There has to be attraction certainly, but what I've found is that the attraction does not necessarily have to be physical. What used to be a fairly narrow aesthetic ideal has broadened immensely because I found that so long as I was attracted to someone intellectually, based mostly on what they had to say for themselves and how they presented themselves on here, a physical attraction of sorts that may not ordinarily have existed would follow. Quite an eye-opener for me that was.
As a democrat of course I have to extend to them the same right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to peacefully protest I would claim for myself, even if they ((( The EDL that is. How dare they even claim to be defending Englishness and the English. They do not speak for me. ))) are fascist cunts through and through. Course, by the same token I and others ((( The LUAF. ))) can claim the same right to challenge them publicly, peacefully.
Those who choose to engage in violent disorder at such events will quite rightly be picked off by the police and arrested, so I'm generally opposed to bans on marches purely because the potential that some might choose to commit criminal offences exists. We don't ordinarily police things like that, second guessing what someone might choose to do at some future point in time. All a bit Minority Report that if you ask me?
Oh dear.
/facepalms
I s'pose I should applaud the effort at least if nothing else, but really, an entire world of neck jokes at your disposal and that was the best you could come up with?
*sorry shake of head*
:P
Obviously you reported the profile to Admin so it can be removed, didn't you Luton?
There's always been provision within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme for the withholding of compensation, either in part or in its entirety, where the claimant has unspent convictions. That would apply for anything up to a 7 or 10 year period following an imprisonable offence. Kenneth Clarke is saying he wants to tighten that up so that those with unspent convictions are by default ineligible, except in special circumstances, or where those convictions are for relatively petty offences, so I'm not sure how much is actually being changed? The same kind of discretion as has previously existed will continue to exist. It seems only to be different in degree?
In any event the Govt is saying the cuts will save around £35-45m, an additional sum of £50m to be raised from a levy on offenders, but that £35-45m saving includes payments to the perfectly innocent, without convictions, spent or otherwise whose max available compensation payments for some really quite serious injuries, including brain damage and permanent disability will be substantially reduced. The actual amount saved by limiting eligibility for those with unspent convictions is predicted to be around according to the Ministry of Justice's own figures.
I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions as to how much could be said to be really under review re: criminal claims if it results only in the saving of so trifling a sum as It looks like they're trying to disguise a massive cut in payments to perfectly innocent, law-abiding victims by spinning it as tightening of rules re: criminals?
No, it's neither misleading nor dishonest. You self-identify as straight. Your bisexual explorations previous change the self-identification not in the slightest. If someone chooses to pull you up on your status imagining that once had sex with a bloke = bi, end off then that's a failure on their part to understand that sexuality is not defined by sexual acts, it's the other way round: sexual acts are defined by our sexuality. The most that could be said is that in certain circumstances with certain people you would be open to male on male play, meaning you're possibly situationally bi, but that's not the same as being bi. If you see no reason to change your self-identification then fine, you have no need to explain that to anyone else. If they don't like it, tough shit, deal with it or don't, but why should you give a fuck?
I don't think it's always offensively . It can be playful and friendly or full of agression and venom, depending on the context. 'Fuck off you daft cunt' is very different from 'Go fuck yourself you thick fucking cunt', and different from 'I love the taste of your cunt you dirty little bitch' again. It's all in the intent.
Entirely possible Dave, yes. I'll show my arse on the Town Hall stairs if that actually happens though. Look at what's happened to rents since the start of the recession. They haven't come down in response to the reduced spending power of prospective tenants, they've remained stable because demand out-strips supply. It is the lack of affordable housing in high-value areas like London that has forced tenants into high cost rented accomadation in the first place. Without a sustained investment in social housing that will remain the case, because there's your real issue.
The govt are addressing the problem of high rent with a big stick approach that blames tenants, when the real long term, sensible, pro-social solution is new social housing provision. It is a solution so blindingly obvious a small child with a lazy eye and a squint could see it. Why are they not doing that?
So your solution Rob is that we protect tenants from exploitative landlords by forcing them to move to lower quality accomodation owned by even worse landlords? Seems to be a flaw in your logic there fella, dontcha think?
I take it everyone is aware that the vast majority of those living in London in receipt of Housing Benefit actually work for a living? What do those tenants do if they're forced to move to an area beyond travelling distance from their place of employment? Give up their jobs and sign on? That'll save money won't it. Oh no, wait . . .
Y'alright Ben? How's tricks? ;) Good post that wannit? I was pleased with it anyways, though I reckon only you and Staggers will agree with my analysis, but hey. :P
Bit of Manc vs Scouse prejudice, but that's to be expected? Course, any MEN reporter worth his salt should have understood the situation immediately. I mean, the kid loitering outside Old Trafford ain't gonna be from bloody Manchester to start with, is he? 
No, no I mean the guy deserves all the kudos he can get! 
))), but can I get the apostrophication in its / it's right 100% of the time? Can I bollox! I still get it wrong, and it bothers me. 
