manc-mag

Gemmill's IQ has clearly taken a nosedive for him to get an advantage in his new telesales job.

Also, fingers crossed that his hospital porter doesnt have a Blyth accent! I think you have to be from blyth to have a blyth accent. There are some big time homs on this board. The family of Rhys Evans and Antonio Puerta have my sympathy. People who have real problems. Not some silver spoon cock face who got pissed up or took too many drugs or whatever and then decided to cut his wrists cos his lass finished him. Hes 38 not 15. Hes a disgrace to people with real mental health problems tbh. Whatchu talkin 'bout Willis? One day God willing he'll probably look back on it and be ashamed of his actions. Sometimes your reactions just don't seem to be within the 'normal' range of responses for a person who is not personally affected by a particular event. Bizarre stuff.

Is she fit? If not, why are we even having this conversation tbh?

Also, fingers crossed that his hospital porter doesnt have a Blyth accent!

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case. Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory). Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end. We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?). But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms. It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about. No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK. Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind. I would say you're being a bit complacent personally. I'm no historian but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of free and liberal states sliding into repression and even totalitarianism, one is an obvious example. My concern is more for the US at present, admittedly, but I honestly believe you have to be vigilant if you want to keep your freedom, and I'm glad some people are willing to do it. All hail to the stand up comedians! For the record, I would always be prepared to stand up to the erosion of fundamental freedoms. It's simply that I don't think the situation is as bad as some make out. I also think I'm a bit more pragmatic about accepting that it's a constant balancing act and if anything there should be some in built flexibility to deal with the prevailing circumstances.

The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself. I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite. I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want. We've never had an unwritten constitution for the record, it's always been 'written' in one way or another, it's just that it was never codeified or consolidated until the Human Rights Act. Not that we ever really had rights as such either. Liberties would be the correct term....ie whatever the law didnt say you couldnt do, you could do. We never actually had the right to do anything until 1998. OMG!!!11! The sad thing is my limited knowledge which I used to refer to it as that comes from seeing St John Stevas describe it as that on several occasions. I bow to your superior knowledge (on this and this alone ) I think that's probably fair, mate.

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case. Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory). Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end. We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?). But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms. It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about. No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK. Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind.

It's only really when Renton tips up that one begins to miss Leazes. Which puts things in to some sort of perspective I think you'll agree.

True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future. Send the buggers back tbh.

The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself. I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite. I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want. We've never had an unwritten constitution for the record, it's always been 'written' in one way or another, it's just that it was never codeified or consolidated until the Human Rights Act. Not that we ever really had rights as such either. Liberties would be the correct term....ie whatever the law didnt say you couldnt do, you could do. We never actually had the right to do anything until 1998. OMG!!!11!

That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Agree with the last sentence, though to be honest the influence of politicians has been less pivotal since religion became a fundamental human right in Europe in any event. Aye but that's the right to practice and belief freely is it not? Which is both perfectly fine and a long, long, long way from the sort of protection often being given (protection that in fact go against other rights and indeed the spirit of the whole idea). Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights. So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law. I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

This makes brother Luke Wilson's outing in Anchorman appear very unsavoury in hindsight. For shame.

That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Agree with the last sentence, though to be honest the influence of politicians has been less pivotal since religion became a fundamental human right in Europe in any event.

That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict.

That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups.

To anyone who hasn't met Neil, that was weapons grade sarcasm btw!

This is actually the best bit. Bluf and Janitor of NO got lost on the way out and ended up outside an office where a boss was working. He kicked them out and because they were so drunk and clueless, it raised his suspicions so he went to check the CCTV. Cue Papa Laz doing Singing in the Rain with his cock out soiling Network Rail literature in the downstaris corridor. Andrew had to go up to the office, watch the footage and take a bollocking off the bloke. He then calls me and describes the culprit as 'the slightly greying older one in the metaller t-shirt'. Howay man, that could have been anyone!

T-Keith will be on shortly asking who the fuck Andy Cole is. Joke!!! by the way Tom!

How did you know it was Neil anyway Chez, it's unclear? Did you catch the little scruff yellow handed?

The way he treated your mate's workplace you'd think he just didn't give a shit. And that's probably a very good thing.

I reckon Neil's secretly reading this thread and is pissing himself.

You've got your finger on the pulse mind!

There were probably flies all over the walls.

Fucking hell! GERLD! Only just read this thread and after the first post you're just scanning down for some tongue in cheek response, only to realise it's not coming cos Chezza is deadly serious. Neil you absolute animal!

What would be nonsense, would be to use either of those offences as a reference tool to gauge the correctness of the other one as you have done there. PS someone do a 'nonce sense' joke for good measure. Hang the lot of them, I say. That argument is actually more valid than jaythesouthernmag's. I'm not disputing the adequacy of the sentence, I just can't stand the Daily Mail logic.