-
Posts
35323 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by Park Life
-
No, but to be honest, you might not want to anyway. Friend of mine was telling me he was thinking about getting into LOST after reading some messageboard threads. I told him it ought to be over in another year and a half. If they end it good, LOST will go down as one of the highwater marks in American televsion. If they end it stupid, it'll be a Tonight Show punchline for a week or two then fade into total obscurity. Long story long, we're all the way up to season 5 now. At this point, you're probably better off waiting until the whole thing is done before you start investing time/ dough into buying/ downloading the episodes. If it ends up being a stupid ending, don't waste your time. You can skip series 2, probably the weakest.
-
Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh FORT PIERCE — Told McDonald’s was out of Chicken McNuggets after paying for a 10-piece meal, a local woman called 911. Three times. “This is an emergency, If I would have known they didn’t have McNuggets, I wouldn’t have given my money, and now she wants to give me a McDouble, but I don’t want one,” Latreasa L. Goodman told police. “This is an emergency.” The McNugget meltdown happened last week at a McDonald’s in the 600 block of North U.S. 1 and ended with Goodman, 27, getting a notice to appear in court on a misuse of 911 charge, according to a recently released police report. Goodman told investigators she tried to get a refund for the 10-piece McNuggets, but the cashier told her all sales are final. “I called 911 because I couldn’t get a refund, and I wanted my McNuggets,” Goodman told police."
-
If there is anything left to arrest.
-
Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh Americans must be some of the dumbest people on the planet tbf. Probaby nuke Greece instead of Iran.
-
Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. Free the people bro....Even the ones in here who haven't the first clue about freedom.
-
People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated....
-
An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. And that not is just not correct, although it's a bogeyman Government's love to use to get dodgy things through (much like "Lord" Mandelson himself ). The dark Lord. He's not a proper Dark Lord, more of a Dark Lord's Chamberlain (which is why Brown brought him back). It is amazing how he gets back into power despite all the proven corruption cases against him and that current he is one of the most powerful Government figures in the UK........ and he is totally and utterly unelected. Bilderberger.
-
Personally I think everyone of any kind of belief should be allowed to demonstrate/hold rallies. Free speech for me is indivisible. I don't care how distasteful or abhorrent their ideas are. Everyone has the right to hold any view they choose. Infact as the London against Racism movement in the 80's tapped into Council funding, the very same funding should be available to racists and the like. For me freedom of speech in a democracy is sacrosanct. It will never happen cause the last thing Govt wants is people feeling they are involved, that is why less than 40% of the country vote.
-
This is a proper demo for those mistaking a few idiots with home made placards as a demo... "The rioting began last week, when a peaceful demonstration involving tens of thousands of campaigners developed into the worst street violence seen in Germany for years, with hundreds of activists bombarding police with stones and torching cars. The violent anti-G8 protest left up to 1,000people injured."
-
People should be allowed to fly any flags they chose from their own property imo. But be responsible for any fallout.
-
Who's stopping you flying the flag or celebrating St George's day though? Never come across that myself, come the world cup the country seems to be awash with flags. If you're English then surely part of that is believing in the principle of freedom of speech? They don't get it. Midplaced anger, mis-directed force...paralysed...Just how the rulers like it.
-
What all five of them? Storm in an espresso cup.
-
A wierd mix of the two I reckons.
-
Film/moving picture show you most recently watched
Park Life replied to Jimbo's topic in General Chat
In my favourite top 10 films of all time and a family "must watch" every christmas. One of Richard Curtis's finest moments. Hey, I'll stick up for Love Actually too. Lols... it's one of the few movies my wife breaks out when it's her turn to pick that doesn't make me die inside. I mean, it's a rom-com, so guys aren't supposed to like it, but it does have some pretty hilarious moments in it. Would I rather watch Memento or something? Sure, but if I have to watch a rom-com, it'd be that one before anything else. You want to talk about an entire genre of film that is at least 99% shite? Rom-coms. American action movies are a close second. Rom Coms are great. The Apartment Groundhog Day Tootsie Eternal Sunshine His Girl Friday Annie Hall Manhattan My Sassy Girl True Romance Princess Bride etc. I'm amazed anyone would consider Love Actually before any of those. OOooo that's a nice list. Take the third and last one out and we're talking. -
They're entitled to protest where they belong which isn't fuckin here, fuckin muslim cunts, I've already seen one clip of them burning our flag. I just shake my head, you say anything your racist, all you cunts on here like fuckin Parky, if they;re jew get them in the gas chamber, muslims who abuse our country get the red carpet oot and fuckin halal meat. and I represent 80% (EIGHTY) of white and non muslim black english people with that view, and a good 40% of english muslims too. You belong in films like Sat night Sun morning. Throwback if ever I saw one.
-
Fantasy manager showdown: Clough v Cruijf.
Park Life replied to Park Life's topic in Newcastle Forum
More or less where I stand. -
Danny B has upgraded his Stevie baiting by stealth to a new level. Respec.
-
Israel needs to be bought to book, but who's gonna do it? You're ridiculous. Netted. Typical lefty, runs out of any kind of sensible argument and attempts to fall back on "humour" Lefty?
-
Israel needs to be bought to book, but who's gonna do it? You're ridiculous. Netted.
-
Israel needs to be bought to book, but who's gonna do it?
-
The video is interesting there is a young Muslim lad at the end condemning the banners.
-
Can you spell out why it is abusing a right? The banners as stated in the article would be distasteful imo, but that is about it. If you have freedom of speech (and demonstration) it has to apply to all to work. I think calling people butchers and r@pists who are just doing their jobs maybe considered as abusing that right, wouldn't you? If I was holding up a placard saying something equally abusive and untrue about someone else I would be, quite rightly, charged. There is a long anti-war tradition (demonstrations) in England, it just so happens these are brown men protesting against white men. As I said the banners were distasteful. They were a tad more than distastefull IMO, if it'd been the other way around, or even football fans for that matter, there'd have been dogs in and baton charges. Bet I wouldn't have been protected from "the mob" if I'd held up an "Allah is Satan" banner, I'd have been carted off and charged with one of the many loony-lefty laws this country now has. I would defend your right to hold up such a banner. FWIW they are demonstrating against the wrong troops, British troops are much better in urban warfare etc... It's the Americans who caused nearly all the civilian casualties.
-
Maybe the Saudi's should cut off our oil.
-
Can you spell out why it is abusing a right? The banners as stated in the article would be distasteful imo, but that is about it. If you have freedom of speech (and demonstration) it has to apply to all to work. I think calling people butchers and r@pists who are just doing their jobs maybe considered as abusing that right, wouldn't you? If I was holding up a placard saying something equally abusive and untrue about someone else I would be, quite rightly, charged. There is a long anti-war tradition (demonstrations) in England, it just so happens these are brown men protesting against white men. As I said the banners were distasteful.