Messages

Healthcare only for those who deserve it? I can't agree with that.

I can't either, and I certainly wasn't advocating it - my issue was with Usher's point about laws that infringe personal liberty.

The reality is that there will always be a finite pot of money to support members of the public in times of need. We can do the best we can to make sure public services use it efficiently and wisely, but at the same time the public has to accept some laws that may or may not be inconvenient are there to save that money, as well as protect us from our own stupidity and selfishness, and generally reduce suffering.

Now the right of assembly is another matter... although, sadly, it's not hard to see how that could put pressure on police budgets, because large masses of human beings do need to be managed.

Regards

Robin

Unfortunately we also have laws against possession of recreational drugs, which should be nobody's business but the user's, ....... and laws which insist drivers have to wear a seatbelt and motorcyclists must wear a helmet because the government has decided it knows better than they do what's good for them.

Not having those laws would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that when thing go wrong, and they do so all the time, other people and society in general are affected.

If drivers who fail to wear seatbelts, or simply speed, are willing to opt out of NHS care and go private (assuming they live, of course), then we can scrap those laws.

If all the recreational drug users used private support services when they start suffering mental health disorders, then we can scrap those laws, too.

And it's not always as simple as a government deciding what's good for us - although a degree of ideology will be involved in many instances, many laws are evidence-based, whether they seem excessive or not.

Personally, I only have a problem with laws that cause suffering, not ones that merely cause irritation or inconvenience.


Regards

Robin

I'm very relieved that my initial concerns proved unfounded, and this thread was in no way a bad idea.

Fucking hell.

Have a little patience.


Regards

Robin

If I were to move outside Scotland then the land and people I would live with would have to have my full support, otherewise why would they have any reason to accept me.

Why wouldn't they accept you? You're a human being the same as the rest of us. Most of us on the board live in England, I think, but it's quite clear that we don't have one idea of what it means to be English, or what it means to support the land and the people, so you living in England but supporting Scotland would be of no consequence at all.

As it is, I'm technically half Scottish, a quarter English and a quarter Welsh, but I refuse to be defined by such trivia, and I claim the right to live in every part of this island and support who and what I want to support based on my personal beliefs, rather than lines on bloody maps.

This is not to say there's anyting wrong with choosing to support a particular place - I choose support this island as a unified whole with regional variations - but I have no problem with differences adding to it. If anything, it is in-coming influences and differences that define it.

Regards

Robin

So if they are not Racist then why are they just as bad as the BNP ?

If nothing else, the fuss they made about the veil earlier in the year was a calculated attempt to woo racists and stir up fear and prejudice for their own benefit.

And even should I choose to ignore seriously despicable behaviour like that, I still think they stink, because the tossers apparently want to restore imperial measurements, and are sceptical of climate change. I think this county is scientifically illiterate as it is, and really doesn't need a political party encouraging it.

What I don't understand, Peter, is why you're happy to spread the most outrageous conspiracy theories about the mainstream parties as though they might be true, yet can't accept that a party whose raison d'etre is fear of foreigners might be a wee bit racist.

Regards

Robin

Nightmares, the Steve Dillon-illustrated, 5-part Necropolis epilogue (that has unbelievably never been reprinted until now) is essential stuff,

This is one I'm really looking forward to reading again. There were some great lines in it. I'm probably misquoting, but I (hope I) remember the gist:

"I had... problems with the way things were. But running away doesn't solve anything."

"And which of you has distinguished yourselves enough in the last few months to go against me? Eh?"

Regards

Robin

Interesting new theory about post-glacial cold snaps here:

Digression, but interesting link off the sidebar of that page:

Yikes!

Funnily enough, this one cropped up on yog-sothoth.com. Think of it as a pubic louse of Cthulhu.

Regards

Robin

I must admit that it had passed me by that the Meg stuff was going to be included. I also admit that despite being an obsessive completist, I would rather have had the Meg stuff packaged separately, a Meg-Files so to speak.

However, that won't stop me getting my copy. It will be interesting in seeing these stories again and seeing everyone's opinions. The post-Necropolis era is not one I've reread in the way I've reread earlier stuff, so I'm looking forward to reevaluating things.

Regards

Robin

2) If everyone who doesn't normally vote (over 33% of Northern Ireland, for example) decided to spoil their vote, instead, it would send out one hell of a message.

The only problem here is that a spoilt ballot paper could mean the voter is sending a message, but equally it could mean the voter is an incompetent tit. For that reason, I remain in favour of at least the option of 'None of the Above', but preferably 'Round them Up, Shoot them All'.

As a more general comment, perhaps it would be wiser of we kept our specific voting intentions to ourselves. For example, I consider UKIP to be a sickening bunch of filthy, small-minded, pig-ignorant racist bastards, intent on stirring up hostility and bigotry at every opportunity, and frankly no better than the BNP. I really don't need to know who here is planning on voting for them.

As another general comment, this will end in flames.


Regards

Robin

Technically falls into spoiler territory, but it's already been said, so I won't blank it out......

I think that particular scene (Kick-Ass getting stabbed in stomach/hit by car) works because it sets itself up as the classic 'good guy saves the day', then suddenly wrenches us back to reality

I really liked that scene, because the stabbing is shocking - I wasn't expecting it at all. However, being hit by the car inspires a both a sympathetic cringe and a soft laugh, the latter because there's just something about tragedy piled on top of tragedy. If it was real, sure, you wouldn't laugh... but as it's a film that kind of puts it on the level of the victim telling you about it down the pub when he's out of hospital and still walking.

Regards

Robin

Lovely review from Daily Mail cos it funny to reading from daft Daily Mail;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html

Curious.

I just went to that page. After the article it Read 'Comments (80)' followed by a note saying there were no comments yet. I followed the link to the message boards, found nothing, then clicked back to discover it now said 'Comments (-)'. Makes you think that the DM doesn't like the response.

I seem to recall that Tookey's always been a bit of a twerp, but here he seems to be deliberately twisting and wilfully misinterpreting what happens in the movie to serve the DM's editorial stance.

Regards

Robin

Saw it today with my better half and her sister.

I don't particularly care for gorey violence - I prefer my horror to be supernatural and my fights to be martial arts - so watching an eleven year old girl shoot and stab and kill people shouldn't really appeal. 

But my god this was simply glorious!


Regards

Robin

And LizR is a very astute lady.

It's possible that she's some kind of goddess. Probably a geeky, nerdy goddess, but a goddess nonetheless.

Please send more.

Regards

Robin

Thank you Auntie Beeb for your hour long slice of half baked fearmongering propaganda that was "How Safe Are Our Skies" aired on 04/03/09 @ 21.00hrs.I was particularly unimpressed [but sadly not surprised] with the way that you blatantly lied and obfuscated the truth about the events leading up to the AL-CIAda terror suspect boarding the plane at Amsterdam airport and how you deliberately failed to mention that the suspect was already under surveillance and was assisted onto the plane without a passport.There were a few other secondary points that i wont dwell on for the moment but i wish to thank you again for reinforcing the official party line and i am delighted with the sloppy standard of the journalism that was present throughout.You never fail to disappoint.

Finally i was very pleased that you didnt forget to express your usual fawning sycophancy towards our great leader Gordon Brown and his measured and timely and well thought out response to the alleged terrorist event on christmas day 2009.

Its this sloppy standard of Blatantly Biased Condescending television that misleadingly labels itself as investigative journalism/documentary filmmaking that makes it increasingly difficult/fucking impossible for me to defend you from criticism when it concerns your political bias and i have done my fair share of that recently.I will continue to pay my licence and justify your existence but i will disregard your biased drivel or view it as satire instead for entertainment only.This justifies my payment of the licence fee in my mind.

followed by:

WOW

I just watched a BBC documentary - Is Christianity Being Persecuted that was fair and balanced and objective and even more amazing than that it was actually critical of govt policy and their cackhanded handling of the of religious tolerance issue.It was something to listen to while doing some drawing.



This is really what the BBC should be doing all the time so its good to see that they can still deliver even if not very often.

And as if thats not enough now The Sky At Night is discussing very recent solar activity and the connection between solar cycles and the effect it has on the climate here on Earth.



This just goes to show that you have to defend the BBC as an institution even if you have been very unhappy with it for whatever reason so if any of those shifty worthless politicians have any ideas about turning it over to the private sector then i will have words with them.

You would not get programming like this or you dont get programming like this in the commercial sector and anyone who claims otherwise is just wasting their own time.

So... what you seem to be saying, Peter, is that you'll defend and praise the BBC when it's saying things you agree with, but dismiss it as biased when it says things you don't agree with it.


Regards

Robin

I just feel that if they are two separate venues the tone should be different.

What should that tone be? There was a time when the Meg was considered the more adult of the two. However, given the increase in purple wangs, swearing, blunt innuendo, and devil-pig knobbing, I'm not sure that distinction exists anymore.

I'd be quite happy if 2000AD could go back to being a comic for kids, with the Meg picking up the likes of Cradlegrave and even Zombo (it is rather gooey) - I think that would still fit with the change or tightening of focus that I suggested above.

Regards

Robin