DougJamie Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Oh FFS. We cant make jokes now because of that? Maybe you should make a list of things we CAN joke about seeing as how you seem to think there is a moral issue at stake. Take your political correctness and stick it where the sun doesnt shine. Grow up. You said it before I read it.................................... This thread shows me just why the Scots biggest nemesis since our birth thru Irish/Viking/ Saxon / Whatever stock we cant agree on the colour of shit??/ So Independence wont happen..... ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 14 hours ago, oaksoft said: Anyone who is triggered by this needs to have a word with themselves. In the article, Pearson descibes Sturgeon as the love child of a Bay City Roller and a Shetland pony. It may not be politically correct but it is pretty funny. Somewhere along the line we lost our sense of humour and our tolerance for strong and opposing views. Thats a shame IMO. Stupid people only read headlines. Stupid people with a grievance can be triggered by this, and other bile online. I think the point is that an MP was murdered last year, and the reason given was that she was a traitor, so for the media to still be using that kind of language, and linking it to beheading a senior politician is something many will rightly find offensive and unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Soctty said: Stupid people only read headlines. Stupid people with a grievance can be triggered by this, and other bile online. I think the point is that an MP was murdered last year, and the reason given was that she was a traitor, so for the media to still be using that kind of language, and linking it to beheading a senior politician is something many will rightly find offensive and unnecessary. I understand the reasoning. Far more worrying for me is a host of Yessers claimg the author is advocating murder. Living your life scared to say something in case someone may be triggered by your words is not really living. I certainly dont want to live in that kind of society. Her article had some funny bits in it. I think we need to calm down a bit and think things through more. Edited March 16, 2017 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, oaksoft said: I understand the reasoning. Far more worrying for me is a host of Yessers claimg the author is advocating murder. Living your life scared to say something in case someone may be triggered by your words is not really living. I certainly dont want to live in that kind of society. Her article had some funny bits in it. I think we need to calm down a bit and think things through more. Where, exactly, do you want to live as I don't believe there is anywhere that would live up to your expectations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, oaksoft said: I understand the reasoning. Far more worrying for me is a host of Yessers claimg the author is advocating murder. Living your life scared to say something in case someone may be triggered by your words is not really living. I certainly dont want to live in that kind of society. Her article had some funny bits in it. I think we need to calm down a bit and think things through more. Aye, that's just stupid claiming that. This is a case of a columnist in a national newspaper writing these words though - and it's not Katie Hopkins for a change, whom we all ignore. This type of rhetoric can be harmful, so why not avoid implying (even jokingly) that politicians could be killed? It's surely not that difficult? I'm all for free speech, but people publishing to such a wide audience should use a bit of common sense in my opinion. Some people don't think things through at all. Edited March 16, 2017 by Soctty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 It's getting dirty again from the Establishment and their lickspittles.................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Soctty said: Aye, that's just stupid claiming that. This is a case of a columnist in a national newspaper writing these words though - and it's not Katie Hopkins for a change, whom we all ignore. This type of rhetoric can be harmful, so why not avoid implying (even jokingly) that politicians could be killed? It's surely not that difficult? I'm all for free speech, but people publishing to such a wide audience should use a bit of common sense in my opinion. Some people don't think things through at all. I agree with you on this. Personally I wouldnt have said this but I have no issue with others doing so. The tone of the article suggests she did this deliberately for attention only but it was still funny IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 FFS It IS The Telegraph Alison Pearson has always been known for being inflammatory and right wing. I wouldn't read her article far less get wound up about it. To my mind, posting it on here to suggest she is representative of all English or of all Remoaners is as bad and inflammatory as her article. It was posted on here just to get a mindless reaction. Job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 FFS It IS The Telegraph Alison Pearson has always been known for being inflammatory and right wing. I wouldn't read her article far less get wound up about it. To my mind, posting it on here to suggest she is representative of all English or of all Remoaners is as bad and inflammatory as her article. It was posted on here just to get a mindless reaction. Job done. But no-one did that, ant, the original use of the headline was done by Slarti in a humerous manner, oaky then had a go at AAV for pointing out that some - not all, some - people don't get beyond the headline. ETA - the guy that does the blog is English, you do know that, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 On 13/03/2017 at 10:30 PM, Drew said: You seem fixed on the SNP, Neil. You can't put your issues with them to one side and focus on the main prize? I'd also be genuinely interested to hear what your main objections to the NP scheme are (albeit it is a bit off topic)? Named Person legislation takes consent away from parents and as such is a supressive law , reminds me of an Orwellian nightmare really. Worse than anything the Tories have done. This is why i don't trust the SNP. A parent who does not want their child to have Psychiatric drugs could be overruled by a Named Person , which to me is an abomination. No wonder many organisations were against this .Psychiatric drug sales are on the increase but the drugs don't work . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said: A parent who does not want their child to have Psychiatric drugs could be overruled by a Named Person , which to me is an abomination Really? I think you might be mixing up your legislation. Even then, what you are suggesting is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Drew said: Really? I think you might be mixing up your legislation. Even then, what you are suggesting is incorrect. Indeed. In schools pupils already speak to the people who were going to be named persons without parental consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Drew said: Really? I think you might be mixing up your legislation. Even then, what you are suggesting is incorrect. Aye, just read through it, nothing, to the level suggested by the poster you quote, seems to be close to the truth. He's mixed up right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, faraway saint said: Aye, just read through it, nothing, to the level suggested by the poster you quote, seems to be close to the truth. He's mixed up right enough. I can only assume Neil is confusing the Named Person provisions under the 2003 Mental Health Act. Even then, a Named Person under that legislation has no authority to grant or decline consent to treatment - in any circumstances. Ironically, under 16 year olds have a Named Person appointed by default - their parent or guardian. Edited March 16, 2017 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, Drew said: I can only assume Neil is confusing the Named Person provisions under the 2003 Mental Health Act. Even then, a Named Person under that legislation has no authority to grant or decline consent to treatment - in any circumstances. Ironically, under 16 year olds have a Named Person appointed by default - their parent or guardian. I was just checking I was reading the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, faraway saint said: I was just checking I was reading the right thing. It is certainly confusing to have two entirely different Named Person roles in two pieces of legislation. As I say, I'm assuming that Neil has mixed things up. There is no provision whatsoever in either act for a Named Person to consent (or refuse consent) in terms of psychiatric treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 On 14/03/2017 at 1:33 PM, oaksoft said: Maybe you should try ASKING people what their problem is rather than leaping to false conclusions. This is not about embarassment FFS. This is about the potential for unwarranted abuse of the system. How many more examples of authority abuse do you want me to tell you about? I listed 3 above and I forgot youth football caoches abusing kids. Add to that this ridiculous fear people seem to have that our streets are paved with paedophiles just waiting to pounce on a stray kid and you have mass hysteria and empty streets. NP exacerbates this fear anmd panic culture. We are heading the wrong way down a one way street. My work here is done. Seriously have you read the legislation? I just don''t see how it does the things you suggest. The only concerns my organisation had and suggested they might want to look at were around notification of teenage children's health records and why they could potentially be available to the NP when they might not be available to the parents. We also wondered what the role of the NP would be in cases where medical treatment of children was controversial, such as refused blood transfusions, Chemo and radio therapy, and pre-adolescent request for gender reassignment surgery. SG did respond, but I never read the response because my role in the organisation had change. (And I wasn't interested enough to read it out of general interest.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 4 hours ago, faraway saint said: Where, exactly, do you want to live as I don't believe there is anywhere that would live up to your expectations? Arbroath is nice, I'm sure he'd happy there with you as his nice next door neighbour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, insaintee said: Arbroath is nice, I'm sure he'd happy there with you as his nice next door neighbour. Reported, scared the shit outta me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, faraway saint said: Reported, scared the shit outta me. So no need for your daily enema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Drew said: Really? I think you might be mixing up your legislation. Even then, what you are suggesting is incorrect. Only a judge can over rule a parent. The question is who is going to take such a request to the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 FFS It IS The Telegraph Alison Pearson has always been known for being inflammatory and right wing. I wouldn't read her article far less get wound up about it. To my mind, posting it on here to suggest she is representative of all English or of all Remoaners is as bad and inflammatory as her article. It was posted on here just to get a mindless reaction. Job done. Did anyone suggest she was representative of all English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 6 hours ago, salmonbuddie said: But no-one did that, ant, the original use of the headline was done by Slarti in a humerous manner, oaky then had a go at AAV for pointing out that some - not all, some - people don't get beyond the headline. ETA - the guy that does the blog is English, you do know that, right? Er.... No. The original was posted by tpafkats and he cast slurs on it being the English press.... i never mentioned the blog, and his/her nationality is of no import to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said: Did anyone suggest she was representative of all English? Well... You? YOU highlighted the nationality of the author of the piece and/or the location in which it is published. otherwise... if you didn't believe it to be representative of a specific PoV.... Why did you mention it? you could have said the long-haired lady persons, but you said English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Er.... No. The original was posted by tpafkats and he cast slurs on it being the English press.... i never mentioned the blog, and his/her nationality is of no import to me. My mistake. Are you saying that "English press" is synonymous with "everyone in England" then? Do you think the people on this forum aren't sophisticated or smart enough to know there's a huge difference between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.