David of Derby

Just thought I'd mention that. Never noticed this section before. Is it new?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you couldn't afford it, your post just seemed miffed that you had to pay. My mistake. A thousand apologies.

You lot realise that hose were originally a male clothing item, right? In the middle ages all men wore hose and women didn't. I served with soldiers who wore ladies' tights under their combat trousers in extreme cold weather and didn't consider it strange.

Looks like you have to suck it up and pay, Anita. Legal costs are an evil thing but one that can't be avoided it seems.

Biblicist, I can't answer your question. The report says the child was on the Child Protection Register but Social Services obviously failed - completely - to take that respsonsibility seriously. They could have removed the child from his parents and had they done so he'd probably be alive now. Maybe the witness did all he/she could and informed the authorities, and the failure is theirs, not the witness'. All I can really say is that I hope these people go to prison for the longest term English law can impose, and that I'm glad this little child has been welcomed into God's Kingdom, where he'll forget the pain he knew on earth. I despair of the inhumanity of the human creature.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081015/tuk-ch...es-dba1618.html Is it wrong for me to take some small satisfaction in knowing these three people who abused this innocent baby boy until he died of the injuries they inflicted will burn in the eternal fires forever?

Good Lord, you people are deluded. The US didn't save Europe from the Nazis, Hitler shot himself in the foot by invading the Soviet Union. The US joined the war on our side when Germany declared war on you/ Get a (edit) clue, you arrogant yanks. You didn't save anybody, you stayed out of the war until it was shoved down your throats and then you claimed to ride to the rescue and save everyone. Makes us all sick. You don't have to be French to see what the US is, everyone else on the planet knows it. You don't do the "dirty work," you serve your own interests and pretend you're fostering democracy and helping others when all you want is control.

The Russians ain't stupid enough to go nuclear, whatever their revised doctrine says. They know their whole country will be nothing but ash if they light off their nukes, same as everyone else on God's clean earth.

The US regularly uses its military and political clout to push other countries around. The US insists on trying to lead NATO and generally run the "free world" when no other country wants their interference. Europe got along just fine without the US for thousands of years and if the Second World War didn't go so well, it was hardly down to the US' actions that Europe wasn't under the Nazi jackboot. The UK fought for the safety of Europe long before the US could be bothered to think of anyone but themselves. More recently, what has the US done that's really positive? Massively unpopular and largely unsuccessful military actions in the Middle East that have served to intesify anti-American feeling there, dragging much of NATO into the crapped along with you? Tipping Saddam out of Iraq and the Taliban out of Afghanistan were good things but look at the results. Iraq in a civil war and Afghanistan a constant warzone for approaching a decade. Yes, the US is a bully when it suits it. You think the run whole (edit) planet and when another country tells you to (edit) you think it's against the will of God or something. As for why Europe isn't fighting for Georgia? Why should we? Georgia isn't in the EU, isn't in NATO and if the Russians taking the pipelines there isn't in our interests, a war with Russia isn't either.

Much of what you just said about Russia could be said of the US as well.

Come on you lot, the US isn't going to war with Russia over this. How much goodwill has your government got left for another foreign war? Over what, Georgia? The only Georgia 90% of your population cares about is the one inside your own borders. What do they care if Ivan is killing Georgians over some scrap of dirt on the other side of the world?

Looks like it might actually manage to airlift a single MBT, looking at the specs for the plane. If that's the case, your entire in-service complement of Galaxies would be needed to move a single armoured division, making several trips each. I expect the Russkies would notice that, and start shooting them down, tanks and all, before you got half a division over there...

You are kidding, right? The Hercules can't lift a tank. It can move a single M113 APC, which is obsolete and useless on the modern battlefield, but that's it. There's no aircraft in the world can airlift main battle tanks.

Your defence secretary was all over the news tonight saying the US won't confront Russia with military force. Unless he's lying, being a politician that's probable, there won't be any military personnel in those aid packages.

Who's this guy Barr?

An APC of Hummer is not a tank. Tanks weigh about sixty tonnes. APCs or oversized Land Rovers don't.

If the US was going to intervene with military force it wouldn't need to do it on the QT. The US has more than enough military power to evict Russia from Georgia. Military intervention hasn't even been hinted at. In point of fact, the C-17 is not capable of delivering tanks. Only the Sheridan light tank was capable of being airlifted by such an aircraft, and that remains in service only with elements of the US National Guard. The US Army does not have a light tank. Armoured forces would have to enter Georgia either under their own power or on tank trains or trucks.

I think it's fairly clear that the lyrics of the song place one's own country above all others, and service to one's country above all other earthly concerns. Earthly concerns are secondary to the concerns of Heaven, so I disagree with the Bishop of Hulme in his interpretation of this hymn. Indeed, I would be proud and glad to sing it at my own church. Thank you, one and all, for your insights.

Some of you may have noticed the change in my sig text, from the lyrics of Rule Britannia to I Vow to Thee My Country. While looking up the text of the hymn on Wikipedia I came across this note: In August 2004, the Rt Revd Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, called for it not to be used in Church of England services, calling it "totally heretical". His view that it placed national loyalties above religious ones, and encouraged racism and an unquestioning support of governments, opened a debate on its wider implications. So I wonder, what does everyone think of the hymn? It's a popular hymn in the UK, being sung at the Festival of Remembrance and the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer, among other occasions, and is also one of my personal favourites. Does it, indeed, encourage nationalist and even racist attitudes and place loyalty to one's country before the service of God, or is it merely a rather patriotic hymn that appeals to the British mindset? After all, the popular hymn Jerusalem is counted as the unofficial anthem of England, and that suggests that Christ Himself should have visited England, but no one claims that's heresy. Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen, please. Here's the link to the Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_vow_to_thee_my_country

How pathetic. It's the law. Deal with it.

Is this thread for discussing the nature of evil or just posting Bible quotations?

He was not on the Sex Offender's Register. He was not charged with a criminal offence. He did not have a criminal record. A CRB check would not have revealed his arrest except in the case of a full disclosure check - which would have been explained away when the persons applying for the check were told the man was wrongfully arrested. Instead of killing himself, this man should have sued for compensation and had his DNA removed from the register. In today's PC Britain that would have been a doddle. Tell me, Buck, what is your problem with the very concept of law enforcement? Are you just an anarchist?

Because of what he was accused of, questions would be asked, but only on a total disclosure CRB check, and since he was never even charged with the offence, being denied the job on those grounds would be pretty shaky. He could probably sue, and shake the money tree a bit.

He hadn't got a record. He was not charged. Being arrested isn't the same as being charged with a criminal offence. This would have shown up when he applied for a visa to enter the US or Aus, but unless the colonies are being run by utter morons it shouldn't have barred him from entry to either country.

The article says "weekly shopping trip." You know, when you go and buy all your groceries for the week. Sometimes including alcohol, for those so inclined. Tesco is a supermarket, not a "liquor store" and this new policy of theirs is beyond moronic. Anyone supplying drink to a minor wouldn't be dense enough to parade the minor in question through the shop where they were buying the (edit) booze!