far right either , as in my view giving away freedoms to one bunch of extremists in the hope that they'll protect you from another bunch is both ironic and foolish
 
dejongj said:
"I bet he has really a Canon :p" that was 100% directed toward you with tongue firmly in cheek as per the emoticon.

See all you had to do was ask the question...
Click to expand...


So Nikon-Nick - do you have a canon in your pocket or are you just pleased to see DeJong (whose username also sounds like a diuble entendre) :D
 
So come on...What's the result?
Which of you can actually p*** furthest? :lol:
 
Steve Smith said:
My brother has settled around the 500 range now.

One of his part time jobs is doing the engine rebuilds and seat building/modifying for Cafe Racer Kits.

http://www.caferacerkits.co.uk/whats-in-the-shed/

Some of the photographs here are in his workshop (generally, the photographs of the more cluttered workshop!).


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yeah its picking what. I had the ZZR600 and when it got to 120K miles and wasn't available I didn't like some of the alternatives, so the ZZR1200 was the laziest choice. Same layout, bigger engine. Only they ride differently. Huge power increase means you get lazy around corners and use the power opposed to keeping the speed up through corners on the smaller bike which was more chuckable. Big big and heavy now though - I can't pick it up the couple of times it's been on it's side.
 
ST4 said:
Four years for joining ISIS...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-to-syria-jailed-for-four-years-10000145.html

The problem is the western worlds limp solutions to dealing with a problem from within.
Click to expand...

What would you suggest then Steve? Quite a reasonable solution depending on where she is put. Not the first gullible teenager to do a stupid thing. Supervised after release, will be banned from owning weapons, will get psychiatric help and possible religious guidance also from vetted sources
 
viv1969 said:
So come on...What's the result?
Which of you can actually p*** furthest? :LOL:
Click to expand...
We have that league table in the staffroom,
sorry but its not for public consumption :D
 
ST4 said:
The money used in foreign aid could have been put into upgrading the rolling stock for the Edinburgh/Aberdeen/Inverness - Kings cross route.
Or it could have been spent on road repairs, better flood defences, plugging the fiscal gap. Basically anywhere on British needs.
Click to expand...

Rolling stock - So you're ok with your taxpayers money being pumped into private companies without return?

Britain spends 0.7 of GDP on foreign aid, from a suggestion put forward by the World Council of Churches in 1958 (including British Churches) that wealthy countries transfer 1% of national income to their poorer counterparts. Over the decades, 0.7% has been repeatedly re-endorsed at international conferences, five other countries also contribute as much, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg.

The 2002 International Development Act requires all UK aid to have a focus on poverty reduction. (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/1/contents) Quite a reasonable aim to reinforce those British Christian values you hold so dear.
 
Right off to finish off sunday lunch, of which Steve would be proud. British Fore rib of beef roast (from a local farm a few miles away) and all the trimmings, red cabbage, roast local veg, rosemary and garlic (from my garden) potatoes. Nothing used that has travelled more than 20 miles apart from the cooking oil.

Local food for local people... :D
 
big soft moose said:
so far n this thread right wingers have argued for

- telling people what they can believe
-telling people what they can and can't wear
and
- government monitoring of what people say , in order to find and take action against those who they find unacceptable
- withdrawing cititizen ship from anyone who doesnt believe in the same things they do

That is closer to how ISIS operate than any reasonable definition of western democracy

throwing away hard won democratic freedoms such as the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech , in order to deal with a tiny minority of extremists is pretty much a road to that dystopian future,
Click to expand...

1 - only if they don't believe in peaceful life in Britain
2 - if I/you can't pay for petrol or get served in a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet, then the Burka should not be allowed either.
3 - remember the student who racially abused someone on social media, he ended up in jail ( where some people who kill walk free )
4 - the government had no problem removing passports from football hooligans when it suited them.

This is how ISIS operate - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-kill-a-japanese-hostage-leave-one-alive.html How you can equate a member on TP with a terrorist says a whole lot about you. You should be ashamed of that comment and retract it...........

5 - you left out the right for women to vote, the right for women to have an education, the right for women to choose who they will marry, the right for women not to be subjected to FGM
 
big soft moose said:
so far n this thread right wingers have argued for

- telling people what they can believe
-telling people what they can and can't wear
and
- government monitoring of what people say , in order to find and take action against those who they find unacceptable
- withdrawing cititizen ship from anyone who doesnt believe in the same things they do

That is closer to how ISIS operate than any reasonable definition of western democracy

throwing away hard won democratic freedoms such as the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech , in order to deal with a tiny minority of extremists is pretty much a road to that dystopian future,
Click to expand...

People can believe what they like, but don't try and get people to commit violence in the name of it or try to force others to believe it or think criticism of it justifies violence, it doesn't. Banning the full face veil is exactly what happens in France and was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. That is a reasonable western democracy telling people what they can't wear and with good reasons from a social cohesion viewpoint. I'd like to see us follow France's example.

Government security services monitoring what people say happens all over the world, it is their job to look for that needle, or fragments of it, in the haystack to piece together an imminent thread. They aren't really interested in your emails about a holiday, they have enough to do to stop people being killed.

Withdrawing citizenship for 'not believing something' seems like a distortion of the argument. You didn't provide quotes for any of the above arguments, but I assume this is from Steve's 'deport those who want to Islamify us' even though it was pointed out they may be British citizens. It is quite a complex and controversial subject right now. The Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passport facilities paper said:

"Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:
  • It would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British citizenship status and to do so would not render them stateless; or
  • The person obtained their citizenship status through naturalisation, and it would be conducive to the public good to deprive them of their status because they have engaged in conduct “seriously prejudicial” to the UK’s vital interests, and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that they could acquire another nationality; or
  • The person acquired their citizenship status through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.
In the second and third scenarios, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. “Conducive to the public good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours."

It would depend on a case by case basis what their status was in the UK. Wanting to deport all of these radical Islamic fundamentalists irrespective of citizenship status is painting with too broad a brush. That isn't to say we can't or shan't do anything. You can change laws and make things more uncomfortable for them to preach their hatred and confiscate passports etc without encroaching on violating international law of making people stateless etc.

I don't really see the argument from Steve or any in the 'right-wing' of the thread resembling what ISIS want. One side believes in democracy, secular society, habeas corpus, free speech, freedom of religion and free inquiry and the other in a violent backwards theocracy being ruled by the unalterable and unquestionable word of god. The two viewpoints seem incompatible to me.
 
Last edited:
h14nha said:
the right for women not to be subjected to FGM
Click to expand...

just an aside, but FGM isn't an Islamic thing. Its practiced by most of the major reigions in some part of the world. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all do it in places. It also predates all of those religons.
 
h14nha said:
1 - only if they don't believe in peaceful life in Britain
2 - if I/you can't pay for petrol or get served in a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet, then the Burka should not be allowed either.
3 - remember the student who racially abused someone on social media, he ended up in jail ( where some people who kill walk free )
4 - the government had no problem removing passports from football hooligans when it suited them.

This is how ISIS operate - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-kill-a-japanese-hostage-leave-one-alive.html How you can equate a member on TP with a terrorist says a whole lot about you. You should be ashamed of that comment and retract it...........

5 - you left out the right for women to vote, the right for women to have an education, the right for women to choose who they will marry, the right for women not to be subjected to FGM
Click to expand...

I don't think the implication was saying anyone was a terrorist, at least that's not how I interpreted it. It seems like a variation of the rhetoric of us changing our laws and making life more draconian is 'letting the terrorists win' as we become 'as bad as them'.

It's a valid argument that has been discussed a lot since 9/11 and it is fine line to tread to stop that happening. You have to remain vigilant that people or parties wanting to trample over your civil liberties under the guise of 'keeping you safe' aren't allowed to do so.
 
h14nha said:
1 - only if they don't believe in peaceful life in Britain
2 - if I/you can't pay for petrol or get served in a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet, then the Burka should not be allowed either.
3 - remember the student who racially abused someone on social media, he ended up in jail ( where some people who kill walk free )
4 - the government had no problem removing passports from football hooligans when it suited them.

This is how ISIS operate - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-kill-a-japanese-hostage-leave-one-alive.html How you can equate a member on TP with a terrorist says a whole lot about you. You should be ashamed of that comment and retract it...........

5 - you left out the right for women to vote, the right for women to have an education, the right for women to choose who they will marry, the right for women not to be subjected to FGM
Click to expand...

Regarding point 4, removing passports is not the same as removing citizenship - two very, very different things.

You also made an argument in post 656 that I responded to in post 672. I would be interested in your views to my response.
 
Laudrup said:
I don't think the implication was saying anyone was a terrorist, at least that's not how I interpreted it. It seems like a variation of the rhetoric of us changing our laws and making life more draconian is 'letting the terrorists win' as we become 'as bad as them'.

It's a valid argument that has been discussed a lot since 9/11 and it is fine line to tread to stop that happening. You have to remain vigilant that people or parties wanting to trample over your civil liberties under the guise of 'keeping you safe' aren't allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

I think we may have finally found some common ground!
 
Laudrup said:
I don't think the implication was saying anyone was a terrorist, at least that's not how I interpreted it. It seems like a variation of the rhetoric of us changing our laws and making life more draconian is 'letting the terrorists win' as we become 'as bad as them'.

It's a valid argument that has been discussed a lot since 9/11 and it is fine line to tread to stop that happening. You have to remain vigilant that people or parties wanting to trample over your civil liberties under the guise of 'keeping you safe' aren't allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

Rapscallion said:
I think we may have finally found some common ground!
Click to expand...


Steady on ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top