Monday, April 16, 2012

Do you have anything for vegetarians?


Life is just so different these days, lounging around Flaig mansions this afternoon having been up earlier this morning for the benefit of BBC radio Kent, to give them my uncharacteristic upbeat appraisal of the Turner contemporary, with little spoiling between now and work, I thought I'd watch a film on Netflix.

The choice is not extensive however it is generally easier than finding a DVD and stuffing it in the player, still life is not always that easy,  for some reason films would not display however categories did and I was somewhat surprised that a category exists for gay and lesbian films.

Still wishing to sort out the prob, I rang to sort out, I have to say I was not entirely impressed, that the solution, was a variant of the standard cure all advice for any electronics, turn it off and on, still curious whilst on the phone I thought I might as well inquire why the necessity of a film category based on sexual orientation, apparently this is a request of customers in Canada and the US.

It seems ludicrous to me, I don't think they have a category for heterosexuals, nor apparently one for vegetarians, why I don't know. Anyway no doubt, Thanet's hysterical cyber cops will be giving this some sinister interpretation.

Briefly coming back to this morning, apart from having the rare privilege of being inside the TC on a Monday, my input  on BBC radio Kent breakfast could probably have been done on the phone, earlier it's worth noting that not having anything to criticise about the TC I was screened out as an interviewee although, once it was established that I was a convert of sorts to the TC, I was screened back in as a former heritic, finally I'm all in favour of unfettered reporting but some of the "objective reporting" on the Contemporary, seems to be looking for a negative that maybe for once does not exist.


Anyhow if you'd like to hear a positive endorsement, go to the listen again page of BBC radio Kent, I'm on about 1:40 in to the programe.

109 comments:

  1. Tony having listened to the BBC news on TV tonight I have to agree, They seemed hell bent on reporting negatives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, Tony, they just want to ram the meat and two veg down your throat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you go into HMV in London, you will find they have a large section devoted to black cinema. I guess you will have the same questions about that, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here we go again, Tony. See some troll has nipped in with black cinema and before you can blink we will both be racist. Guess there is no place left for us heterosexual, white males to hide anymore. We are to be pillaged for what we are.

    Strange though, for in the good old Oxford English dictionary, we are still described as having the 'normal' attraction to the opposite sex.

    Once upon a time people were ridiculed for being abnormal, which of course was wrong, but now wow betide you if you are normal.
    Full circle to a better world!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here we go again, Tony. See some troll has nipped in with black cinema and before you can blink we will both be racist. Guess there is no place left for us heterosexual, white males to hide anymore. We are to be pillaged for what we are.

    Strange though, for in the good old Oxford English dictionary, we are still described as having the 'normal' attraction to the opposite sex.

    Once upon a time people were ridiculed for being abnormal, which of course was wrong, but now wow betide you if you are normal.
    Full circle to a better world!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think anyone would describe you as "normal" Tom...

    ReplyDelete
  7. ... and it could happen to you too:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018

    ReplyDelete
  8. My windows media player has a Gay genre and i do not know what to put in it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I knew as soon as i clicked publish that i had phrased that wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh come on, Peter, white, fair hair, blue eyes, far right politically, ex military and as straight as a ruler, how normal can you get?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The point, Tom Clarke, was simply that lots of media outlets have defined sections for different parts of the population. It is about commercial marketing, which I would've thought would appeal to your political ideology. Nothing to do with terms that have been strewn around all too freely recently - by you especially. And why you and those to whom you pander should keep referring to anyone who challenges you as a troll is beyond me. But keep with the insults; it further diminishes your credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The idea of a specific homosexual category of film seems to be part of some special demands made by some in the gay community, perhaps the same people who demand to be treated "equally" through demands for equal marriage whatever that happens to be.

    Confused thinking if you ask me, I assume every one is equal, however on the marriage debate, how can a same sex partnership be a marriage in the dictionary definition, can a burger be vegetarian, I think not.

    A civil partnership offers similar obligation to marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon 4:32, what terms exactly have I strewn around, who have I insulted (please specify when and where) and as for these people to whom I pander, how do you know they do not pander to me. For all you know I could be the leader of this group that exists in your imagination.

    Just in case you had forgotten I hate socialism, the Labour party, political correctness and all those that try to justify those things which have destroyed my country. If that offends, then tough.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tony, do you enjoy Derek Jarman's movies, full of men kissing & male homo-erotic nudity? I suspect not, but these movies no doubt appeal to the gay male community (& I quite like them too). It's no different to catering for those that enjoy action, romance, thrillers, horror, animation, etc.

    Tom, you should never hate anything or anyone. Hate hurts the hater more than the hated.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter, if it is any consulation, I can usually find something to like in most people so it is more the idealogies and silly trends, like PC, that I find so distasteful.

    Takes all sorts I guess, but I am not the love and peace type like you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Perhaps significant that you ignore the point about black films Tony. The point is that this is less about what any particular group demands and more what those selling or renting the films have decided will be in their best commercial interests. Sorry if that doesn't suit whatever point you're trying to make.

    As for you, Tom Clarke, you twist and turn to such an extent that you must be a human corkscrew - one without a shred of credibility of course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don, the BBC seems intent on mind control, in fact that is the primary objective.

    Stop giving them your money! Throw the infernal tv out of your house!

    ReplyDelete
  18. 12:11, precisely where is the twist and turn. You never ever respond to any point raised but simply put your own warped interpretation on everything.

    What exactly is your credibility level when you are invariably dismissed by most blogsites as a biased, anonymous troll who pops up from time to time.

    I asked you to specify when and where I had strewn around insults. I am still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What a boring movie, I had to give up after a few minutes!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tom Clarke, go fuck your wife on the beach. Oh no sorry, forgot you don't do public displays of affection.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 4:36 What a hero you are hiding behind your anonymous label and throwing out your four letter expletives. Sort of sums you and your case up well, troll.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ Tom Clarke

    Just wondering how you define "PC" and how it's had such a negative effect. Most "PC" stories that appear in the tabloids are just plain daft and easily refuted.

    I agree with you that certain "idealogies" are distasteful, especially far-right and free-market capitalist ones.

    Also, I think the childish comment left by anon@4:36 was well out of order.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tom Clarke, I have no problem with your exchange with Anon of 16.36, as I do not condone foul language, and with your name calling in his or her direction. But I am the author of the 00.11 post and resent your continuing use of the term "troll" about me.

    Let me answer your question. You have repeatedly, on several blogs and in the context of the "debate" about equal marriage, bandied about the term "homophobia". You have done so constantly suggesting that those opposed to your right-wing views will come along and accuse you of it. You have goaded and revelled in the thought that someone might accuse you of homophobia. I am unsure if anyone has. For you and others with your views it has almost become a badge of honour. You have kept hurling the term around more than those who might be using it from a different standpoint. That is my point.

    As an example of your being a human corkscrew, let's again look at the Government's equal marriage consultation and the TDC "response". You kept banging on about the consultation being restricted to local authorities with registration responsibilities. When I quoted you the contents of the document you didn't acknowledge the point, and that you were wrong. You "corkscrewed" yourself to say "ah yes but it's a misuse of TDC's time when there are more important things etc etc etc...". That is my (further) point.

    There are other examples I could offer from exchanges on other subjects.

    You repeatedly accuse others of failing to answer your points, of shifting the sand, or of walking away from an issue. Yet that is precisely what you do. In accusing you are simply holding the mirror up to your own activity.

    And on what sites have I posted and been accused of being a "biased anonymous troll"? You really need to keep a cleaner mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 6:45, I despair at your blinkered view. If you read the blogs as avidily as you profess you will have seen Ian Driver liberally handing out the homophobic label and even saying he has reported Tony Flaig and I to some authority. I still wsait for the knock on my door.

    On the debate issue, it has been covered well by others and I do not propose to go over old ground again. The press release today over on Thanet Press Releases clearly makes the point.

    To GB all I would say is that I resent the fact that people misuse our equality laws for financial gain invariably at the tax payers expense. We have the habitual racial discrimination claimants to the point where, in some instances and particularly in the public sector, there is positive dicrimination against the indigenous population. That I suppose falls in the category of PC nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tom

    What you're saying is that PC nonsense is where people abuse equal rights for financial gain: does this happen on such a basis whereby it undermines society? I'm not sure if this is Political Correctness and not sure, unless you can provide evidence, that it is happening on a massive scale.

    I'm pretty certain the idea that "positive dicrimination against the indigenous population" only happens in small doses in the area of employment. If you're implying that minorities get the upper hand over the white population regarding housing and other public services then I would like to see some evidence, otherwise you're just regurgitating far-right myths!

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Tom Clarke", once again you do precisely what you bleat, whinge and moan others do. You answer only what is convenient for you to answer, you ignore fact-based argument, and you walk away from issues.

    I have not claimed - anywhere - to be an "avid" reader of blogs. If Driver has specifically accused you of being homophobic, I have not seen that. Whether what you say is true or not, it doesn't alter what I've said about your actions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. And Anon of 20.16, sorry, but I don't do text language, luvvy, so your message means nothing to me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pardon me if I actually address Tony's point with a reasoned and vitriol-free comment but please consider that the proportion of lesbian and gay cultural expression in no way reflects the proportion of lesbian and gay people in the population.
    How many times can a gay person say "Oh I think I'll watch that gay romance movie on BBC1 tonight" (or even BBC4)
    "Oh, I think I'll listen to that radio 4 comedy about the antics of a gay hairdresser in Salford"

    Oh, there's a good episode of gay cook with a gay celeb tonight"

    No. Doesn't happen. Because they are not there.
    Why resent a facilty provided for 20 % or whatever it is of the population just because you're not one?
    I feel the same about motor racing but I can't reasonably protest about it being on without sounding like a mean minded grumpy old fart.

    Loosen up guys. Gay people are here to stay. Why shouldn't their tastes be catered for?

    Get over it. You don't have to watch and if the mere sight of the words gets you in a tizz then I'm afraid it's your problem, not theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wise words Mr Bear. I for one can't stand football (I've yet to watch a match all the way through in my near-half a century on this planet), but it doesn't mean I want it banned.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yogi, 1.6% according to the National Statistics Office. Boo Boo.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hahaha....and they would know of course.
    :rme:

    ReplyDelete
  32. Probably not, Yogi, but their guess is probably as good as anyone elses. After all, from the Census there are 70% Christians which should mean every church is packed on Sundays. Boo Boo

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wicki puts it at 6% having had a homosexual experience.
    The govt put it 3.5 million in 2005.
    Natsal put genital contact with a same sex partner at 8.4% in 2000.
    Would more own up now? Dunno.

    I only know that not even half a percent of the mainstream media is aimed at or caters for the gay community.

    ReplyDelete
  34. GB, not saying that in isolation of the many other abuses that have arisen in our society out of some obsession with so called equality. We are not even born equal physically or mentally so how can you legislate to make us such.

    Anyway you and I are quite obviously from the political extremes to each other and I doubt we could ever agree on much.

    Whilst you abhor the far right and free market capitalism I still regard socialism as being the nail in the coffin of my country. Not much room there for debate so I guess we just have applaud a democracy where we can have and express such opposite views.

    You have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well Yogi, when it hits 100% you can claim victory and then watch the human race die out. Have fun in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Personally I think the world would be a better place if 100% of people were bisexual instead.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And all HIV positive as well, Peter?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Not sure about mixed race. Though I guess a white person could have a bit of black in them and vice versa...if only for a while.

    I will understand if this is deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Not sure the Chinese would go along with your suggestion, Peter, but they would probably be delighted if we in the west totally bastardise ourselves and decline into a sick and morally rudder less society.

    This mixed race, LGBT utopia of yours is really only happening in Europe and the Western world whilst the great masses of the worlds populations in Africa and Asia remain largely untouched. Possibly because they still cut peoples bollocks off for doing things they don't like.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Haha, very good!

    Anyway, we're all descended from Africans.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter, word of advice if you ever go to China. Don't tell the locals they are descended from Africans.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't travel abroad. Thanet has everything I want.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well let's hope you continue to do so and they don't decide to come here.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Tom Clarke

    So "PC" isn't such a big deal after all. In fact it's probably one of the biggest Straw Men arguments of recent times, a convenient catch-all to attack the progress of equal rights. The "indigenous population" are not losing out to minorities, if anything it's the current Neoliberal system that is undermining equality: the rich are getting richer and the poor, well, how can I put it, are being shafted left, right and centre.

    As for Socialism. I see no evidence of it in the last three decades. If anything, New Labour were Social Democratic with a heavy dose of Thatcherism. The Labour Party made a rightwards turn ages ago and with the repeal of Clause 4 ditched any of the last vestiges of Socialism in the party. Socialism is largely defunct in this country.

    I don't suppose we'll see an end to comments referring to PC gorn mad or the demands of the Hooman Rights Brigade but to suggest that they're in any way a big deal to how our society currently stands is just spurious and based on the fantasies of the likes of Richard Littlejohn and his rabid cohort in the tabloid rags.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Perhaps when you talk about "PC" you should clarify that you're not talking about me ; )

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nice rant, Gordon, but desperate over simplification on the wealth divide. As one of the relative poor, leastways on current calculations I am in fuel poverty, I have tended to find myself more comfortable financially under Conservative governments than Labour ones.

    Mind you, I never realised when Gordon Brown decimated my pension prospects that he had actually made a right turn somewhere along the way. I suppose that should make me feel better, but it doesn't.

    From your final terminology, and even spelling, I see you are obviously an avid reader of Littlejohn. You will be talking of those two little gnomes next!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tom

    How's it a "rant"? Beacause you have your opinions challenged doesn't mean to say the other person is ranting. If I ask you to prove that I'm ranting I'll be lucky to get anything in reply other than the usual Tom Clarke dodge.

    So, like every other right-whinger I've met, it's all about you is it? Not about the rest of society. You're having a laugh if you're suggesting Gordon Brown is a Socialist because he "decimated your pension prospects". What about the many people whose "pension prospects" were "decimated" by Casino Capitalism?

    I'm a big "fan" of Littlejohn: he's one of the daft idiots in the tabloid media who make me feel somewhat superior and more intelligent than I probably am.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Gordon, did not realise you were challenging my opinions, more like expressing your own.

    In a way we are both ranting to some folk, for one man's reasoned debate is another's outrageous rant.

    As for me dodging, well hardly. After all, if you check around the blogs, I usually respond to anything directed my way. It is the anonymous trolls who nip in and then disappear when challenged.

    Anyway, back to the rant, I quite enjoyed it as it at least states your position. Proving it is a rant, well surely, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Not something that can be proved or disproved either way. After all, I think the Mona Lisa is an ugly cow.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gordon, did not realise you were challenging my opinions, more like expressing your own.

    In a way we are both ranting to some folk, for one man's reasoned debate is another's outrageous rant.

    As for me dodging, well hardly. After all, if you check around the blogs, I usually respond to anything directed my way. It is the anonymous trolls who nip in and then disappear when challenged.

    Anyway, back to the rant, I quite enjoyed it as it at least states your position. Proving it is a rant, well surely, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Not something that can be proved or disproved either way. After all, I think the Mona Lisa is an ugly cow.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It speaks volumes Tom Clarke that you appear to have presumed that I myself am gay. Not the case.
    Can you not entertain the idea that a heterosexual person might be interested in the welfare or interests of the gay community?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yogi, did I say you were gay? If I gave that impression I apologise, but I thought we were simply talking about percentages. Anyway, it hardly matters and you fight any old cause that takes your fancy. Nothing surprises me anymore after Rock Hudson.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Some stereo types from Yogi with of course that old 20% claim.

    Mention of romantic films, surely hetrosexual and homosexual are more interested in whether a film has a good story, well acted, still if your correct and sexuality is so important why aren't hollywood producing an endless stream of such films, given the 20% claim.

    At a tangent, yesterday I watch "True Grit" a cowboy film, not necessarily because of the genre but it has a good story high production values and pleasant scenery.

    Of people I know perhaps three are gay, somewhat at odds with the 20% claim, does it matter of course not, I come back to the point why have a gay category of film when you dont have a heterosexual category? It just seems plain bonkers to me and I suppose a trivial point as is I suppose the storm created about single sex marriage, which still defined as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Spot on, Tony, let's just have films and plays with good stories about people regardless of their race, creed or sexuality. After all, what could have been more camp than some of the Carry On films, but heterosexual people still laughed at them. There surely is no divide between us when it comes to entertainment.

    Take Glee, for example, which seems to have something for everybody. Can't stand it myself because it is purile, but teenagers seem to enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Personally I love anything with Kate Winslett in it, though not sure if they're gay or heterosexual movies...

    I can't stand action or war films... or anything to do with sport apart from naked gymnastics!

    ReplyDelete
  55. And as for the "20%" Tony, I'd say that at least 40% of the people I know are openly gay or bisexual... but then again I know more women than men, & it's much more accepted for women to be gay or bisexual these days (women can be seen snogging or at least dancing intimately with eachother in pretty much any nightclub, but if men do at they often get thrown out or worse!).

    Be honest Tony, what would your & your colleagues reaction be if a couple of your male workmates were openly gay, & sat there holding hands during teabreaks?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Film, as well as other art forms, has been categorised under different genre for ages. Blame the French, they seem to like these sorts of things.

    One of the reasons is for academic research. If you study the Humanities stuff like Queer Theory, along with Feminist, Post-Colonial, Post-Modernist etc, are all the rage, as it were.

    So, it doesn't affect the ordinary movie fan, really, I mean, does it? I'd say move along folks, there's nowt here for you to see, leave it to the academic/intellectual types.

    ReplyDelete
  57. OK I may have stretched it a bit (so to speak) with the 20% thing. Lets say 18% and be done.:)

    As for films not being made I think it's more to do with the reluctance of some stars/actors to be identified with gay roles than any lack of demand.

    Most actors who are gay go to great lengths to conceal it.
    (not all)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Just for interest.

    http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Most actors who are gay go to great lengths to conceal it.
    (not all)"

    So do those in the construction trade (not all).

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yogi why does this myth continue to be pushed, are we really to believe there are millions of gay people hiding theirsexuality.

    I appreciate that for some reason there is a perceived preponderance of gay people in the media, however I can only assume that media bods are simply catering to an audience that probably doesn't exist.

    In 2012 are we to believe gay people are in the flipping closet

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes Tony... and you ignored my question regarding what you & your work colleague's reaction would be but I think we all know the answer (I was in the building trade myself for years!).

    Oh, & give us a kiss!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Will you all please stop and read what you have written. People in closets, what percentage kick with the left foot, gay actors, what happens at work if two men hold hands and an escapee from Yellowstone Park who keeps popping up. Do you really have nothing better to do and who cares anyway.

    But, just to join in the nonsense, what happens on a building site at lunch if a man and a woman hold hands. Ribbald comments about getting legs over, nods, winks and general piss taking. Is that so different.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yes it is VERY different. If it was two men there's a very good chance that others on a building site would get physically violent, or at the very least they'd get called some (illegal) homophobic names. Rather different from a little "nudge nudge, wink wink" innuendo.

    As I've said to Tony & others before, if you don't believe there's such thing as homophobia anymore then take a walk down Margate seafront while holding hands with me.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This conversation is so Thanet.
    Are there still thousands in the closet? Er....yes.
    Do some people have to conceal their sexuality at work? Yes definitely.
    Might revealing their sexuality affect their career in a negative way? Certainly.
    Goodness me people, wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  65. More edification...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/closet-uk-49-of-gay-people-are-too-scared-to-come-out-at-work-525000.html

    2006 but i wonder if things have changed much.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Is work really the right environment for revealing your sexuality - No, it is a private, personal matter.

    Are there people in the closet - Yes, presumably they are having a shit or something.

    I repeat, what a ridiculous exchange. If this really is the conversational level of the gay community, I pity them.

    Peter, I have often seen two males holding hands in Margate, but have yet to see any such couple get beaten up. Not disputing it happens, but then it does to heterosexual people as well and women sometimes get raped. Just what is your point. That there are bad people out there, well I think most of us knew that anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Well if it's a "private personal matter", then presumably you believe that people shouldn't reveal heterosexual relationships at work either, such as whistling at women...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nowadays, Peter, that could get you in the dock for sexual harassment. Like I said, sex is best left out of the work place, after all, don't we go there to work.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Not all of us want to see gay couples holding hands or kissing in public especially in front of children.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Who cares what you think?

    ReplyDelete
  71. 4:33, you are presumably one of those who cares very much what the great majority of us think when it comes to equal rights. You probably are also not slow with your homophobe labels for those who dare to have a different view.

    Why then deny someone else the right to find overt public demonstrations of togetherness distasteful. Whether you like it or not, many straight people find two blokes holding hands a bit duckie and OTT. Whatever happened to consenting adults in private.

    ReplyDelete
  72. As long as hetereosexual couples are also banned from showing affection in public, then fine.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Incidentally, I know of at least one person who gets offended by seeing heterosexual mixed-race couples holding hands...

    ReplyDelete
  74. Only one, Peter! You must live in a very tolerant society.

    ReplyDelete
  75. No, I just have very tolerant friends! I tend not to hang out with bigots, & have even disowned my own father for his racism & homophobia.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You have to wonder who would want to be a trophy white wife or girlfriend just so someone can pretend he is equal. Mind you, some seem to want to be the WAGS of moronic footballers, though I suppose the attraction there might be fame and fortune.

    World was a better place when we all stayed where we belong and we cracked jokes about Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotsmen. I suppose the Welsh were excluded for having no sense of humour.

    All of which is written a bit facitiously I guess, but there is some sense in there.

    Peter, how can you blank your poor old Dad. Without him you would not be here and he is entitled to his views the same as you are or are even opinions illegal now?

    ReplyDelete
  77. As (white) rock & roll legend Ronnie Hawkins once quipped, "Anyone who thinks we're all born equal has never seen Bo Diddley in the shower!"

    As for bigoted family members, I'm more of the opinion that "You can choose your friends but not your family" than the "Blood is thicker than water" nonsence... when I was around 11 years old, I got forced to stay indoors for an entire half-term because I was caught TALKING to a black girl. That's how bad he & his 2nd wife were (fortunately my lovely mummy taught us right, & later married a fine black West Indian, who was more of a man than my real father could ever be).

    ReplyDelete
  78. How do you judge how much a man is, Peter. By the medals on his chest, or the size of his biceps or how close his opinions are to your own? Just because your father did not share your mother's view on life does not necessarily make him a bad person. After all, if we were all the same we might be robots. My dear old Dad was a deluded socialist, but I don't hate him for it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. By the size of his willy.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Do you consider a male parent who punishes a child for merely talking to someone from another race a "man" then Tom? I don't... nor do my 4 siblings or 17 nephews & nieces.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I don't consider the 'man' bit relevant when talking about a parent. My father tried to indoctrinate me with his brand of socialism and used to get very angry when it became obvious that I was going well to the right. He was still my dad, I still loved him and and still respected his right to his opinions. For someone who preaches love and peace, you are showing a marked degree of intolerance to your own father.

    Have you ever considered your father might have not wanted you to mix with a child for some other reason.

    ReplyDelete
  82. He didn't even meet or know the child, he'd heard from elsewhere that I was seen talking to "a spade" (his words, not mine). Just take it from me, he's a racist bigot. He'd take me into pubs as a teenager, & if he saw a black person in there he'd walk straight back out. I'm just so glad I got to see both sides, as from the age of 15 I moved in with my mum & her black husband for a couple of years (he was the opposite of what most people imagine West Indian men to be like; he didn't smoke dope & didn't like reggae, but worked as an accountant & his favourite singer was Johnny Cash!).

    ReplyDelete
  83. Still sad you don't get on with your father. You only ever get one real one and I sure as hell miss mine.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Quote from Van der Merwe
    "World was a better place when we all stayed where we belong and we cracked jokes about Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotsmen. I suppose the Welsh were excluded for having no sense of humour."

    You're not Belgian by any chance are you?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Judging by the quality of the comments on this topic, it is apparent that the woosification of the west is nearing completion. Young Checksfield appears to have been particularly affected by this scientific onslaught.

    We are nearing the end of the line folks! If we keep going like this we'll be finished within three generations. In the meantime, the quality of life is going to get progressively worse.

    ReplyDelete
  86. It's being so cheerful keeps us going.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Don't worry, I still generally prefer the Mavis's to the Davis's (& thanks for the "young" compliment, usually the only time I get that these days is if I visit Birchington High Street on pension day!).

    Fancy a naked photoshoot?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Thank God there are still some real men about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqFzrUj-CZ8

    ReplyDelete
  89. One might ask if you are Canadian or American, Yogi? Me, well I am from Jersey, but heaven knows where the family name originates.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mavis Davis

    "We are nearing the end of the line folks! If we keep going like this we'll be finished within three generations. In the meantime, the quality of life is going to get progressively worse."

    very soon the way it is headed everyone will only be allowed to have two mums or two dads and require psychosocial testing and treatment if they object !

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hopefully humans will die out within a few generations anyway. It's the only hope the planet has of survival in the long term.

    ReplyDelete
  92. If the same God who was around in the Old Testament is still watching I doubt that we have three generations.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Mavis, you forgot that the two mums and two dads must also be from four different races and at least one must be an illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because he is entitled to a family life.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Four different races? I thought only three existed...

    ReplyDelete
  95. European (Caucasian if US), African, Asian (Indian sub continent), Asian (Oriental), Arabic, Aborigine, American Indian and various shades and characteristics in between.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Been reading Wiki have we?
    Eugenics is a dead end.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Well some say bears are an endangered species.

    ReplyDelete