NJS

When will you get it that Britain is the place is it now precisely because immigrants over 3000 years have "imposed" their culture on the rest. How do you define a native? What is your baseline period of time for the changes you despise? 43AD? 1066? 1704? 1948? 1999? What is the "basic" culture that is so great it can't handle a little dissent?

Absolutely fair comment if you're willing to explain the what, how and why of said experience - otherwise to simply mock knowledge is a bid daft.

Unforunately the kind of secular state you and I would like would require wholesale change to the state and government - especially the monarchy - as you so quite rightly said the Americans sort of got it right but starting from scratch was the key,

I honestly think that was a knock-on effect from similar Muslim/Christian protests as in "if they can get uppity so can we" - doesn't make it right of course but again they have the right to protest (peacefully).

I think that Jews provide good "input" into a debate on multicultarism. I've always recognised their persecution in history but have always felt that they "asked for" (please don't think I'm justifying pogroms and holocausts for a second) some of it in the sense that they have always been very non-integrational which sets them up for prejudice. I think that is mirrored in the UK with the way Southern Asian Muslims have isolated themselves too much in places like Blackburn and Bradford. The kind of multicultarism that I'd promote would be the kind demonstrated by other groups like the Chinese, Hindus and West Indians (forgetting the gang culture for the sake of the argument) who are all proud of their culture but have embraced elements of British culture as well as adding their own to it. I would say immigration has added to "British culture" rather than replaced it - I think use of the word "dilution" is also wrong.

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example. They can all do what they like in their own countries. Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly? No because Hitler's actions were massively wrong and a threat to our existence. As for countries who commit genocide well that's another debate, the 1.5m dead tsutsi's we stood back and did fuck all, same as the yanks. Thing is theres a valid argument over whether Israel is "their country". I think in general there should be a consensus to sort out problems around the world up to and including full scale "Iraqs" - its just a shame the UN never lived up to its ideals and responses are always so fragmented.

Fair point - I know in this instance the opening topic was the French proposal but I was thinking more generally - though accepting a UK skewed approach as you say.

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example. They can all do what they like in their own countries. Interesting foreign policy - So would you only have started on Hitler when he threatened the UK directly?

Though you're right about their history, the Jewish state was founded by terrorism which it continues to use on a daily basis. All modern countries have exemptions from laws specifically designed for Jews. Don't try and hold them up as some kind of well integrated moral example.

I have no problem with the state expressing its disapproval and it shouldn't let extremist responses stop it from opening the debate which I think is worthy. However I think the principle of the right to individuality in terms of choice of clothes is pretty "sacred" as well. I know there is an argument which says the law has no problem dictating against nudity but I think that's different. I would also say that in democracies even though we talk about laws "imposed" by government, most if not all of the laws are pretty aggreeable by the majority in principle, leaving the obvious ones aside, many people might think speeding laws are anti-freedom but they'd still have to admit they are "right" - I don't think imposing dresscodes in any sphere of public life could be "by consent" no matter how worthy the idea behiond them to "liberate" the women.

I've said before that it's ironic that his views on law and justice are very "Shariah".

In the circumstances, I don't even think Western Muslims who did what LM suggests now and went to fight should have been sent to Gtmo - surely at the end of a war you just accept that people were fighting "honestly" and then let them go. Obviously any real terrorists should have seen justice but not eveyone then or now opposing the Western forces is a terrorist in the Al-Quadia sense.

I was warned of the move to Sulfur a few years ago - and it does annoy me. I suppose watching a load of medical dramas which call for a "shot of Epi stat" has meant the latter doesn't seem too bad.

I still get an automatic "that's wrong" response when I see something like "traveling" but on the whole I agree with Renton on divergence. I get the impression though that American is more "standard" by region even allowing for accents - I'm not sure how many regional dialect words like "scran" they use. I still think English people who use "ass" should be hanged for treason though.

I've met cunts of quite a few nationalities with the exception of Yanks - met a few and they've all been sound. Your generalisations aren't that bad normally and i agree with a lot of them up to a point but I think you've got Americans wrong.

Like color instead of colour? If that was me I would go all Hungerford on that school. You didn't complain??? They aren't even a proper fuckin country, and they're saying your spelling English versions of words wrong. Remind them they'd be speaking Kraut or Jap if it wasn't for us, I wouldn't care most proper people know fuck all about their history, while I've read our history is high on their educational agenda, as it should be for the whole world, and they're telling you, you're spelling words incorrectly in authentic English. What a fuckin wank country. Hate to say it Stevie but the reason "American English" is different is because it hasn't changed at all - words used to be spelled color etc when the colonies were populated but since then we started to add Us. I Still think they're wrong on "Aluminum" but the other stuff, though worthy of piss taking, is a bit of a daft argument.

Not just the neocons - see Kosovo/Grenada/Haiti/EL Salvador/Cambodia/Korea etc etc

That may be how I was leaning but I think I've decided to take a testing the water approach and maybe try it once to see how I feel in practice.

I've always self-analysed my cold sell shyness as a fear of rejection from low self-confidence/self-esteem issues combined with a sort of laziness that says why waste time with someone who may be in a relationship or whatever already or just not interested. I've never really had a problem with talking to women on a daily basis without any of that kind of pressure. I think what appealed about the almost blind date situation is at least you know where you both sort of stand to start with - obviously single and looking for someone but backed by some decent intial conversation via email. It may be that I enjoyed meeting the lass on Saturday for this reason or it maybe a genuine click but I didn't feel shy at all - and to echo CT's post it was very relaxed and unhurried. I also think Parky was right about an American/media definition of "dating" which had probably warped my initial thinking - judging by the responses from everyone the way I was thinking wasn't too far from the sensible view. Anyway thanks for all the posts and I'll try and update this thread with any progress

It's obvious he's been taught properly how to defend and doesn't get shown up that often imo but I have worries about his lack of attacking prowess

Not a big tome as there are only 12 eps so far and I've only seen 6 but I'm really enjoying Nurse Jackie - its on BBC2/BBC4.

So the real life Jethro Gibbs is a government stooge - what a pisser.

Okay this is about concepts and ground rules more than anything. The first ground rule is that any piss-taking will be taking in good grace. The second is that any request for pics will be fucked off. Background: I haven't been out with anyone for quite a while. Criminal shyness means I was never any good at the cold sell situation of bars/clubs and have only went out in the past with people I've worked with or met through mutual friends. Over the past couple of years I've become a bit lonely and also started to have a sad sense of time running out so I decided that in a bit of a cliched fashion as a new decade was starting I'd try something new and I signed up for an online dating site. Situation: I've now reached the free email exchange with 3 lasses and I went out with one last Saturday and had a really great time and we plan to repeat it either this week or next. I have a good feeling about her and can see at least a decent opening phase. The thing is I'm not sure about "stringing along" the other two. In fact one has hinted about meeting this weekend which I don't mind in theory but what is completely new to me is this "dating more than one person at once" thing. My gut instinct is that its a bit dishonest and I should let the first "relationship" run its course but at the back of mind is the idea that if it say lasts just a month or two could I in good grace call one of the others off the subs bench in any kind of honest way? If I did feel okay about dating two at once should I be honest with the lasses themselves? To be clear there is no way I would start a sexual relationship with more than one at once but that presents its own problem - does the relationship that proceeds naturally to sex first become the automatic "winner"? What if at the back of my mind I liked one of them more but the other one was eager to progress further therefore crossing the line? Does anyone have any thoughts, advice, experiences or just plain mockery? I should also mention that I already have mates who would take the SMO/Wacky approach of telling me to shag them all behind each others backs and not give a shit - not going to happen.

This just shows how stupid you are, the bloke was a strong socialist so he must have either admired or even worked for the Soviets - FFS man - do you realise how wrong that is. Its a classic Daily Mail argument - anyone slightly left wing is a Soviet Commie - as others have said Benn was/is a democratic socialist who believes strongly in franchisement - the fact you know nothing about the bloke but almost call him a traitor sums you up.

Acceptable in what sense? Do I think they should be banned? - no. Do I think they should be arrested? - if non-violent then no. Do I think they are arseholes for doing it - emphatically yes. I have a much bigger problem with the countryside alliance protesting against the ban on fox hunting and would have been happy to see a machine gun response - but that doesn't mean I don't respect their right to actually protest in the first place.