orribolollie

now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing Quote now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing

Oh dont be dissapointed, theres plenty of fight in me yet!

hahahaha

Ok nice one. I do have potential to take myself a little serious I guess... Id hate to think that nothing was being gleened from this forum though. I know ive learnt a thing or two already re. my SUV rant. You rant you loose - my point was lost because of how I presented it. It wont happen again!

Eat all the oestrogen you like: Itll give you gynecomastia, but it wont make you gay!!! Absurd.

next thing, you'll "claim" someone is partisan, or even just argumentative for the sake of entertainment. or even accuse them of going off on a tangent to grind a personal axe (also known as 'ask') Quote This is a clear personal attack as you have added nothing to the thread till this point..and indeed even this post does not discuss the thread in anyway. If you dont like me tough, deal with it. If you dont agree with my view then by all means argue your point. According to the moderators, personal attacks are not allowed. Billvon was perfectly capable of replying to what i had wrote without your little addition. In reply to Billvon. True, I dont want to see fat people turned away from ops if its detrimental to their condition. I also want to see some common sense and some action. This is the point of a speakers corner rehmwa, you can have your views challenged and maybe reasses them. Not to play teams based on who your buddies are. Or maybe Im wrong, perhaps Im being naive.

Come on! You can see the plain difference there! Kate Aidey cant administer first aid to every war victim she encounters - its just not possible. The paperazzi guys had no idea if there injuries were fatal and they had no intention of even finding out. If your first on the scene of a bad RTA the first thing you do is help regardless of your job..surely?

Well based on that information - I simply wouldnt go. (sure theres a couple of posters here shouting hooray). Seriously though, that is well out of order.

Or get into America Quote Is this true? Can anyone expand on this? Boy, I bet thats really helping the american tourist board post 9/11.

Definitely accident - if you want someone dead you poison them; isnt that right mr putin?? I must admit I do groan when i see Diana news articles now. An interesting point was raised by the report mind you. In that it was felt lives may have been saved had the paperazzi put down their cameras to help rather than continue taking pictures. Now, if your famous you have to accept the paperazzi- tough. But come on guys? Taking pictures as they died? Or taking pictures not even having checked if they could be saved? Low.

Also, to add, the NHS does, on occasion refuse treatment (or at least delay it) if it considered that the patient is overweight. They can be asked to retrn when they have lowered their weight to meet a set target. Quote I can only imagine this is when it is actually dangerous to operate given the patients weight. I have seen this. A guy where I worked as a school leaver had a huge hernia (like the size of a tennis ball) that poked through the weak spot that was his belly button. (You could actually see this thing poking out in his shirt). He was denied surgery by the NHS to fix his hernia. There reasoning was that he was so fat if they cut him open he would basically split wide open; they simply could not operate. Still, didnt stop him going to the cafeteria each day to load up with fried breakfast. This guy needed help. His life quality was truely miserable and he comforted his misery by just eating more and more garbage. He could have been on some kind of lifestlye out-patient supervision that helped him get in shape for the op. I dont think fixing is good medicine when a cure is available.

Your just being pedantic. Choose to ignore my point if you like. The fact still remains; obesity is a problem and i think positive steps could be done to reverse the trend of more and more obese people in society. Do you shrug your shoulders and accept the problem or do you think something could be done?

Being obese is not worse than being a smoker. The government accepts food also. Wendy W Quote I didnt say it worse than smoking either so I dont see the point of your reply? The govt accepts food also? Does it? Look at a packet of cigarettes, youll see a clear health warning. Do you see that health warning on a multi pack of doughnuts? Ill ask you the same question: Would you let your kids get obese? No, becasue you realise its bad. So why present a PC and indifferent arguement? If the answer is yes or not bothered..then Id like to hear your reasoning.

Does moan about 1984 NWO shit... Doesnt suspect having a tatoo would make any difference to a revolutionary cause... Dont have any tatoos though anyway!

So maybe anyone who needs hospitalisation should have their condition validated through a Political Correctness Filter (version 2006 UK edition) before treatment is allowed to take place. Quote Well thats the PC reply but to clarify this is my point. I think that obese people need their weight fixed first then the hip. You need to treat the whole! Its not a fattist thing im suggesting but some action to sort out what is becoming a real problem - medical obesity. A busted skydiver / car user / cyclist / jogger is otherwise healthy but involved in an accident. As for the smoker; well the government condoned and taxed cigarettes for many years and now it reaps what it sows ie. a lot of people with terrible heart and lung conditions. No doubt, smokers need help and unfortunately for them there damage is mostly already done. It would be irresponsible of the NHS to keep fixing obese people and sending them on their way. I understand your reply and sadly I also suspect certain management of the NHS are using this to streamline costs. However, what I dont want to see is it becoming truely acceptable in our society to live an 'eat what you want be fat and lazy lifestyle'. Much in the same way that smoking was finally accepted to be bad, being obese has to be recognised for what it is; an unnaceptable and avoidable disease that is very very bad for your health. Would you let your kids get obese? No, because you know theyll be damaged psychologically and have health problems in the future. Constantly fixing broke things is not good medicine when there is a cure.

Your argument makes about as much sense as saying nobody in their right mind would pay some stranger for sex especially when they've been with with thousands of partners, but apparently there's a roaring trade. Quote Your analogy makes no sense, please clarify.

Am I the only one that noticed the name of a doctor quoted in the article? "Dr Kevin De Cock" Quote Nope! I saw it to..they presented this remarkable theory about circumcision, then it was followed with a public address by the aforementioned Kevin De Cock - yes I did laugh!!!

Agent Man : 'Hello new born baby welcome to the UK!' New born baby: 'Hi!' New born baby: 'Why are you sticking that needle in me??' Agent man: 'Oh we are collecting your DNA sample sneekily while your a kid, just INCASE you grow up and commit serious crime, you know like murder or rape.' New born baby: 'Oh' 'Can I go back in my mummy now?' Agent man: 'No, you see despite what we say about it being a free society, thats not true..you have no choice'

With regards the passport renewal: As of next year (summer 2007) all those renewing their UK passports will indeed have to provide biometric data which will be stored on a database and on a chip in your passport. You will not be able to send away a completed application you will HAVE to attend an interview. SteveOrino, you dont see a problem with this therefore you havent thought it through. Why should we all be on a database? Arent we blowing up the world to pretect our freedom? The freedom not to be fingerprinted like a common criminal just to get a passport? When I lived in the US i thought it was pretty draconian to have to carry photo ID. Why should I? I have a ligitamte Visa? I dont lie about my identity? But the Blair government is taking steps way further. Soon it seems we are to be the first country in the world to have full biometric ID. Apparently it will stop ID fraud and prevent terrorism. What a crock of shit. Every advance in technology is quickly outwitted by criminals, so the ID fraud arguement is crap. And in no way is carrying biometric ID going to stop you boarding a bus / entering a building with a bomb. This whole database thing is a civil liberties nightmare being brought in by stealth. The arguements are a smokescreen for those who make money out of compiling databases and there results. Get ready to be fingerprinted and part with a lot of cash next summer when your passport runs out.... The new biometric one is over £100.

In the UK medically obese people ARE effecting the general populus directly. They are draining already stretched NHS resources unnecesarily through; heart disease, diabetes, hip and various orthopaedic operations etc etc. And call me sensitive, but I really dont like having to squeeze by some great fat sweaty human being to get to my seat on the plane / at the cinema / public transport etc. So yeah I agree, i get annoyed when I see great fat bodies stuffing there faces with fast food and other junk. Nowadays there is no exscuse. Everyone is aware of the nutritional content of what they eat. To keep cramming it in with out any balance of exercise is just lazy and shows no self respect. I was horified recently watching Central News South. The article was convering a school clothes manufacturer in the UK. Because of demand the owner of the company was now supplying 40 inch waist trousers for boys as a standard size!!! Standard size!!! In my view if you have fed your kid up to a 40 inch waist...well its child abuse.

Why was my reply edited? I didnt make a paedophile joke. I was making a point. My point being that it was very wrong to correlate homosexuals with paedophiles as suggested by another reader. Im quite sure that those reading the thread would have seen this. Edit the guy making the correlation not me!

Women (and at 19 girls) first not prostitutes. I agree with street scooby. The reports should read five women killed. The small print can contain the fact that all the victims may be prostitutes. The sex worker versus prostitute arguement is irrelevant. This is another sad case of the failings of making prostitution illegal. If these girls had worked in legal brothels they not be dead now. Working alone in dark unsupervised places has gotten these girls killed. Evidence is hard to come by because naturally the other girls in the area dont want to be connecting themself to the police - their trade is illegal after all. Further to this I hate the way the perpetrator of these crimes is bigged up with names like 'suffolk strangler'. That kind of makes him sound hard or something. What they should call him is: 'the sexually impotent suffolk small dick who probably got bullied at school and cant even get a hard on so he kills prostitutes without even sexually assaulting them' Much more fitting for such a despicable low life.

careful Bill!!! your man hyman might have you down as a homosexual for that kind of talk.... edited to remove pedophilia joke.

Homosexuals are freaks of nature and 99.9% of Catholic priests are homosexuals although not necessarily practicing homosexuals. It is an abomination of nature for same sex individuals to engage in sex and a significant percentage of them are potential pedophiles. Quote 1. Where do you get your statistic 99.9% from? Nonsense. 2. How would you know how many were or were not practising homosexuals? Falsified statement. 3. 'Abomination of nature' - a purely subjective view and again utter nonsense. 4. A Significant percentage of them may be paedophiles - not that you would have any idea of that (as you cited no facts) not that being homosexual has anything to do with being a paedophile. Or that it has anything to do with the thread. In conclusion ; total garbage.

In reply to: I suspect the proportion of crimes in the church are not statistically different than any other profession, such as teaching or day care, where adults are primarily around kids. Reply: As much as I'd like to believe thats true im pretty sure its wrong. If you deal with kids; teacher, social worker etc you have to be CRB checked (at least in the UK). You do not have to be police checked to be a priest. Hence the ability to groom those that are vulnerable without restriction. Enforced celibacy may cause frustration but is highly unlikely to make you a sex offender. Sex offenders arent just frustrated they are sadistic and often the victims of abuse themselves.