Multiple shootings in Paris

Bernie174 said:
I haven't, but I'll go and look for that!

On the subject of life of Brian, Not the 9 O'Clock news lampooned the churches response with a sketch about the "General Synods Life of Christ", an obvious parody of the life of our Lord John Cleese. That was also very funny! But no one felt the need to execute Pamala Stevenson. Although she did end up with that not very funny hairy scots 'comedian', which was in fact worse.
Click to expand...

Billy Connolly on the terroristattack on Glasgow airport:-

 
ancient_mariner said:
Could Charlie Hebdo have been doing the French equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses door knocking?
Click to expand...
No. And for a simple reason. Charlie Hebdo was not imposing itself on people. It wasn't "knocking doors", literally or metaphorically. It wasn't physically imposing itself on somebody else's space. People were free to ignore it.
For this reason I don't fully support the mass reproduction of the images in social media because that starts to get into territory where the cartoons become unavoidable and, therefore, possibly an imposition. But Charlie Hebdo itself? No. It was not an imposition. If you don't like it, pay it no heed.

It's also interesting to look at where the association between Charlie Hebdo and Muhammad came from. Firstly, it was largely other media exaggerating what CH was doing (only 7 of 52 covers last year featured anything to do with Islam or Muhammad). Second, it was a publication that defended minorities but attacked organised religion - it did not attack the religious; it attacked religion and extremism. There's a big difference. Thirdly, and related to the second point, it initially published a picture of Muhammad after a Danish cartoonists had been threatened for publishing a cartoon which brought up the question of how religion can inform violence. Which is a legitimate connection to explore. CH responded with a cartoon of Muhammad, head in hands, saying "it's hard to be loved by jerks". It was painting Muhammad as the reasonable, benevolent man, frustrated and upset by people exercising violence in his name. It wasn't "insulting" Muhammad, or even insulting Muslims, it was insulting extremists.
 
ancient_mariner said:
, with all respect, referring to Mohammed as a mythical person also shows that you really don't understand their perspective at all.
Click to expand...

its not accurate either as mohammed is known to history - and unlike jesus he isnt said to be the son of god or have any mythical powerr to perform miracles etc, he's only said to be a prophet, so theres no doubt he existed, and that he founded the islamic faith (course whether you believe he really heard the word of allah, or just made it up himself is another question)
 
There seemed to have been quite a furore over the publication of the Da Vinci Code by Dan Browne. The film was rated as "morally offensive" by the Conference of US Catholic Bishops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code

As an atheist/agnostic, I find it amusing that most of the controversy happened because of the historical accuracy based on "fact". Bearing in mind that there is no proof that any of these "characters" from any religion ever existed, how are billions of people able to be convinced that "their religion" is the true one?
Then we have the people who try to use the 15th century painting of "The Last Supper" to attempt to prove historical "facts". The same applies to the "Turin Shroud" and any number of "relics" (usually bones of the apostles - probably enough knocking around Europe, that if they were all assembled would form a legion of apostles), statues which "bleed" and numerous religious sites.

I have seen the latest cover of CharliHebdo, and like Sara Khan ( a leading campaigner for women's rights in Islam), I actually think that it shows Mohammed in a good lght. The problem with extremists though, is that they rarely or ever see things the way more reasonable, tolerant people do.

However, terrorism has been committed fairly recently, by Christians in the US against abortion clinics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The worst example in recent years, is of course Anders Breivik in Norway, an extremist Chrsitian who murdered 77 people and injured a further 319, simlp because he (just like the terrorists) did not agree with the politics/views/beliefs in his country at the time. I do not remember anyone demanding that all Christians should be forced to say "sorry" for the actions of one madman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html
 
indeed - its the same sort of hypocrisy that (rightly) condems the actions of Boko Haram , but doesnt even report widely the actions of the LRA (who are alledgedly christian)

Likewise with the sabra and shatila masacres in lebanon in late 70s or early 80s , where over a thousand unarmed lebanese shia muslims were masacred by a mariontite christian group
 
andy700 said:
[snip]
However, terrorism has been committed fairly recently, by Christians in the US against abortion clinics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The worst example in recent years, is of course Anders Breivik in Norway, an extremist Chrsitian who murdered 77 people and injured a further 319, simlp because he (just like the terrorists) did not agree with the politics/views/beliefs in his country at the time. I do not remember anyone demanding that all Christians should be forced to say "sorry" for the actions of one madman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Dan Hodges in the Telegraph addressed this exact issue in his column this week. Now, I am not particularly a fan of Hodges, like so many columnists, much of his stuff strikes me as click bait, designed to wind people up and get a reaction. However, some of what he 'imagines' in his article does has an interesting point to make, albeit he misses some stuff...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11340029/What-if-the-terrorists-were-Christian.html
 
Interestingly, Dan Hodges in the Telegraph addressed this exact issue in his column this week. Now, I am not particularly a fan of Hodges, like so many columnists, much of his stuff strikes me as click bait, designed to wind people up and get a reaction. However, some of what he 'imagines' in his article does has an interesting point to make, albeit he misses some stuff...
Click to expand...

All very interesting, but it's pure speculation. Apart from Norway those things didn't happen. Christianity does not have the sort of terrorist arm that fundamental Islam does. In the dim & distant past that may have been the case, but the ideology has adapted, as Western Society has to a point where we don't do that.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, Ireland being a good example, although it is debatable how much religion really played a part in that and how much that was simply a dream of a united Marxist Ireland, given that Marxist values do not include religion.

Would we and should we condemn that sort of violence if it happens justified by Christianity? Of course we should, and we would expect the established Christian Churches to condemn and do all they could to prevent. Granted the RC Church in Ireland didn't do that and in fact in some cases Priests positively assisted.

I'm sorry but the constant looking for 'what if's' in something that there is no justification for is simply the PC attitudes we endure in the UK being pushed further. This isn't about what Christians did, it's not about what Islams did. It's about a branch of a faith that has perverted the meanings of it's own teachings to the extent that it no longer abides by much if any of Islam. There's no point in doing the Guardians habit of "Yer but.." It's not 'yer but' its what did and is happening thats important.
 
Some may argue that although there are not many Christian terrorists, they do have some very large armies!

The USA certainly sees itself as being righteous, and I often shake my head ad the idiotic pronouncements of their fundamentalist Christian politicians, one of whom may one day be in charge of the largest army in the world.
 
Rapscallion said:
Some may argue that although there are not many Christian terrorists, they do have some very large armies!

The USA certainly sees itself as being righteous, and I often shake my head ad the idiotic pronouncements of their fundamentalist Christian politicians, one of whom may one day be in charge of the largest army in the world.
Click to expand...


I don't think they'll gain office in China :LOL:
 
:LOL: Just to be clear, my point in posting the article was not to actually agree with it, but to point out different ways of seeing the same thing and that it's interesting how different people interpret different events and the consequences. Which, when it boils down to it, is the biggest problem we have in this battle against extremism, of any kind.
 
Bernie174 said:
All very interesting, but it's pure speculation. Apart from Norway those things didn't happen. Christianity does not have the sort of terrorist arm that fundamental Islam does. In the dim & distant past that may have been the case, but the ideology has adapted, as Western Society has to a point where we don't do that.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, Ireland being a good example, although it is debatable how much religion really played a part in that and how much that was simply a dream of a united Marxist Ireland, given that Marxist values do not include religion.

Would we and should we condemn that sort of violence if it happens justified by Christianity? Of course we should, and we would expect the established Christian Churches to condemn and do all they could to prevent. Granted the RC Church in Ireland didn't do that and in fact in some cases Priests positively assisted.

I'm sorry but the constant looking for 'what if's' in something that there is no justification for is simply the PC attitudes we endure in the UK being pushed further. This isn't about what Christians did, it's not about what Islams did. It's about a branch of a faith that has perverted the meanings of it's own teachings to the extent that it no longer abides by much if any of Islam. There's no point in doing the Guardians habit of "Yer but.." It's not 'yer but' its what did and is happening thats important.
Click to expand...

The troubles in Ireland were about nationalism/loyalism not religion.....it just happens to be that most nationalist were Roman Catholic.....and loyalists were mostly protestant...... I know lots of protestant people who believed in a United Ireland and I also knew Catholics who didn't want a United Ireland
 
archangel said:
The troubles in Ireland were about nationalism/loyalism not religion.....it just happens to be that most nationalist were Roman Catholic.....and loyalists were mostly protestant...... I know lots of protestant people who believed in a United Ireland and I also knew Catholics who didn't want a United Ireland
Click to expand...
Likewise, Islamic terrorism at its core is about land and resources. Particularly occupation of Palestine by Israel, but also how the middle east was carved up by western powers.
 
The troubles in Ireland were about nationalism/loyalism not religion.....it just happens to be that most nationalist were Roman Catholic.....and loyalists were mostly protestant...... I know lots of protestant people who believed in a United Ireland and I also knew Catholics who didn't want a United Ireland
Click to expand...

The fact the division was on mostly religious lines made it religious. The fact remains though the Catholic Church in Ireland declined to condemn it the Nationalist side, and as I said, there were priests actively assisting the Nationalists.

The majority of Nationalists though were ignorant of the consequences, ie a Marxist United Ireland, as were the Yanks. But then as we all know terrorism didn't exist until 9/11, and before that donating to support terrorism in Ireland was perfectly acceptable.
 
archangel said:
The troubles in Ireland were about nationalism/loyalism not religion.....
Click to expand...


The "troubles" in Ireland started in 1649 with the arrival of Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan who hated "Papists" - Roman Catholics. Ireland was largely a Catholic country, and after salughtering 3500 civilians at Drogheda, Cromwell proclaimed - "This is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood.... it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise work remorse and regret." - The "Barbarous wretches" were of course the Catholics. In nine months in Ireland Cromwell carried out a kind of ethnic cleansing, which led to a death toll of nearly half a million.
We then had the battle of the Boyne in 1690 between the protestant William 111 and the Catholic James 11. To this day there are celebrations of the protestant victory on July 12th each year.
As a result of this, Catholics were not allowed to hold any form of public office, practice their religion or sit in the Irish parliament.

The troubles in Northern Ireland WERE most certainly about religion - which itself is present in all forms of politics - so please do not try to make it seem otherwise.
 
andy700 said:
The "troubles" in Ireland started in 1649 with the arrival of Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan who hated "Papists" - Roman Catholics. Ireland was largely a Catholic country, and after salughtering 3500 civilians at Drogheda, Cromwell proclaimed - "This is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood.... it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise work remorse and regret." - The "Barbarous wretches" were of course the Catholics. In nine months in Ireland Cromwell carried out a kind of ethnic cleansing, which led to a death toll of nearly half a million.
We then had the battle of the Boyne in 1690 between the protestant William 111 and the Catholic James 11. To this day there are celebrations of the protestant victory on July 12th each year.
As a result of this, Catholics were not allowed to hold any form of public office, practice their religion or sit in the Irish parliament.

The troubles in Northern Ireland WERE most certainly about religion - which itself is present in all forms of politics - so please do not try to make it seem otherwise.
Click to expand...


The history that you quote is very correct but the troubles which I grew up with was an armed struggle between the nationalist people and the British government, neither of which are a based religion. The twelfth of July celebrations are annual celebrations to celebrate the battle of the Boyne and have nothing to do with the thirty years of troubles .
 
andy700 said:
The "troubles" in Ireland started in 1649 with the arrival of Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan who hated "Papists" - Roman Catholics. Ireland was largely a Catholic country, and after salughtering 3500 civilians at Drogheda, Cromwell proclaimed - "This is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood.... it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise work remorse and regret." - The "Barbarous wretches" were of course the Catholics. In nine months in Ireland Cromwell carried out a kind of ethnic cleansing, which led to a death toll of nearly half a million.
We then had the battle of the Boyne in 1690 between the protestant William 111 and the Catholic James 11. To this day there are celebrations of the protestant victory on July 12th each year.
As a result of this, Catholics were not allowed to hold any form of public office, practice their religion or sit in the Irish parliament.

The troubles in Northern Ireland WERE most certainly about religion - which itself is present in all forms of politics - so please do not try to make it seem otherwise.
Click to expand...

The two are nearly always intertwined, whether we are talking about countries at war or in peace times and it harks back hundreds of years to when what was considered to be 'good' behaviour or 'bad' behaviour was dictated by stories, 'fables' if you like, in religious texts and basic laws were brought into force based on them. At various times and still so today, some religions had and have huge political power in some countries. Indeed many of them used religion as an excuse to gain power and land, whilst many powerful people used already gained power and land to force their religious views on the inhabitants of those lands. It is tangle web across the world that was difficult 400 years ago, and since then it has got ever more knotted and twisted to the point where unravelling it is probably impossible unless you can get inside the minds of all... Example, I know of several Jewish people here in London who are very anti the Israeli government, but still suffer verbal abuse because they are Jewish and get lumped into the same melting pot. By the same token, I know another Jewish girl who has never suffered any anti-semitism - this might be because genetics has given her looks that would hark from somewhere in the middle of Iran... and yes, she has suffered the slings and arrows of being thought of as Muslim. The point is, that until as a world, we can mentally separate politics, from organised religion and that from having a faith; we stop making assumptions, there will always be wars and troubles to which a powerful mix of politics, greed and religion are attributable in one way or another. :(
 
Right, I've made a couple of early posts on this, and have read pretty much all of the others.
My personal summary is as follows.

1. Nothing much will change until religious extremists cease to exist - I don't know of any acts of terrorism committed by aethists.
2. Religious extremism is a product of ignorance (we could argue that all religious belief is a product of ignorance, very few educated people hold strong religious beliefs, if any) but it will take a very long time indeed before improved education wipes out religious extremism, which relies on ignorance and lack of logic.
3. It is impossible to guard people (either generally or to guard individuals) against extremist attacks. Having an armed police guard at the offices proves that, and it hasn't worked in other situations either. And having large numbers or armed police or military on the streets is just another token effort, nothing more than reassurance to the public - I saw a bit on the TV yesterday, showing a soldier in Paris, standing around with nothing more than an ancient bolt action rifle:)
4. It is literally impossible to stop terrorists getting weapons to use in these atrocities. These particular terrorists were armed with AK74 assault weapons (wrongly described in the media as AK47's) and a RPG, even if armed police had been available, they would stood no real chance. Much more COULD be done, but if the French government is anything like our own, nothing WILL be done because it would involve spending real money - thousands of containers containing fresh produce arrive here every week in containers, and Customs doesn't have the resources to check their contents.
5. Governments need to spend much more on their intelligence services, they need to have the resources necessary to monitor suspected terrorists ACTIVELY. Stopping something from happening is far more effective than shooting the criminals after it's happened.
6. More effective government action must be balanced against human rights i.e. have the laws in place, have the infrastructure and resources in place, but use these powers, don't abuse them - abusing them is not only wrong, but also tends to recruit new people to extremism.
 
Returning to CH I have a copy of issue #1177 and, despite my limited French, an analysis shows clearly that, in this issue at least, CH was not targeting merely the Muslims.

There are numerous cartoons/articles taking a pop at the Jews, Catholics, politicians and even QEII
 
archangel said:
The troubles in Ireland were about nationalism/loyalism not religion.....it just happens to be that most nationalist were Roman Catholic.....and loyalists were mostly protestant...... I know lots of protestant people who believed in a United Ireland and I also knew Catholics who didn't want a United Ireland
Click to expand...

Bernie correctly said "debatable how much religion really played a part"

Whilst nationalism was at the core of the troubles there was certainly a religious element to it. I have rubbed shoul
ChasG said:
Returning to CH I have a copy of issue #1177 and, despite my limited French, an analysis shows clearly that, in this issue at least, CH was not targeting merely the Muslims.

There are numerous cartoons/articles taking a pop at the Jews, Catholics, politicians and even QEII
Click to expand...

CH has always had a brought range of targets. Basically those, of whatever persuasion or party, that would seek to control or govern us (policticians and religious leaders are high in that table) must, in a free society, be open to criticism and ridicule.

BTW the 2nd print run of CH will put another 2 million copies in circulation.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Right, I've made a couple of early posts on this, and have read pretty much all of the others.
My personal summary is as follows.

1. Nothing much will change until religious extremists cease to exist - I don't know of any acts of terrorism committed by aethists.
2. Religious extremism is a product of ignorance (we could argue that all religious belief is a product of ignorance, very few educated people hold strong religious beliefs, if any) but it will take a very long time indeed before improved education wipes out religious extremism, which relies on ignorance and lack of logic.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the absence of a belief in God equates to the absence of violence and terror?
Presumably you would count the Russian era under Stalin as a roaring success and a pattern for future world progress?
 
Garry Edwards said:
Right, I've made a couple of early posts on this, and have read pretty much all of the others.
My personal summary is as follows.

1. Nothing much will change until religious extremists cease to exist - I don't know of any acts of terrorism committed by aethists.
.
Click to expand...

lots of terror groups are/were alledgedly marxist - baader meinhof for example, the red brigades, viet cong, various others. (it was VI Lenin who said that the purpose of terrorism was to terrorise), others are facist in nature , theres even green groups like earth first who arent far outside of the definition. Then you have the narco terrorist issue in places like columbia and to a lesser extent mexico where what started as crime has taken on a political tinge.

Extremists of all sorts are dangerous,, and religion and politics are generally aliases for money/resources and power. Its doubtful that this will ever change as its pretty much part of the human condition
 
Last edited:
Absence of religion does not mean absence of terrorism.

Badar Mienholf , RAF and arguable the IRA (although that point was in the very small print in their manifesto) all show that. All were intent on imposing a Marxist regime where it wasn't wanted.

An absence of extreme views and belief that the way to achieve them is to kill people for dubious reasons in support of those views is a better way of putting it, except thats not going to happen.

Extreme views are also a matter of interpretation or a twisting of interpretation to suit those who do the twisting's own agenda. It doesn't matter if thats religious or political ideology, it's freedom of speech, expression and movement and things we are so keen on that allows that perversion to take place and to spread.

It really doesn't matter if it's an AK74, or an AK47 that is the killing instrument, although Garry is right, you can't guard against it 100%. Police/Armed Forces in the right place at the right time do stop terror attacks, but again freedom of movement hinders that.

What is certain is that the European open Boarders does not help the import of the terrorist tools of trade. Once in the EU, it's almost impossible to stop the movement of weapons, and some European Countries external Boarders are not as strong as others.

As for the Intelligence Services? Yes, increase spending, but in the UK they have no executive powers, they cannot arrest, so you need to increase Police spending to match. Lady May of Lala Land says we don't need as many Police, and of course she must be right....Oh, I can't do it, not even as sarcasm! That stupid cow in who 'runs' the Home Office needs to wake up and smell the coffee, thats less likely to happen than Gerry Adams converting to CofE!
 
archangel said:
The history that you quote is very correct but the troubles which I grew up with was an armed struggle between the nationalist people and the British government, neither of which are a based religion. The twelfth of July celebrations are annual celebrations to celebrate the battle of the Boyne and have nothing to do with the thirty years of troubles .
Click to expand...


I think that you and anyone else who thinks that religion - Catholic and Protestant - and the marches carried out by Protestants in order to celebrate a victory by a Protestant army over a Catholic one, has nothing to do with the troubles, are either totally deluded or being deliberately dishonest - take your pick.
 
Bernie174 said:
Absence of religion does not mean absence of terrorism.

Badar Mienholf , RAF and arguable the IRA (although that point was in the very small print in their manifesto) all show that. All were intent on imposing a Marxist regime where it wasn't wanted.

An absence of extreme views and belief that the way to achieve them is to kill people for dubious reasons in support of those views is a better way of putting it, except thats not going to happen.

Extreme views are also a matter of interpretation or a twisting of interpretation to suit those who do the twisting's own agenda. It doesn't matter if thats religious or political ideology, it's freedom of speech, expression and movement and things we are so keen on that allows that perversion to take place and to spread.

It really doesn't matter if it's an AK74, or an AK47 that is the killing instrument, although Garry is right, you can't guard against it 100%. Police/Armed Forces in the right place at the right time do stop terror attacks, but again freedom of movement hinders that.

What is certain is that the European open Boarders does not help the import of the terrorist tools of trade. Once in the EU, it's almost impossible to stop the movement of weapons, and some European Countries external Boarders are not as strong as others.

As for the Intelligence Services? Yes, increase spending, but in the UK they have no executive powers, they cannot arrest, so you need to increase Police spending to match. Lady May of Lala Land says we don't need as many Police, and of course she must be right....Oh, I can't do it, not even as sarcasm! That stupid cow in who 'runs' the Home Office needs to wake up and smell the coffee, thats less likely to happen than Gerry Adams converting to CofE!
Click to expand...
I only mentioned that the weapons were in fact AK74's because they are even more deadly than AK47's - there is virtually no recoil, the bullets are lighter and faster and accurate at greater distances. They can also be fired in long bursts, the AK47 rides upwards, this limits a burst to 4, otherwise the shooter ends up shooting birds. Therefore, the possession of AK74 assault rifles makes these terrorists even more dangerous.

I agree entirely that the police are more stretched and under-funded now than ever before. But I'm sure that if our own government took this seriously then they could increase both the powers and resources of our security services, i.e. that they could be given powers of arrest. It's all about the will of government, or otherwise, to protect us.
gramps said:
Are you suggesting that the absence of a belief in God equates to the absence of violence and terror?
Presumably you would count the Russian era under Stalin as a roaring success and a pattern for future world progress?
Click to expand...
Fair point, but surely in the case of Stalin, extreme politics (plus self preservation) simply replaced extreme religion? To many people, politics is a form of religion, i.e. "I'm totally right so you must be totally wrong"
 
Garry Edwards said:
Fair point, but surely in the case of Stalin, extreme politics (plus self preservation) simply replaced extreme religion? To many people, politics is a form of religion, i.e. "I'm totally right so you must be totally wrong"
Click to expand...

Stalin's Russia is but just one example.
I suppose politics could be called a religion ... Wikipaedia quotes 'religion' as "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."
And therein lies the rub, 'religion' is not the same as a belief on God and more importantly not the same as following the laws/commands of God.
I can only speak for Christianity but if you examine the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, you will see that anyone following those would never be involved in any of the terror or conflicts that 'religion' AND others have contributed to or caused and if everyone lived by them the world would be transformed overnight.
So in essence it isn't a belief in God that is the problem, it is the personal desire to promote ones own views as if they were Gods will, when they clearly are not.
 
But I'm sure that if our own government took this seriously then they could increase both the powers and resources of our security services, i.e. that they could be given powers of arrest. It's all about the will of government, or otherwise, to protect us.
Click to expand...

The clue is in the words "Intelligence Services". It's their job to gather intelligence, in concert with the Police. Giving them powers other than that leads to a KGB type organization at best and at worst means they are tied up with the crap that goes along with arrest and process. The better solution is beef up both. Again, I refer you to Lady May of Lala land, who has no intention of doing either, because in her world, where the gear knob is a different shape in the mini metro, there's no need. If we ever get a Home Sec who's been to the planet earth, it might change, if not, we have what we have, but can do with less.
 
mjScall said:
The proceeds of this edition are going to the families of the victims
Click to expand...

Or as one Muslim trader in my area told the local news, after she had ordered 1,000 to sell in her newsagents shop, "It's a business thing, I'm just a small newsagent shop and can make some extra money".
But I wonder how many buying the magazine and using the 'logo' has anything to do with a genuine affinity to the cause and how much is jumping onto the popular bandwagon, like so many other things that are popular at the time.
 
Bernie174 said:
The clue is in the words "Intelligence Services". It's their job to gather intelligence, in concert with the Police. Giving them powers other than that leads to a KGB type organization at best and at worst means they are tied up with the crap that goes along with arrest and process. The better solution is beef up both. Again, I refer you to Lady May of Lala land, who has no intention of doing either, because in her world, where the gear knob is a different shape in the mini metro, there's no need. If we ever get a Home Sec who's been to the planet earth, it might change, if not, we have what we have, but can do with less.
Click to expand...
Good point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top