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.

    Quote from Julianthegypsy

    The sort of idea in fact that many organizations already do....or at least until their funding stops, the youth centre closes etc. etc. Ridiculous to claim it as some kind of big society initiative, its the government taking money away from people doing their own thing and replacing it with something organised by the government....because the government can do it better? Well there's a first from the tories. Learning from new labour are they? Big brother knows best? Utter nonsense.

    Well said Julian!

    This part of the article that made me chuckle darkly to myself

    Quote from Bradford Telegraph and Argus

    Eco Challenge Xtra involves three weeks of outdoor activities, learning how to become green campaigners and how to tackle wildlife conservation.

    What are these kids going to be taught how to campaign for green issues so they can in the future be labelled as 'domestic extremists' or is the government going to be teaching them how to be a good little government sanctioned eco-warriors!

    But that aside I would like to find a family on benefits that can spare £45 to send their kid on this course... I know I wouldn't be able to justify spending that when fuel and food prices are what they are at present. Most parents who want their kids to grow up respecting the planet will look for events in their local area that help their kids get involved in this... and most of the events are free already?!?

    I will agree that the coalition is preferable to a single party Tory government. Although the Lib Dems are the minority in this coalition; they could still do more to oppose policies that they know are not supported by the general public; knowing that they would also have the support of the Labour Party... I think that stands to reason and is something that the Lib Dems have sadly not used to their advantage... things could have been a lot better if Clegg had the vision as well as the balls to rely on the voting (and non voting in many ways) public as well as the opposition...

    But now we face mass unemployment (latest figures show 2.5 million out of work and the highest youth unemployment on record), rising inflation, a huge rise in VAT, less jobs, an all out attack on the NHS, drastic cuts in public spending. There are demonstrations happening all over the country on a very regular basis, on the 26th of March EVERY union will be represented at a national demo... how much longer do you think it will be before nurses, doctors, postmen, firemen, shop workers, bin men, teachers, lecturers, students are striking? These are not the signs of a successful coalition are they?

    Hmmm although this recent intervention by Clegg is fantastic and will benefit thousands of people; I do not feel that it shows that this coalition is working at all. Did Clegg intervene on behalf of a generation who willl not be able to afford to go to university? Has he so far helped to prevent the privatisation of the NHS? Has he managed to push forward a meaningful tax on banks and closed those legal loopholes that allow companies and individuals to evade thousands/millions/billions in tax? Did he or his party try to stop the sell off of our forests? I'm going to stop there as you know this could go on for quite some time... as there is shed-loads that the Lib Dem's could; and should have opposed but did not.

    I am failing to see what benefits this coalition offers tbh... And the public swing towards Labour (better the devil you know eh ;)) shows that I am really not alone in this feeling.

    So today Mubarak made President Obama look like a total idiot... Obama states that Mubarak is going to stand down. But hours later Mubarak states he will not 'bow down to external pressure' and will not be standing down but rather handing 'some power' to his vice president. Ok I can maybe understand why he won't stand down as a result of being pressured by America; but to totally ignore hundreds of thousands of your own people is madness. Am watching Al Jazeera on the edge of my seat...

    One aspect of Yasmin Alibhai Brown's quote above though is that exactly the same could be said of the last Labour government.

    Yes it could very easily... I for one will not deny that... but didn't both Clegg and Cameron say they were going to address that and try to reverse some of the damage that had been done by NU Labour; but in reality it looks like Cameron at least is willing to make things a whole lot worse.

    And a very good one too. Thanks for posting that I especially liked this bit

    Quote from Yasmin Alibhai

    I accept our citizens are unnerved by those British Muslims who make endless demands, are full of wrath and murderous plans, or choose ghettoisation. However, the widespread national unhappiness is created by policies pushed through by this Government. Muslims and migrants are being used to distract people from the planned chaos implemented by this unpopular coalition. It is politicking of the worst kind. Which is why it must be opposed vehemently.

    Brilliant :thumbup:

    I never quite get the soft spot that white liberals have for Islam. This is particularly the case when you're talking about social liberals, who tend to think that the government, media, etc., should move society in a particular direction (feminism, etc.), as this is the absolute antithesis of Islam. Even in my case, tending towards a more libertarian understanding of liberalism (see the B&B thread), I think that much of Muslim and Pakistani culture, as it is lived in England, is basically illegal.

    Speaking as a white, liberal (with very strong leanings towards Marxism) woman I can say that I do not have a 'soft spot' for Islam... or for any other form of religion. But what I am speaking out against; and I'm sure many other white liberals will agree with me; is the singling out of Muslims whenever the subject of 'extremism' rears its ugly head. The subject of far right extremism is not being focused upon by either the government or the media (give or take a couple of articles in more left leaning papers). I totally agree that some Muslims treat women awfully; but I know many other who do not force their women to wear burkas etc; encourage their daughters to get an education; do not force their children into marriage; do not commit 'honour' killings. And that should be recognised... Also both Clegg and Cameron in the lead up to the election promised that some of Labours 'draconian terror legislation' was going to be reviewed; in fact Clegg drew up and campaigned for what was called the 'Freedom Bill'... have you read it; if not you should it is a very interesting read. Also what affect is thiis singling out going to have on parts of the community who already feel that their faith is under attack, not only their faith but also their countries of origin; places where many still have relatives living? Do you think that taking an even more heavy handed approach will help? As well as concurrently slashing all funding from certain groups aimed at tackling the causes of extremism??

    The thing about "national identity" is more tricky...(snip)...Even when you have a clearly defined nation, national identities are tricky things. When defined and imposed, they tend to be regarded as ludicrous, like the national dresses of various European countries, or the Academie Francais thing about the purity of French.

    You are totally right; it is ludicrous. The way I envisage my 'national identity' will be very different from how you identify yours; yes there will be some similarities but that would be the same for anyone of UK descent; even those communities that still acknowledge or live in ways that are not part of our own culture will still identify their nationality in a similar way to ourselves. 'National Identity' is really not part of the problem as far as I see it...

    Argh I wrote a huge long reply; and *poof* its gone; serves me right for not doing it in Word first.. ho-hum...

    Basically I feel that Dave in some small way is right about state multiculturalism failing... but as usual Dave is not looking at the reasons behind this. Dave is also I feel using this, as Winter said, to hide yet more cuts in community group funding; whilst still not looking at why a very small minority of people (although numbers may rise... but I couldn't possibly tell you why that is as there hasn't been any government reports on such a topic! lol!!) turn to extremism; and totally ignoring ALL other extremist groups in his speech... because Muslims aren't singled out enough already... ffs!! And yes I have to agre with those who think that he chose a really shit day to deliver a speech that was singling out Muslims; yes I know security conferences are planned way ahead of their date; but so are demonstrations; I am sure Dave could have got his speech writing monkey to make a new script for him. And today in the usual lefty crap I read a story was being run which commented on what a poor choice of day it was for Dave to deliver that speech... well Con-Dem support is falling rapidly I suppose even right wing twats look like valued supporters in these times.

    This quote is from a speech delivered at a security conference in Germany; the speech was made by David Cameron.

    Here's some more quotes from this speech as reported by the Beeb

    Quote from Beeb

    he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism

    Quote from Beeb

    Mr Cameron suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism. Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued. "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.


    Before I pass comment on this; I thought I would see what you lot make of it.

    Discuss :D

    I have never felt this before... intense relief; but still quite nervous.

    On Friday night my daughter sustained quite a serious brain injury; she was being a twit climbing on her bunk beds her friend was an evedn bigger twit for pushing her. My daughter sustained a occipital skull fracture and contusions to her frontal lobe.. basically she knocked the back of her head so badly it caused the front of her brain to bash into her skull. Her Ob's were so bad on Friday night that I almost lost her. Luckily she was put into pediatric intensive care very quickly and was stabalised that night. We were transferred to Kings College Hospital on Saturday morning; I was told then that a cyst has been found on my girls brain; the cyst has been there since birth but as a result of falling it now has blood and fluid in it. The girl was not eating, barely awake for 48 hours; she just shut down... was very cold and hostile towards every-one. On Sunday I thought I had lost my beautiful, happy, caring child forever... and was totally devastated.

    On Monday a really close family friend came to visit; and told me to go and have a break. So I went for a walk round Denmark Hill park... dreading going back. But when I did I was greeted by an awake, happy girl who was doing some school work and EATING!!!! On Tuesday she had an MRI scan and we were told she was able to come home... BUT as a result of having this cyst my daughter has to have very regular check up's as she is still at risk of suffering a haemorrhage....

    So yes that's how I feel right now... very very relieved but still quite scared!

    i dont know about the system but i dont see why its so harsh, he knew exactly what he was doing and shouldnt have done it, he deserves what he got.

    Really? He deserves to be locked up until he is 20 for not thinking clearly... so by that line every person who I see driving a car whilst talking on their mobile phone should also be locked up for two years... I have to say that I do think this is really harsh, this boy has been used as an example... personally I feel that community service/fine would have been more appropriate as means of punishment.

    I was feeling really upbeat... But I have just found out that I have a funeral to attend three days before my b'day. A really good mate died just before christmas... had kinda forced it out of my mind... focusing on F and having a good holiday. But it has just hit me again that I will never see Rocket Ron again... now I am sobbing my heart out...

    Lee I am so glad that your views reflect minority thinking. For someone who has been described as an 'academic' and also describes himself as being more community minded... the views you hold show you to be amongst the very lowest of society; the views you hold are very very similar to those that are held by facists, mass murderer's and others who believe that people who do certain things deserve to die... It is people like you that are part of the problem.

    You have shown a level of ignorance and prejudice that it makes it impossible to debate with you on this subject. You refuse to look at any facts that may change your views; your 'knowledge' of what you speak about (drugs, hypnotism, human nature) is so deeply flawed as a result of you holding the most negatively skewered views and your total reliance on subjective experience; that you seem to to be incapable of any rational thinking on subjects such as this. Your views are noxious to say the very least.... and as a result I am also out of this discussion... To all who carry on... good luck... you will need it. :waves:

    I know you are not. It isnt crazy to do so though in a society which overwhelms natural caution. If you cannot remove that overwhelming environment (which would, as I said, be my preference) the next best option is to make the dangers greater (and so re-energise natural caution).

    I have to disagree;especially as you have already argued that more adulterants should be added to drugs; that you support the death penalty for dealing as a means of deterrent. How much more dangerous can you get; believe me drugs are already that dangerous in some cases... but people still take heroin. In many many parts of the world the death penalty is already used to punish drug dealing; but does that fact deter people? What you are suggesting seems to reek of 'ethnic cleansing'... if people are stupid enough to do/deal drugs than they have given up their right to live???? :eek:

    Quote from Coyote

    Whereas I am saying that in a environment like we have now, our natural urges are overwhelmed and driven to excess, effectively negating much of our capacity for sound judgement that we would otherwise be able to wield in a less alien and overwhelming environment.

    While I do agree with you to an extent; we will never really agree on a) why this is so; b) the solution to this. As we both hold very different views of the world. So at this point I do not feel that it is constructive for us to discuss this any further.

    Quote from Coyote

    Right. So you also think that someone who is hypnotised to believe they are in love genuinely are in love, and that it doesnt actually require the relationship between two actual persons to be genuine (it only takes the synthesised 'feeling')?

    Hmmm you seem to be overlooking a very important fact about hypnotism; luckily I was taught by someone who *is* considered as an expert on this subject; you should read some of his work. He taught me a very important thing about hypnotism... You cannot make ANYBODY who is suggestible to hypnosis do ANYTHING that they would not normally do. Using your example; you could only be hypnotised into loving someone if you already had those feelings towards them. ;)

    I was asking for you to explain the differences on a neuro-chemical level for a specific reason, after reading a bit about how drugs affect the brain. It looks like you either accept that as far as our brains are concerned there is no real difference; or that you are refusing to learn the 'facts' for yourself. :shrug:

    Quote from Coyote

    Except that the neurochemical aspect is only part of it; it needs also the relationship itself. Otherwise it isnt really being in love, its just fantasising that you are.

    No, to be more specific it needs both parties to have the same neuro-chemical reaction to maintain the relationship... how else can we explain such things as 'falling out of love', stalking etc etc? The experience of 'love' is very real for someone who is obsessed with someone who is not in love with them; you cannot say that love only exists if both parties agree.

    What do you think? :whistle:

    That you are willing to shift the goal-posts of your argument... Firstly alcohol (even in this society) is not that dangerous... but still dangerous enough to warrant putting the price up so less people could get access to it. But still alcohol would seem like less of a beast if drugs were made legal. Now you are saying that alcohol is 'a psychoactive and addictive substance and should be treated with a great deal of caution, most especially in a society like ours.'... I asked you ages ago to explain (based on facts not conjecture) to explain then why certain other psychoactive and [potentially... you see you were again showing biased thinking by not acknowledging that fact] addictive substances should remain illegal? We both know that it a small proportion of people (statistically speaking) that find it hard to be responsible with alcohol; and that the majority of young people who drink heavily stop doing so later on in their live... so why are people not to be trusted to do the same with drugs... You are bound to say because of the inherent dangers [which gain highlights your biased thinking; as most people would define drug taking as a risky behaviour; yes it may be semantics but find me an example of what isen't semantics; there is a difference between risk and danger] associated with the affects of being divorced from reality [yet another fine example of biased thinking; as I said earlier go and educate yourself about the real affects of each drug you think is dangerous]...