I give to Water Aid cos without a secure water supply the rest of aid is pointless. I give to Macmillan cos we don't have the proper support for cancer sufferers while they are undergoing treatment etc on the NHS.
I will never gove to any animal charity while children are born into poverty. But I would give to prevent animal cruelty (preferably by shooting people who do dog-fights etc) one PEOPLE have the means to live in safety.
I give spare furniture to local charities that sipport people moving from abusive spouses or youngsters moving out of care nto their own little places.
I'm currently knitting little outfits for 'fish and chip' babies - born so poor (in sub-Saharan Africa) they are brought to the clinic in newspaper. I have the pattern if anyone is interested.
To clarify:
With apologies for the harsh words but I don't want to cloud the issue with euphamisms.
I would support actions to -
Kill all feral cats.
Spay all pets (cats/dogs) apart from very restricted breeders (I add this but I should have included it earlier).
Any 'found' cats/dogs to be spayed before rehoming, if they can't be rehomed they go the same way as the ferals.
All pets bigger than a hamster should be chipped at least so they can be returned to their owners if lost/stolen. But also so strays can be identified and destroyed. And so animals that harm pets, property or people can be traced to their owners who would feel the full weight of the law applied to them.
Rabbits have no place in the wild in the UK - they are an introduced species and damage crops. It's highly unlikely we could fully eradicate them, but if we ate them that would deal with plenty of them. They are a FOOD animal just like pigs and cows.
I hate to see animals suffer - have no problem seeing them dead.
Feel free to hold different opinions - please do not feel free to tell me mine are 'wrong'.
Marriage has many threads to it. Many marriages were brokered to ensure the transfer of land and property from one man to another. The female having minimal say in the matter and was just a vehicle for the transfer. Her later safety and well being being often ignored completely so long as she produced the requisite male heirs - and that's not just the royals either.
In other cases and times it is a loving union between 2 people in the presence of their friends and family and for some of them, in the eyes of some god or other.
I agree that 'love' alone (how to define that for a start?) cannot support a marriage, that commitment is needed. But some take it too far - I'm all for sticking together through some thick and thin - but when it becomes toxic or just mind numbingly boring there is no value in keeping a dead thing alive.
What gets me is how easy it is to get married and how hard it is to get divorced - especially for the woman, who has traditionally given up her name and has to pay and jump through goodness knows what hoops to reclaim it. I feel that both parties should automatically keep their names or pay to join them with a hyphen, that marriage should require as much legal wrangling as getting divorced (or as little) and people should accept that a lot of relationships simply die after a period of time, regardless of the earlier hopes and wishes of the people involved.
Every single member of the Christian Church is a hypocrite.
There is a section in the Bible which states that if a man lies down with a man as with a woman they must be stoned (and I don't mean in a nice, munchies way). Any Christian that knows a gay man and does not stone them or at least demand that their vicar does the stoning is, be definition, a hypocrite. There are many and more occurances of rules laid down in the Bible that modern Christians conveniently 'forget' to abide by. And the same applies to many other religions - I'm not knocking the Christians alone.
It's as if THEY can pick and choose which of these (according to THEM) God-given words to ignore but WE have to abide by THEIR choices.
Don't get me wrong - I don't want ANYONE stoned for enjoying another consenting adult's body. What I want is the hypocrites to put up or (preferably) shut up.
She's no better than he is - she was an active participant in the perversion of the justice. And only outing him as revenge is actually worse not a mitigation.
And it's not as if he just lied the once - he lied over and over again. There should be a hefty fine for each and every recorded lying event. :giggle:
Interesting melding of 3 concepts.
How English am I? 100%.
What is my genetic history? Very strongly Viking on both sides - my father's side via the Normans. Who as we all know were an earlier Viking incursion into N France.
And my cultural history? We had pit-lads, mill-girls, an opera singer, baker/confectioners, emigrants to Canada, US and Australia, a WW1 hero, a WW1/WW2 survivor, at least 3 masons, a steam-train driver, a man who left £4000 to 2 publicans and not his wife or 3 children and an indomitable lady who I sadly only got to know in her 80's when I was a child. Of course the majority of my ancestors are the same as almost everyone else's - Ag Labs - Agricultural Labourers.
I love a black and white view of a muscular back/bum. Or a cheekily turned head just hiding the features and showing a nice jawline.
Don't like (as in will stop me contacting someone)
Trousers/pants round ankles, naked but for socks, dirty/untidy room, close-up of cock (unless it has a VERY interesting piercing and then only for forensic interest), close up of lady-bits (ditto).
Worse is 'summink'. If people choose to speak so badly, why do they complain when others don't take them seriously? Yes, there are bad examples - but there are good examples to follow too. I don't mean BBC English, but plenty of people on TV speak perfectly well without being 'posh'. Nothing wrong with an accent, or even dialect - but 'summink' isn't a word.
(edited to correct a typo - just typical!)
I must admit to being, to some extent, on the RSPCA's side as regards disposing of unwanted animals. A pet without an owner is just a food consuming expense. If there is no realistic prospect of finding a suitable owner I have no problem with a humane death. It's not like release into the wild is an option.
Shooting sheep (I haven't read the article) on a dockside seems necessarily messy, cruel and public. Let alone wasteful - was there a reason that these animals could not enter the food chain - at least as pet food?
This Christmas break I had a right mood on and get very cross about my house. I was fed up with all the 'stuff' in my house. To tidy - really tidy - one room I have to move things out to another room. To tidy THAT room, I end up moving stuff back into the first room. The garage is full and the loft is non-existant.
I got so cross about it all that I dropped a very useful mixing bowl while empting the dishwasher and it broke - I was furious with myself. (I get clumsy when distracted)
I have had a good couple of sort-outs through cupboards and developed about 3 bin-liners worth of stuff that has no use and that I was just storing for storing's sake.
Missing bin-day before Xmas and then the extra collection today didn't help the process though. :giggle:
So I now have loads of ex-'stuff' in the hall and spare-room waiting for the bin-men and a few extra spaces in my cupboards. The place is still too cluttered and I'm longing to get the decs down and surfaces cleared.
OK it counts as nothing compared to critical illness or starving children but I'm happy that I got it off my chest.
Thank you for reading - as you were.
I'd say - bring back a nice, inclusive Pagan Midwinter Festival. A bonfire in the grounds (if they have land), a feast, loads of singing and dancing and a Winter King and Winter Queen to celebrate the birth of the new year and the ending of the dark nights.
Forget all that namby pamby Christian guff. A solid and hearty earth-based celebration warms the blood far better.
I suffer from an eye condition called Amblyopia. It means I have no binocular vision. Downsides include having to use relative movemtn for depth perception and never, ever, being able to see anything on a Magic Eye picture.
Upsides include, I will still have depth perception if I lose one of my eyes and being able to spot optical illusions like this in about half a second falt. That is also a downside as it makes it pretty boring.
I don't want to sound like I am attacking the op personally, but bareback isn't the only way to go - it is the STUPID way to go.
I cannot and would not dictate to others what (legally) they should do if it doesn't involve me directly but do you really think bareback sex with people you are not in a monogamous relationship with is anything other than Russian Roulette?
You have to wonder what is the acceptable political outlook that the fostering organisations will accept from potential carers.
But waht about when that changes (according to whatever political party is in power at the time) are children going to be dragged from their homes every time there is an election?
I don't think it is possible to increase the size of cycle lanes to 1/3 of the road. Cars cannot drive in cycle lanes, leaving all the traffic including buses, lorries and cars 1/3 each of a lane to drive in. Lanes are the width they are cos they have to be. To fit the traffic. Most roads wouldn't be wide enough for 2 vehicles, turning A-roads into single tracks.
Personally I think, where there are cycle lanes, there should be a kerb between them and the proper road to avoid 'drift' accidents.
I do believe cyclist should be protected - but I also feel that drivers need to be protected. None of us want to hit a bike and I have certainly had to endanger myself (with oncoming traffic) to avoid a cylist who is wandering into the car-line at 40 mph slower than I am going (legally) or who shoots out at junctions without a) looking or b) pausing. Cyclists MUST abide by the rules of the road. And many of them don't. Leaving us drivers to save their lives.
Round here they have time-trials on public roads that are in normal use. Do you think these riders signal at roundabouts, stop at Give Ways, stick to the riding line around roundabouts? I'll make it an easy quiz. No they don't - they risk all to get a good time.
They also pass each other without a glance backwards.
It's all very well saying we should all ride bikes. I live 10 miles from work and there is no way on earth anyone would ever persuade me to cycle to work - I simply don't enjoy work enough to risk my life to get there and spend and hour in driving rain when I could drive it in 20 minutes. I also shop on the way home - shall I put 6 carrier bags on my handlebars? Cycling is a fun activity if you are fit and have somewhere to do it safely. But it isn't, never will be and could never be the principal way of getting around.
On Big Brother they silence any 'contaversial' discussion. This means that almost the entire transmission is in silence. Mind you - that is probably an improvement.
But watching it isn't any wierder than watching those vile programmes such as Jeremy Kyle. If your neighbours' family was falling apart emptionally; dealing with child abuse and other traumas would you pull your sofa up to their front window and settle back with your cuppa and Custard Creams to watch them suffer? Of course not - why does being on TV make it ok to vouyer it all? The fact they are willing to expose themselves does not justify our salivating all over their suffering.
). It is described as "The gateway to Linux for Windows users", so far so good, Oh and it's free.