There must be SOME good news around.

First topic message reminder :

I have put this in weird news because it would seem weird to actually read anything good or uplifting lately.

Surely someone somewhere can spread a little happiness by finding some good news that's happening in an area near you??

Syl wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Hold on though...that IS sexist.
Why presume I would be content with a port and lemon (and a small one at that) whilst you and Nicko allow yourselves the more substantial Olde Gruntfuttocks?

Us Lancashire lasses can hold our booze as well as any soft Londoners can....Look at HT, she can drink truckers under the table.

Don't you know that I am a sexist pig?

Sassy, the chief crone and knitter at public executions of Tory aristos says so and, of even greater importance, Wolfie, he of the intellectual ability of a dung beetle and all the charm and charisma of a semi housetrained polecat, also says so.

And with the endorsement of those experts...bugger off and drink your port and lemon.

(Lancashire? Ayup, lass, I'm a Yorkshireman from Barnsley...but I have lived in the posh shires for more than half a century, don'tcha know,what?)

OH NO...moley.....you mean you have "gone native" down there in the shires

Lord Foul wrote:OH NO...moley.....you mean you have "gone native" down there in the shires

I fear so.

As Scrat says (so it must be true, mustn't it? Er, mustn't it?) I married into wealth and inherited a huge number of run-down properties, for which I charged poor underprivileged dole claimants extortionate rents and then misappropriated the money paid to me by the DHSS and invested it in tax-evading companies based in well known tax havens such as, er, Biggleswade.

So there.

tsk tsk

Lord Foul wrote:tsk tsk

Yes, and I'm also press officer of the BNP, apparently.

Wish someone had mentioned it earlier...I haven't been getting any pay.

I'm not surprised......

your output has been somewhat.......sparse....

Lord Foul wrote:I'm not surprised......

your output has been somewhat.......sparse....

Looks good on my CV as President of the local Peasant Shooting Club though.....

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:




Hold on though...that IS sexist.
Why presume I would be content with a port and lemon (and a small one at that) whilst you and Nicko allow yourselves the more substantial Olde Gruntfuttocks?

Us Lancashire lasses can hold our booze as well as any soft Londoners can....Look at HT, she can drink truckers under the table.

Don't you know that I am a sexist pig?

Sassy, the chief crone and knitter at public executions of Tory aristos says so and, of even greater importance, Wolfie, he of the intellectual ability of a dung beetle and all the charm and charisma of a semi housetrained polecat, also says so.

And with the endorsement of those experts...bugger off and drink your port and lemon.

(Lancashire? Ayup, lass, I'm a Yorkshireman from Barnsley...but I have lived in the posh shires for more than half a century, don'tcha know,what?)  

'Bugger off and drink your port and lemon'.....I love a man who can come  over all manly when the need dictates.

I do like a bit of domination in a man

eddie wrote:I do like a bit of domination in a man

I've yet to find a woman in my life willing to be dominated, but I have the scars to show that I tried.

eddie wrote:I do like a bit of domination in a man

Do you Eddie? Actually I don't like dominant people, I always want to slap them back in line.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I do like a bit of domination in a man

Do you Eddie? Actually I don't like dominant people, I always want to slap them back in line.

Right time, right place Syl.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Do you Eddie? Actually I don't like dominant people, I always want to slap them back in line.

Right time, right place Syl.

Got ya,

Too many pics to post but leading Muslim television personality about Iraqi Christians and ISIS
https://imgur.com/gallery/C9m5T

veya_victaous wrote:Too many pics to post but leading Muslim television personality about Iraqi Christians and ISIS
https://imgur.com/gallery/C9m5T

Can't seem to access the pictures Veya.

Another lovely feel good story in todays paper.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homeless-man-lends-diner-shoes-10662031



"A homeless man came to the rescue when a diner was turned away from a restaurant because he was wearing sandals.
Akbar Badshah was supposed to be celebrating his wife’s birthday – and also breaking his fast on the first day of Ramadan .
Akbar and wife Rozmin had booked a table at Brazilian diner Fazenda in Manchester, travelling all the way from their home in Bradford, for their special meal.
But Akbar, a 36-year-old optician, says he was wrong-footed when staff explained he could not get in with his black plastic open-toed shoes .
Thankfully help was at hand in the shape of homeless man John, who was sitting with his labrador nearby.
When Akbar enquired if he could borrow his shoes, John handed them over without hesitation – and even refused to take any money in return for the gesture.

Akbar said: “We left the restaurant and I got chatting to this homeless fellow John on Deansgate.
“I said, ‘John what size are you?’ and he said ‘14’. I’m a size nine so it’s a good job it wasn’t the other way round!
“He said, ‘you won’t believe this, but I’ve got a brand new pair of shoes from an outreach project’, and he said I could borrow them, so we swapped shoes.”

After finishing the couple went back to say thanks, and return the shoes.
Akbar tried to offer John £10 as a way of saying thank you, but he refused.

It took several attempts to hand over the money Akbar said: “He wouldn’t take it.
“I said, ‘Please, please I want to give it to you’.”
It seems karma was on the homeless man’s side, as right at that moment a man in his fifties walked past and, after hearing their conversation, stroked John’s labrador and handed him another £50 note.
Akbar added: “John couldn’t believe it. It was unbelievable karma. He kept saying he didn’t want anything in return.

I gave John a hug and we took some photos together. We just felt touched by what he had done.”

What a wonderful story. Lifts your heart.

magica wrote:What a wonderful story.  Lifts your heart.

It really does.

There should be no homeless people in this day and age, Manchester city centre unfortunately seems to have more than ever.
This is the third homeless person in the news lately, two tended the really badly injured after the Manchester bomb, one cradled a woman in his arms as she died, now this one does something most well heeled people wouldn't do, offers his shoes to help someone out.

These are the people others stride past without giving them a second thought.

I agree, no one should be homeless, why are there so many.

I do think some arn't really homeless but begging is their job so to speak, which is bad imo. Real homeless get tarred with the same brush.

magica wrote:I agree, no one should be homeless, why are there so many.

I do think some arn't really homeless but begging is their job so to speak, which is bad imo. Real homeless get tarred with the same brush.

I don't really believe all the tales about people who park their fancy cars round the corner and pitch up to beg....its probably a myth started by tight gets who look down on anyone who is not middle class.
No doubt there is the odd scammer, but they crop up everywhere.

I love these stories! Makes me feel hopeful.

I'm going to look for good news stories and post them here every time I see one that lifts the spirits (we all need a bit of that just now)
Hope others will do the same. x

A very good idea Syl. You can be in charge of keeping it tidy too.

eddie wrote:A very good idea Syl. You can be in charge of keeping it tidy too.

Nah...let it flow.

Here's something to cheer you up....ladies, next time you think you have to wear a hat be thankful you probably don't have to wear anything as extreme as these.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/and-theyre-off-glamorous-racegoers-arrive-at-royal-ascots-ladies-day-in-some-seriously-quirky-hats/ar-BBD1Ua7?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

I am putting this in here, I cried when I read the account of the hero copper when the 3 terrorists randomly stabbed people in London a couple of weeks ago

He has now spoken about what actually happened. His sheer bravery in the face of evil, though terrifying, highlights the courage that some people have in bad times. He is slowly recovering from his wounds.

This is his account below...its incredibly touching.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hero-policeman-reveals-first-time-10703665

Oh I saw the video last night of this. He's an incredibly brave man.

eddie wrote:Oh I saw the video last night of this. He's an incredibly brave man.

Beyond brave. Deserves a medal and an appropriate Gallantry award, unlike the gongs that are handed out willy -nilly to senior civil servants and self serving politicians.

Got to agree with Andy there, the medals and titles should go to those who risk there lives to protect us. Pop stars being made Sirs, sickening.

nicko wrote:Got to agree with Andy there,   the medals and titles should go to those who risk there lives to protect us.     Pop stars being made Sirs,   sickening.

Protect us? The last time the UK was invaded was 1792. There would be precious few medals and titles around if that were the rule.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Got to agree with Andy there,   the medals and titles should go to those who risk there lives to protect us.     Pop stars being made Sirs,   sickening.

Protect us?  The last time the UK was invaded was 1792.  There would be precious few medals and titles around if that were the rule.

Does your police force not protect your citizens Quill....a country doesn't have to be invaded to produce real life heroes who are willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.....and our real life heroes generally don't have guns like yours do.

That answer from Quill re-enforces my opinion that he is not among the living.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Protect us?  The last time the UK was invaded was 1792.  There would be precious few medals and titles around if that were the rule.

Does your police force not protect your citizens Quill....a country doesn't have to be invaded to produce real life heroes who are willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.....and our real life heroes generally don't have guns like yours do.

A policeman keeps the peace at home. The military only keeps peace when the home is invaded by another foreign force. Hence the significance of my pointing out that the British Military hasn't had to repel an invasion force since 1792.

When you go and cause trouble in another man's land, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Since WWII, neither the US nor Britain have had to expel an invasion. The Brits fought the Battle of Britain, but that was in the skies; the RAF performed beautifully, and I commend them. The US fought the Battle of Midway, and the Battles Attu and Kiska, and expelled the Japanese. Since then we have had no business deploying our military forces anywhere (except perhaps on the remote islands of the Falklands).

Around the world today, our military is the problem...not deserving of medals and titles.

Well, like it or not we do give out medals and awards for outstanding acts of bravery.
This policeman deserves to be recognised.....and hopefully he will be in due time.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Does your police force not protect your citizens Quill....a country doesn't have to be invaded to produce real life heroes who are willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.....and our real life heroes generally don't have guns like yours do.

A policeman keeps the peace at home.  The military only keeps peace when the home is invaded by another foreign force.  Hence the significance of my pointing out that the British Military hasn't had to repel an invasion force since 1792.

When you go and cause trouble in another man's land, you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Since WWII, neither the US nor Britain have had to expel an invasion.  The Brits fought the Battle of Britain, but that was in the skies; the RAF performed beautifully, and I commend them.  The US fought the Battle of Midway, and the Battles Attu and Kiska, and expelled the Japanese.  Since then we have had no business deploying our military forces anywhere (except perhaps on the remote islands of the Falklands).

Around the world today, our military is the problem...not deserving of medals and titles.

So what you are saying. Is that allies should not have sent troops to defend each other if attacked aggressively?

It seems to me you are suggesting that Germany should have been free to overtake all Europe and Russia. 
You seem to wrongly think that only an invasion constitutes a threat to that nation under threat. That nobody should seek to defend other nations from aggression, oppression, genocide etc. Even those who fight in irresponsible conflicts like WW1 are honoured and remembered, who are deserving of the greatest respect.
Just because you individually do not think soldiers should stand up to genocidal murders and tyrants, does not make your view right. Its actually morally wrong, because you sit doing nothing, watching countless die, when your own nation can do something to stop this.

Soldiers are honoured for their bravery in combat and conduct, not generally on the cause of the conflict. Which is why all sides who have had soldiers die in wars are remembered and honored.

Thorin wrote:So what you are saying. Is that allies should not have sent troops to defend each other if attacked aggressively?

If I were voting back in the 1930's, I would have voted in favor of the Neutrality Acts.  It was Europe's war, they bought it, and they could have it.  It's not our business in the Americas.

The only reason I would have supported the European allies in WWII is for a strategic measure, related to defense of the US.  Britain was the final island to the east for America.  If we lost Britain, we would no longer be able to fly east of Newfoundland.  Moreover, we would be vulnerable from the east.

You see?  You can go defend another land, but only if it relates to your strategic, geographic interests, specifically related to your homeland.  Not for anti-communism.  Not for Christianity.  No causes. No ideologies.  Nothing.

And the reason is, it's so easy to turn anything other than geographic defense in to a cause...a crusade.  We did it all over with the Cold War.  Korea?  Viet Nam?  Nicaragua?  We enlarged the game to mean Freedom and Justice and Democracy...shit that has no meaning, or any meaning.  And suddenly we were killing babies.

It's not good.  And this thing with the middle east, it's starting all over again.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:So what you are saying. Is that allies should not have sent troops to defend each other if attacked aggressively?

If I were voting back in the 1930's, I would have voted in favor of the Neutrality Acts.  It was Europe's war, they bought it, and they could have it.  It's not our business in the Americas.

Thorin wrote:America was already neutral in 1938, so that is irrelevant

The only reason I would have supported the European allies in WWII is for a strategic measure, related to defense of the US.  Britain was the final island to the east for America.  If we lost Britain, we would no longer be able to fly east of Newfoundland.  Moreover, we would be vulnerable from the east.

Thorin wrote:This is not about what you would support, but again as seen what is morally right, when people are being murdered and you do nothing to stop this, when you can

You see?  You can go defend another land, but only if it relates to your strategic, geographic interests, specifically related to your homeland.  Not for anti-communism.  Not for Christianity.  No causes.  No ideologies.  Nothing.

Thorin wrote:Actually its you creating geographical barriers to helping humans that are suffering oppression. It seems you are only willing to help people geographically. I mean where do you draw the line? Only in California? Los Angeles? You see the world revolves around all nations in business together.

And the reason is, it's so easy to turn anything other than geographic defense in to a cause...a crusade.  We did it all over with the Cold War.  Korea?  Viet Nam?  Nicaragua?  We enlarged the game to mean Freedom and Justice and Democracy...shit that has no meaning, or any meaning.  And suddenly we were killing babies.

Thorin wrote:Again it is you standing by why countless babies are being butchered an your only argument to not help them is some poor nationalist one based on geographical boundaries. Its morally reprehensible to stand by and do nothing when people can do something. The killing baby argument is also a massive double standard. As your argument against involvement is that some babies die, yet to not get involved means more babies are being killed by your inaction.

It's not good.  And this thing with the middle east, it's starting all over again.

The only thing that is not good is your whole argument that is based on a selfish stance, when you would not even survive or prosper without globally people working together.
At least you have conceded on your poor argument slagging off those who fight as soldiers in conflicts, due to you being in disagreement with the conflict. I mean if you think US soldiers should not be honoured, why are you not campaigning to have the Vietnam Veterans Memorial taken down?

Thorin wrote:This is not about what you would support, but again as seen what is morally right,

Define "morally right". Many people felt that the Neutrality Acts were the morally right thing to do. What, in hindsight, was morally wrong, was Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

Doing things for "morally right" reasons is a slippery slope. Was the anti-Communist crusade of Joseph McCarthy "morally right"? I don't think so.

Thorin wrote:...when people are being murdered and you do nothing to stop this, when you can.

Going in and killing the babies of the other people is not the right answer.

Thorin wrote:Actually its you creating geographical barriers to helping humans that are suffering oppression. It seems you are only willing to help people geographically. I mean where do you draw the line? Only in California? Los Angeles? You see the world revolves around all nations in business together.

It’s not abstractly geographic, but personal. Remember, the basic theme in my discussion with nicko is personal geographic defense. You defend the homeland, not some abstract cause elsewhere. You don’t have the right to go off willy-nilly killing the babies of others because you deem the other side “unjust”. That’s a slippery slope, as anything can be labeled “unjust”.

Thorin wrote:Again it is you standing by why countless babies are being butchered an your only argument to not help them is some poor nationalist one based on geographical boundaries. Its morally reprehensible to stand by and do nothing when people can do something.

Meh…it’s not our problem. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the homeland. If you want a world government, then you should embrace the UN approach…which you recently rejected in your argument about humanitarian causes in Syria.

Again, it’s a slippery slope to simply declare a cause “unjust” just to create grounds to go in and kill more babies. Hitler used that ploy to invade Czechoslovakia.

Thorin wrote:The killing baby argument is also a massive double standard. Your argument against involvement is that some babies die, yet to not get involved means more babies are being killed by your inaction.

So the answer is to go in and kill more babies? I doubt it, Alice.

Original Quill wrote:

Define "morally right".  Many people felt that the Neutrality Acts were the morally right thing to do.  What, in hindsight, was morally wrong, was Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.  

Doing things for "morally right" reasons is a slippery slope.  Was the anti-Communist crusade of Joseph McCarthy "morally right"?  I don't think so.

Thorin wrote:Well its based on what is right or wrong.
Is it right to stand by, when somebody is trying to murder many people and you do nothing about this?
Nor morally right even in the US court of law, armed force can be used to defend people being attacked.So in every situation self defense is a moral action and people defended the very life of someone, where someone is out to murder them, is morally right. As seen by how the Police will generally use force against those in the act or attempting to murder people. Your only defense is to say its not your problem when it falls outside the imaginary geographical boundaries of a nation. That you would rightly defend a US citizen, but nobody else b based on a racial view point. So this is not about morals as seen, is about geography and how you do not look and class your fellow humans as worthy of saving

Going in and killing the babies of the other people is not the right answer.

Thorin wrote:But we are all one human race. So to say to do nothing when human babies are being murdered. And say other people, is racially reprehensible. That only to you US babies are worth defending.
Where you basically say fuck the rest. It would be like a guy with a machine gun shooting countless civilians and you simple stood by, because some of those people were not Americans

It’s not abstractly geographic, but personal.  Remember, the basic theme in my discussion with nicko is personal geographic defense.  You defend the homeland, not some abstract cause elsewhere.  You don’t have the right to go off willy-nilly killing the babies of others because you deem the other side “unjust”.  That’s a slippery slope, as anything can be labeled “unjust”.

Thorin wrote:But you are allowing babies to be killed willy-nilly in these conflicts and your argument to not act, is that some babies may die accidentally through war itself. Even though as seen people are actually deliberately murdering them on an unprecedented scale. Lets take the holocaust, where many in Auschwitz, wanting the Allies to bomb the place, even though they knew this would kill many of them. Because the objective  would be to halt the death camp process and killing machine. Hence why your baby argument is again flawed. Its about the bigger picture. That the sad reality is that to often save far more lives, some will sadly died and why the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Meh…it’s not our problem.  Our responsibility is to protect and defend the homeland.  If you want a world government, then you should embrace the UN approach…which you recently rejected in your argument about humanitarian causes in Syria.

Again, it’s a slippery slope to simply declare a cause “unjust” just to create grounds to go in and kill more babies.  Hitler used that ploy to invade Czechoslovakia.

Thorin wrote:See, yet again a selfish argument when we are all one human race. You would thuse not defend a tourist from attack in your country, as they would have no rights to be defended in a land you claim should only defend some humans, based on a concept. Americanism. Which is odd, when they are made up of countless ethnic groups. So based on that, you would then be happy, if we sent all those oppressed in the world in the hundreds of millions to the US, so you then can feel better about defending them?

Hitler never used that ploy in Czechoslovakia or even invaded it. He applied the fear argument to people like yourself, fearful to get involved and it worked, and they signed over the Sudetenland

So the answer is to go in and kill more babies?  I doubt it, Alice.

The answer is go in and save as many babies as you can, where many are already being killed.
To easily show your argument is flawed. If the Allies had not gone in and defeated Hitler in Europe. All Jews and Jewish Babies would have been murdered by Hitler in Europe through the Holocaust. Clearly by intervention, they were able to save a number of Jews and Jewish babies. Which easily proves your argument wrong Quill.