Posts by sal paradise

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.

    No serious political commentator believes that the AV vote won't happen.


    Except the Labour party say they'll block it, as do the Tories - joined together they are the vast majority of the Houses of Parliament and as such the referendum will almost certainly not happen.



    • The right to sack MPs - yeah right. Like that's ever going to happen.
    • Reform of party funding - When the monkeys get caught with the keys to the banana plantation, going on to allow the same monkeys to write a new set of rules on plantation key management is a fools game.
    • Fixed term parliaments. And this is good how? Other than to give the media a fixed to date to salivate over.
    • An independent commission on banking reform - oh puleease. The banks are far to powerful to allow any real meaningful reform.
    • A referendum on greater powers for the Welsh Assembly. Not my right to speak on such things.
    • Restoring the earnings link to pensions. Not being an economist I'm unable to comment.


    "No, I'm writing them off because they were too stupid to educate themselves before voting, and because they apparently didn't know the position of the party that they were voting for"


    Nonsense. They did make themselves known. On TV. Frequently - decrying all the Tory policies.
    And then they did an about face and suddenly said the opposite. This did not happen until after the election results. It may seem acceptable to you, but to a lot of people it stinks of hypocrisy and opportunism.

    "Whatever. Frankly, if I'd been in Nick Clegg's shoes, I'd have done exactly the same thing. Politically and morally, he did the right thing. There was no better alternative in town. How, exactly... and I mean exactly, not just general ranting... was this a bad thing? And what would be your realistic alternative?"



    My realistic alternative would be to have said to the Tories "we don't agree with most of your policies, we just campaigned against most of what you stand for, so you're on your own and if you cannot make Government work under those circumstances then back to the polls we go".


    The Lib Dems do not exist to prop up the up Goverment by breaking election promises. There is no such compulsion upon them.


    Quote:
    They campaigned against just about everything they are now voting for.
    That's the nature of coalition government, and it's the way just about every other democratic country works. It's called negotiation and compromise. :rolleyes:


    I disagree, what the LibDems have done can in no way be called "compromise" - it's closer to total surrender.


    Quote:
    Nick Clegg has sold his party and most of his voters up the river for a chance at the big boys table.
    You mean he's taken the opportunity to influence policy? Gosh. How odd. You mean he's taken the opportunity to temper Tory policies when he could have walked away and let the Tories force a second election and achieve a working majority? How utterly immoral of him. You mean he's taken the opportunity to obtain a referendum on PR so that more of our votes will actually count for something? How completely inconsistent of him.



    Influence policy?
    Are you for real?
    The Tories aren't going to let that happen. How has he influenced policy? By getting agreement for a referendum on AV that almost certainly won't happen anyway.
    And on every other policy he has been slapped down and Tory policy rules.


    Quote:
    And yes, I know plenty of people who voted LibDem, thinking they were going to see some decency and honest, people focused change, and they are FURIOUS that their vote translated into a Tory administration with it's Kicking Boots on and a gleam in its eye.
    Well they sound like exactly the sort of people I have no time for. ;)


    Quote:
    Do we hate the LibDems?
    Abso-damned-lutely.
    Neither will we forget.
    Politics of the playground. Sounds like the same shit Class War was churning out 20 years ago.


    So, you've written off a whole group of people as beneath you because they dared to believe what they were told during the election campaign and then you insult me with the old "class war" accusation.


    That's a FAIL where I come from.

    You don't get it?
    Seriously?


    Has there been a more opportunistic bunch of turncoats in the history of British politics?


    They campaigned against just about everything they are now voting for. If it was wrong before the election it's still wrong. This idea that having said, inter alia, that "a rise in VAT is wrong and would wreck any recovery" before the election can be changed into "a rise in VAT is the right thing to do" afterwards is a nonsense.
    Vince Cable was regarded as the only person talking sense about economics prior to the election and now he has no say, no power and has been sidelined, as all the LibDems have been, into meaningless non-jobs.
    Nick Clegg has sold his party and most of his voters up the river for a chance at the big boys table.
    And yes, I know plenty of people who voted LibDem, thinking they were going to see some decency and honest, people focused change, and they are FURIOUS that their vote translated into a Tory administration with it's Kicking Boots on and a gleam in its eye.
    Do we hate the LibDems?
    Abso-damned-lutely.
    Neither will we forget.

    Tis a complex situation and generalisations can be dangerous.


    It's abundantly obvious that the sun is the chief driver of meteorology. Or rather, it is obvious that those who try to claim that the sun has NO effect on weather are clearly insane.
    However - it is just as obvious that we are having an effect on this planet - poisoned water, vast pollution, the destruction of natural habitats, dead zones in the sea, agricultural run-off etc - mostly so a very small bunch of people can make more money than they can realistically spend.


    The evidence that climate changes independently of mankind is overwhelming but that doesn't mean that we're not exacerbating the situation.


    Most problematic of all is the way that politicians have jumped onto this particular bandwagon in an attempt to...
    (this is where things get interesting - how deep does the rabbit hole go? - according to some, politicians jumped on this bandwagon in order to appear necessary and useful; others would say that they are tasked with brining about a profound change to the earth - the reduction of the world into 2 classes - the wealthy and those permitted to live in order to serve them. Occam's theory says Number 1 is the most likely explanation - but, there is evidence that of the two alternatives, the second is the real reason (numerous statements from those involved, the Georgia guidestones et al, the proposed "solution" to MMGW being the reduction of the West to a pre-technical level of existence via taxes and carbon emission caps etc).


    One thing is for certain - the man made global warming theory is bordering on being a replacement for theistic-based religion in popular culture. It's hard to find anyone who disagrees being allowed to speak publicly. The BBC drop pro-man made global warming propaganda into as many programs as they can, including fiction based programs. The forums of newspapers are occupied by rabid, hatefilled posts insulting and mocking anyone who dares to say "I don't agree with man made global warming". Much as the church used to bully scientists into keeping quiet about a helio-centric solar system, or about the fossil record, those who dispute the man made global warming story are sidelined, have funding withdrawn and find that peers no longer acknowledge them.


    As H.L. Mencken once said "The whole purpose of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all them imaginary".


    The refusal to debate honestly is a big sign of lies. This applies to many, many so called historical events. The people who control governments and media are very good at controlling the debate. Take Israel as an example - whenever Israel go and commit some new atrocity against the Palestinians, all the public forums are suddenly filled with new people screaming "anti-semite" and "holocaust denier" at anyone who tries to defend the Palestinians, forcing them to defend themselves instead and casting them in a suspicious light to all who don't understand how this trick works. It's about signal to noise ratio. It's about knowing how fickle the human mind is and how easy it is to sway that mind without the owner necessarily realising. History can be rewritten as it is happening - the events of 9/11 bear witness to this. (My wife swears that on 9/11 she saw a photograph on the news, of the Pentagon with the rear half of a commercial airliner sticking out of the hole it made on impact. No such picture exists. Largely because no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. Such is the power of the mind and the confusion in memory upon later recall resulting from CGI graphics used to "illustrate the story" and actual recorded events).


    We were told, last year some time (or early this year) that we had "50 days to save the world". Nothing's changed. If politicians really believed in MMGW then life would already have changed beyond recognition as no politician would be able to bear the thought of not being recorded in the history books as "one of those who saw the risk and acted in time", or worse, being recorded as one who was "told of the risk but effectively did nothing".
    The proponents of MMGW have the perfect approach - every single "extreme weather event" is proof of global warming and every single failure of their doom filled prophecies to materialise just means they got the timeline slightly wrong (much like the religious nutters who predict the "end of the world" for a certain date and then happily go off and recalculate when it doesn't occur, but seem unable to consider, not that they got the maths wrong, but that the "end of the world" in this manner is an artificial construct and thus there is no date to predict/work out). Every year is the hottest on record, despite the earth having cooled over the last decade or so, (man made global warming, they say, has "paused temporarily" - a most convenient explanation - again - every unexpectedly warm period is proof - every absence is inconsequential. If they were selling the idea of " a new and imminent iceage" the last decade or so would be used as proof). We know there were periods in history when it was very cold for a few years and others where it was warm. Ice fairs on an entirely frozen Thames, grapes being grown by the Romans up by Hadrian's Wall etc. All of this is ignored because it is is the real "inconvenient truth".
    And the tragedy of all this bullshit about "70 meter rises in sea levels within 50 years" and other such alarmist crap, is that is has conflated the issue of pollution and sharing of resources (which desperately needs attending to) with alarmist nonsense and so the real need is eclipsed by the arguing and screaming over "green taxes" and compensation owed to the "3rd world" by us (rather than by the corporations, who are the real culprits with regard to two thirds of the world being kept in dire poverty and political instability).


    And all of this started with the unthinking use of the phrase "if current trends continue..." and the rest is mostly speculation built upon that initial premise.


    It was noticed that we'd had several years where the weather got warmer, year on year. Someone somewhere said "if it carries on like this then where will we be in 20 years? Or in 50?"
    But it didn't "carry on like that".
    The trend did not continue.
    Piers Corbyn over at weatherwatch.com (a man with a weather forecasting system that has an 85% accuracy rate, who is no longer allowed to bet on the weather with any of the UK bookies (because he kept winning) and who predicts just about everything that has happened weatherwise for the last few years, months in advance), knows it is the sun and the moon that drive weather, that the "greenhouse effect" is utter twaddle, and that we're heading back to colder winters for a while.
    It's the climate - it changes all by itself, just as it always has done.


    Grrrrr.

    From the many responses it would seem I'd more or less responded right - love, forgiveness, an absence of anger and a strong sense that tiptoeing and space respecting was required. She's already seeing a therapist. I'm not sure as to the exact name of the service - it's via CaMHS here in Birmingham.
    She knows she's loved.


    We got her through her 11+ and thus to a grammar school (some of the comprehensive's round here are less than desirable). The CaMHS people commented that "we get a lot of girls from that school". That's the grammar type school system I suppose - the teachers wait inside the school doors and pick on every girl for every fault in their appearance in the mornings - pressure in lessons is high (they don't really do anything less than straight A's) and some favouritism seems to be present. It's one of those schools where "authority" is never wrong (even when it is) and cannot appealed to (stupid adults who think they are setting a good example by being tough and unheeding). Encouragement is thin on the ground - although the school has acknowledged that this an issue that is being raised by numerous pupils and parents and some sort of change is due from next academic year onwards.


    And to think - boyfriends and the resultant heartache, haven't started yet!

    "I don't feel any sort of annoyance or puzzlement by other religion's practices. I see that they conform to their own "guidelines" if you will, because it's what they believe in."


    My experience is of fundamentalist evangelical christianity, where the laws are strict, deviance leads to ostracisation and everyone else is a heretic. It has likely coloured my perception.

    Various answers...


    She's not at all happy with the way she looks (we hear "I'm fat and ugly" a lot - she's not even chunky, yet alone obese).
    She's surrounded by the where-with-all to create - is in a local Theatre group as well as doing a lot of creative writing on her own initiative.


    The subjective viewpoint is most enlightening and echoes some of what I'd suspected. I'm not at all angry with her, just aching in heart and concerned.
    What alarms me is the way this behaviour is isolating her from us.
    I suppose she probably feels guilty, confused, angry, upset and wishes only to forget about it and get on with the day and that seeing her parents with worried looks on their faces probably reminds her of it?


    Many, many thanks for answers offered and concerns expressed. It really makes a difference.

    She's 15. Bright as a button. Creative by nature.
    Yet...
    Torn assunder by the crap that is thrown at her by media/tv/advertising. Struggling with friendships (not finding any that are as deep or mutual as she wants).
    Displaying what I presume are all the classic signs - we don't understand her, no one does; there's no one she can talk to; she doesn't really understand why etc.
    We have got her involved with the CaMHS service here, so she is seeing someone in a clinical capacity.
    I know there's no magic wand. I don't want to try to help and end up making things worse.


    It's just when you go upstairs and find blood in the bathroom sink...

    Disclaimer; this is early morning thinking. Sometimes the old brain is not so quick at this hour.


    If I go to a great deal of trouble (in my own eyes) to observe the traditions of my religion (for argument's sake let's say I fast twice a week, pray every other day, paint my feet orange on sundays and wear a blue hat at all times) in accordance with my particular holy book. I get a lot of stick over the orange feet thing and people in the fashion industry wear blue hats now as fashion statements.


    Then one day I meet a man who paints his feet red every other day, has no need of hats and only prays once a week. What does this say to me? He's a heretic? I'm wasting my time? One, or perhaps even both, of us are wrong? I've wasted all these years with the orange paint and the blue hats.
    My first response will probably be "he's a doubly damned heretic" and his will likely be the same toward me as both of our "traditions" have just been kicked in the head. It is inconceivable, unless the Creator/God/Goddess/Big Spirit in the Sky has a most twisted sense of humour, that we should all be given different names to believe in and different traditions to follow. Thus it's quite likely that we have both become lost in the witterings of old men and women, the fearful nonsense of ritual and the wearing of proscribed garments and that none of these things matter one iota to God/Goddess/Creator/Whoever.
    But since we both take such strength from our various habits, rituals and beliefs we are threatened by anyone who does things differently, because it raises the question "why do I do thus, if others do not have to do the same?"


    Many religions are filled with all sorts of nasty threats. Twenty years ago I would have tried to convince you of their truth. Now I think that most religious texts are little more than social control manuals. Eternal hell as a concept is so repugnant and hate filled that to claim that the God of love created the place is just nonsensical. Too many scriptures encourage the poor and downtrodden, not to rebel and make a better world, but to humbly await the next world, safe in the knowledge that the rich and wealthy will not be allowed to enter that world, having had their "reward" in this one. Like I say - 20 years ago I believed that - now I just think it was written by a bunch of rich people.


    So, perhaps, mostly people are negative because they adopt silly belief systems that offer no power to change anything and then get annoyed because they have no power to change anything. Because they sense that their temple is empty and their soul is undernourished and they don't know what to do about any of it.


    Little wonder then that strict, prescriptive religions rise - the eternal cry of so many hearts seeming to be "think for me". Little wonder that so many religions contain dire warnings about believing other things, as a congregation is a power base and a source of money and we all know how people feel about losing power and money.

    What does your front room say about you?


    That I'm an old hippy who married a book collector.
    This is some of the books we have (there are more in this room and piles everywhere else - wifey has read all but the handful of IT books).

    Files

    • dscf1438.jpg

      (144.4 kB, downloaded 408 times, last: )
    • dscf1439.jpg

      (132.44 kB, downloaded 407 times, last: )
    • dscf1440.jpg

      (163.1 kB, downloaded 408 times, last: )

    I suspect/hope that mankind is not doomed.


    Industrial capitalistic society, however, is most assuredly doomed, built, as it is, upon a model of expansion and greed that is unsustainable.

    Yes, the bleach isn't kind to the fabric.
    You need to tie on whatever you're using (rubber bands or thick string) as tight as you can.
    If you've tried before and ended up "with a mucky colour" it's cus the ties weren't tight enough, allowing the bleach into all areas of the fabric (or you may have soaked it too long - don't think "soak it", think "short bath"). Bleach affects cloth much faster than dye.
    Yer best bet is to get a couple of old tshirts and have a play. Get the hang of it. There's nothing worse than committing to a bleach job only to discover afterwards that you've trashed a favourite item of apparel.


    :-)

    The officer in question has been the subject of 2 previous investigations for assault. This time he killed - though perhaps not deliberately.


    Here's the point (for me at least) - the Police knowingly used a dodgy pathologist and then, despite 2 further, correctly done, autopsies both agreeing with each other - the CPS cited the difference between the first and subsequent ones as cause for not prosecuting. This is just a load of crap.
    Not only that - they knowingly allowed the investigation to go on past this mythical 6 month mark, thus denying the family the chance of a private prosecution.
    It's beyond credibility that this is not deliberate. These people are aware of the law.


    There is video evidence - clear video evidence of an officer, number covered, striking an unarmed man that was walking away from the officer and thus presenting no threat. If this case got to a court the officer would not stand a chance. There is a clear chain of causation between his actions and the death of Ian Tomlinson, which is presumably why it didn't get to court.


    We place a lot of responsibility on the Police and they have a lot of power - the reality is that any officer who cannot be trusted with that power should be relieved of duty in the shortest time possible. There have been hundreds of deaths at Police hands and next to no convictions. They a law unto themselves and thus their application of the law of the land is bitter and resented. The biggest shame of all is that there's no one in the right place in the Police to get these criminals out of the force and into jails where they belong.


    If you or I pushed a Policeman over and he subsequently died we'd be beaten half to death by the Police and would then receive a LONG prison sentence.

    Further..
    The pathologist that the Police initially used is up before the General Medical Council for incorrectly and irresponsibly handling autopsies for the Home Office and they knew he was under investigation and that his credibility was therefore suspect.


    You couldn't make it up.

    It's a miscarriage of justice for the victim's family.


    There is all the evidence required for at least one conviction, possibly for manslaughter.
    Then there's the cover up the police tried before the footage of the incident came to light.


    Causation in fact and causation in law.
    But for the actions of the Police Officer would the victim have continued to live?
    WIthout a doubt, yes.
    Was there any intervening event that could explain the victims death?
    No.
    Therefore the Police Officers actions were the cause of his death and the thin skull rule says you take your victim as you find him. You cannot say afterwards that it was not your fault that the man you hit had a thin skull and that he died when you hit him. It was not his fault that you hit him and you take the consequences of your actions



    "It is no answer in law to say that more harm was done than was anticipated, for that is commonly the case with all wrongs".
    Wright J. Wilkinson v Downton 1897



    This division between "us" (the ordinary citizen) and "them" (anyone in authority or with sufficient wealth) is seriously unhealthy and dangerous.

    Don't know if this is any use, but...


    I'm at Uni studying Law. This course is a 4 year course but I started a crappy IT course about 9/10 years ago and left before the end of the first year. This leaves me with the prospect of being denied funding for the fourth year of the current course, making the whole thing a giant waste of time/accumulation of vast debt.


    When I contacted the Student Finance people they told me I'm entitled to 4 year funding plus 1 year discretionary and that under the circumstances I'd more than likely get the discretionary year.


    Might be worth getting a solicitor to write them a letter for you. Though that said, taking education establishments to court is, to quote Douglas Adams, like trying to assault a lunatic asylum armed only with a banana.


    :)


    Hope it works out for you.

    I remember the Spacehopper gigs at the Que Club - happy days.


    I'm not hugely into psy trance these days - all a bit too mad and banging for my liking - I prefer deep house - much more subversive and laid back. That said, I know a few people who go to London for their fix of psy-trance so I'll try to remember (ha) to keep an eye out for the October gig and spread the word.