Posts by tekno

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Today 38 Degrees sent out a call for us all to sign this
    75,000 signatures are needed so far over 40,000 people have signed.


    We all know the NHS is needed; not only needed but something we should protect. The British Medical Society, GP's, Doctors, and Nurses have all spoken out against what is essentially the privatisation of the NHS. I know I would rather the experts (the people who work within the NHS) are listened to. Please sign the petition.

    I think this really is the case of "we are all in it together" :eek:


    So support the police :eek:
    We want them on our side:reddevil:


    Remember with overtime cuts - its going to be really hard to police any protests :whistle:


    Indeed! *rubs hands together with glee!*:reddevil:


    But in all seriousness I totally agree with Winter; yes some policemen are utter cunts... the same can be said of some protesters too. ;)
    So yes this does show that we (= everyone who is not a banker/earning well over 50 k p.a/a company) are in this together (=being totally screwed). I was talking to my Dad about this very subject, as usual he stunned me with his simple logic. He said the police and armed forces should set up their very own unions. I think this would be a massive step forwards.. we want an independently run police force who remember who they work for as well as what role they are supposed to play in society... not puppets of whatever government that is in power at the time. We want discrimination and the people who promote this within the police force; who imo are probably the same people who like to beat up/murder protesters, out of the police force. Unions help promote and also enforce fair standards of working.


    Anyhoo I'm rambling... but yes we do want the police force on our side :D

    I work with a group of people (mainly from the ex-community garden) giving out soup to the homeless... when I read that Westminster had made this move I felt physically sickened! During a time when homelessness is predicted to rise due to cuts to LHA/HB; (guess what area will be hit the hardest... oh yeah Westminster), as well as cuts in hostel/support services funding as Medusa points out. This *is* either insanity or just plain vindictiveness, we all know that not one of the ministers that made this decision have ever faced beening homeless etc etc... grrrrr it makes me so angry!

    Its just unneccessary and I dont get why people defend it coz if its 'just a word' then whats the problem with using a soddin different one? Its not like there arent plenty more words in the world to choose from.


    :ditto:


    I can't understand it either...

    Quote from Triggerhippy

    Hahaha, this whole thread is opinion! Im entitled to mine and you to yours. Trying to claim "FACT" when faced with the subjectivity of the human mind is ridiculous


    Indeed... but again you missed the point... don't worry about it... I'm sure you'll understand one day *pats on head* :p

    Tekno you've just given examples of offence and then qualified that it is all about intent by stating quite clearly that you do not mean to cause offence in elucidation of said points...."OK, let's test that theory... Junky scum... I don't intend to insult you by calling you that, I just thought I would use those words for dramatic affect...And thus i dont feel insulted. Thank you for proving my point.


    Is that what you thought I did... lol! What I *was* doing as showing how emotive language such as 'Junky' or 'Scum' can be used to berate people; AS WELL AS (the part that you have sadly overlooked) convey widely accepted beliefs/misconceptions about a specific behaviour (in this case drug usage)
    a) regular drug user = Junky/Addict
    b) that all regular drug users are scum.


    Neither belief accurately describes the reality of being a drug user, does it? Also you are only one person, and I am glad that using those terms does not offend/upset you in any way. Not all people are like you though are they?


    Our use of language yes, of individual words no.


    Ok, do you not see the error you have made in this statement... you probably don't. When a word that already exists in everyday language is used (albeit with an f added) to describe a non-invasive, usually harmless act; within a society that often overlooks the seriousness of having your body violated, maybe being physically attacked, loosing all faith in humanity as well as yourself... blah blah (can you tell I have some personal experience of this?)... then trivialising that word further shows that our use of language already supports the notion that rape is not *that* serious a crime... I don't personally get upset at the use of the word frape... but I may have done just after I was raped.


    Anyway there were far more salient points in my last post to you, that you have decided not to respond to which really is a shame. Ho-hum :shrug:

    If the complaints had been made to the press first and as a result 'Elf and Safety peeps got involved, I'd agree. But it seems from what I have read that the reverse is true. But anyhoo, this is trivial bullcrap really, its back on sale... :D

    Im not at home to the grammar nazis.


    Eh? Grammar Nazi to my mind means someone who constantly corrects spelling, punctuation... the technicalities of writing (and yes we can see you at not at home with them.. lol ;))


    But what is being discussed here is *totally* different; we are talking about discourse, the way we use language and what meaning it holds, as well as how it can be used to further reinforce the belief (in this case) that rape is a trivial thing.


    Frankly i think people need to lighten up regarding use of language. In most cases offence is taken not given. To be offended and kick off over a word -kicking off over someone using a word in an attempt to hurt feelings is entirely different and not acceptable- is frankly pathetic.


    Maybe it's the *fact* that rape is so often trivialised... as was discrimination and violence committed against Blacks, Jews, gay men... that people are 'kicking off about'... our language and use of it, *is* a reflection of commonly held beliefs, attitudes, and social standards.


    Words or terms in themselves are not offensive, anyone who says that they are i will happily stand up and call a moron. It is ALL about intent.


    OK, let's test that theory... Junky scum... I don't intend to insult you by calling you that, I just thought I would use those words for dramatic affect.


    My use of language there reflects the societal belief that all regular drug users are in fact junkies, and also that the vast majority of junkies are more likely to commit crimes against people and generally act like scum (again a meaning that has a widely accepted meaning constructed over generations). Using the term frape to describe something that causes no *real* harm; in a society that generally (again judging by conviction rates and media portrayal) doesn't see rape as seriously as it should *does* help further trivialise the issue...


    We should spend our time saying whatever we feel, provided it is not intended to cause offence and this is made apparent by some means (voice inflection etc.) otherwise we will waste our time thinking about what words to use rather than what to say.


    How did you arrive at that conclusion? My fb account was hacked by my 9 year old recently did I say that she fraped me... no I whined about her hacking into my account. It is really not hard to not use emotive language that could unintentionally upset another... I don't have to waste time thinking 'oh no I can't use the word faggot, as some people find it offensive, oh what word should I use instead'... I just don't use the word. And as Ms Vee rightly said it's just basic manners and respectful, and what is really so bad about learning to mediate our own use of language, or acknowledging the power and affect language has on our society :screwy:

    Well it's been declared fit for sale after testing. How much more reasonable would you like them to be?


    Maybe by taking a more reasoned approach in the first place? I am pretty sure that there are far dodgier foodstuffs being sold.. but as they were not made from human milk which makes most people go 'eww' they don't attract Daily Mail readers that 'ewww human milk, that should be stopped' put in complaints (ok, that is conjecture of a MASSIVE scale on my part, but you can see where I'm coming from, can't you?). Would it have been unreasonable for them to take a sample, but instead of withdrawing said foodstuff, insist that a notice warning people of the risks that can be associated with consuming bodily fluids in some instances?

    what needs to be dealt with are the underlying problems of society rather than the use of a word.


    That is a good point... but how do you suggest we move forward with that? Personally I think that changing perceptions of what rape is, why it happens et al is very important. And that should (again imo) be where we start; so how would that work? Simple, seeing as we *do* rely on language to relay attitudes, beliefs, social standards that is what (imo) be challenged and changed first. We already have changed laws so that people who have been raped (typing survivor is so much easier, and unlike the term victim may grate; but not belittle) should be able to gain legal redress more easily... is this happening... No... Why is that..? Oh yeah we come back to attitudes, beliefs and social standards regarding rape transmitted by our use of language.

    People who are raped rarely get legal redress... A hijacker if/when caught would be punished. Hijack is not trivialised. Rape very much is


    :ditto:


    Which is also true of murder.... killers/murderers tend to be caught and punished and is seen by society as the most serious crime that be can be committed against a person. Yes we use phrases like 'I could murder a sandwich'... and it has very little affect on how we (society) view the seriousness of murder. Rape on the other hand (judging by conviction rates, portrayal in media) is not seen as such a serious crime... until that issue is redressed I (personally) feel it is distasteful to use the term frape to describe something that is soo fooking trivial. :shrug:

    So waddaya know.... the local authority acted reasonably. No need to panic. ;)


    Acted reasonably... by declaring an ice-cream unfit for human consumption and stating it could spread HIV/AIDS/Hep; after being assured that every precaution had been taken to prevent this... after two complaints...? Our definition of 'acted reasonably' really differ ;)

    Who on this thread would get angry/upset with the usage of the word frape? I know that I'm not... In my mind it is not the fact that people may become upset as a result of reading/hearing the word that is the real issue here... just that the use of the word rape(with an added f) to describe someone (mainly innocently) using your facebook account to add an embarrassing/humours status update shows to my mind at least, just how seriously the crime of rape is treated in this society. But then I find using the word 'gay' to describe something that is 'bad' in bad taste also...

    By the same token, using a term such as 'frape' to describe a harmless prank in the same language as a serious sexual assault belittles those who have been raped or who might be in future. The words we use are tools to understand and help create the society we have around us. Everything you say contributes to the cultural climate. Do you really think it's a good idea to use an expression that is a small but nonetheless significant part of making the world more oppressive?


    I agree with nearly everything you say, except this. And agree with Torsida; using the term frape does not 'belittle' survivors of rape in any way.. how can a word do that? What it does do is 'belittle' their experience of rape, and shows how we as a society views the seriousness of rape.


    Most people are very aware (this is not directed at you Tehomet ;)) that the word rape has more than one meaning; as its very common in our language for words to have multiple meanings. But in this day and age how many people who live in a highly industrialised society would use the word rape to describe despoiled land?

    rape is often trivialised, and the use of the word 'frape' is just a further continuation of that process. Society has a deeply embedded problem with male attitudes towards women and sexuality. It is, in many circles, seen as acceptable to violate a woman so long as she isn't screaming "RAPE!!!!" at the top of her voice. We're a little more clear as a society where we stand on the issue of murder.


    This statement really explains why I (also) find the term frape totally distasteful...

    I don't think its good enough to wait for someone to die of HIV/AIDS/Hep before the food agency tests the product. "Loads of people have tried it (and) no one has died," isn't good enough either where national health and safety is concerned. Perhaps no one has come forward because they're either dead or still in the incubating the desease stage. Or walking around with no ill effects. Me, I'd rather find out for sure.


    Did you miss this... "all milk donors had their blood checked before they donated their milk"... :rolleyes:
    If you don't believe me (you don't have to of course) look it up for yourself...




    Quote from Pixaloid al

    Or you'll be dead or incubating HIV/AIDS/Hep. Why take the risk to prove a point? Because 'they' are out to get us? Your choice. Best of luck.
    Darn right humans are a funny lot as no other adult animal drinks baby milk which is full of protien for babies. And at £14 a pop that's just another ruthless exploitation of womankind. What foof stuff from womens bits next I wonder?


    No because a) it really seems that proper precautions were already taken... The man running this ice-cream parlour is a very successful business man; do you really think he would risk loosing his business/liberty, get real, b) funny that the ice-cream only got with drawn after there were complaints.. Al do you really think it is acceptable in this day and age for breast milk/feeding to be looked upon as being 'ewww'... as someone who did lactate I can assure you its far more humiliating to be looked as being disgusting for lactating than being paid £14 for 10 floz of my breast milk. And if you want to argue about ruthless exploitation of women... sorry mate but that is nothing compared to some practices already upheld in our own and many other cultures. I don't think many of the donors were forced into donating; can you say the same of all women who wear the bhurka for instance? ;)


    Quote from PlutoPete

    I hear Lady Gaga hes stepped into the frame now and wants it banned for using her name
    http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf...-cream_1205552


    :rofl:

    No, I didnt miss it, that is why the government stopped the sale of it, so somewhere along the line adequate procedures havent been followed.


    No it was recalled for testing.. which is slightly different... and why was it recalled (a few days after it being on sale; loads of people have tried it... in fact it sold out... so far no one has died or come forward to say they have contracted HIV/AIDS/Hep) is probably down to a handful of people who cannot get over the 'ew... its breast milk' stage of life... whilst happily consuming (as Atomik pointed out) boiled chicken periods... and milk from other species :S


    IF and that is a bloody big if; it is found that this breast milk *is* contaminated then I will of course back down... eat humble pie etc. But I think the likelihood of that being the case is really really unlikely... :shrug:

    I wasnt tested in the states, so I guess they cant guarantee it unless they test themselves. As far as Im aware you dont actually have to have had a baby to produce milk and if lactating is extended a virus could be caught after the testing. Complicated I think.


    Lucky the ice-cream was made in the Uk then ;)... you seemed to have missed (twice) me mentioning that all milk donors had their blood checked before they donated their milk...

    I read yesterday that HIV and Hepititus can be passed on through breast milk and that was why they pulled it as they need to do blood tests for that first, which they hadnt.


    Aren't all expectant mothers tested for HIV/AIDS these days; I know I was... ;) It's already been mentioned in this thread that all the women who donated milk were blood tested first... Also on Mumsnet there is a thread on the topic of donating milk for icecream prodution... it seems that the women who are donating also donate to their scbu units too... :)

    I don't have a problem with where the milk comes from I'd be more concerned with how it's tested - we only have their word that it's been fully screened and pasteurised - until there's firm evidence I'm with the H & S people on this one.


    After a little digging I found this... which states "The women donating the breast milk are asked to submit to blood testing, for safety and hygiene reasons". Which would suggest to me that we can believe the maker of this ice-cream when he said that he had every milk donor screened. Blood tests as we all know can pick up diseases (such as Hepatitis) as well as levels of toxins (such as prescription medication, illicit drugs). ;)

    You have all probably heard that a store in Covent Garden is selling an ice-cream made from human milk, vanillla pods and lemon zest. I don't know about you; but I really couldn't understand what the fuss was about. The owner of the shop stated that every milk donor was screened in the same way they would be if they were donating blood; and also that the human milk was pasteurised... so in the face of that I thought that this ice-cream would probably be better for us as it comes from a milk that is specifically designed for human (albeit infants) consumption...


    But no today I read that Westminster 'Elf and Safety peeps have stopped the sale of this ice-cream and have sent it all away to be tested as "Selling foodstuffs made from another person's bodily fluids can lead to viruses being passed on and in this case, potentially hepatitis." Yeah if the donor hadn't been screened first I would understand that... but that is not the case as the owner of the shop stated.... There is also worries that ice cream made from human breast milk could be 'unsuitable for HUMAN consumption'... what more unsuitable than the milk taken from a cow; goat; etc etc??


    Jesus wept :rolleyes:

    Hmmmm -encourage mass immigration from muslim countries for decades then start turning against them labelling them all as potential terrorists and perhaps even imply they are to blame for lack of jobs and other economic probs - cant see that causing any problems!!!!!


    :clap:


    Great points; and all of which can explain why state multiculturalism has failed.