|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Our Sacred Land |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 05:53
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Rhiannon. Any form of fighting in public by gangs of youths impinges on the public to a degree, but the public were not the target in those days like they are now. It is obvious and should not be used to try and prove your point which is not valid. Actually, Rhiannon's point was entirely valid IMO. The riots have been analysed by all those that have investigated them as mainly opportunist criminal looting directed at property and much less as directed at individual members of the public. I remember football riots, mods and rockers, teddy boys and multifarious gangs on street corners all of whom often attacked "The public" directly. PS I've been in a few staff rooms in my time. You should reserve your dismissive "not valid" stamp of disapproval for the claim that the majority of the occupants are almost communists.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Sep 08, 2011, 08:47
Sep 08, 2011, 07:38
|
||
|
There's more evidence just appeared that this isn't the harmless move the government is trying to pass it off as. EH, normally their mouthpiece, has said: "We are concerned that as drafted, parts of the National Planning Policy Framework could unintentionally result in a reduction in heritage protection." http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/ehs-response-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework/ On the other hand, they do say they're going to put their concerns to the government and will report what the result is in due course. Could this be a set up job, dictated by the government, to make some minor adjustments and get EH to then say all is well? Probably. After all, it's taken them until yesterday to say it. Why?
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 09:57
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Rhiannon. Any form of fighting in public by gangs of youths impinges on the public to a degree, but the public were not the target in those days like they are now. It is obvious and should not be used to try and prove your point which is not valid. Actually, Rhiannon's point was entirely valid IMO. The riots have been analysed by all those that have investigated them as mainly opportunist criminal looting directed at property and much less as directed at individual members of the public. I remember football riots, mods and rockers, teddy boys and multifarious gangs on street corners all of whom often attacked "The public" directly. PS I've been in a few staff rooms in my time. You should reserve your dismissive "not valid" stamp of disapproval for the claim that the majority of the occupants are almost communists. As I did not make the 'communists' claim I'll leave that to whoever did thank you very much! And I stand by my original statement whilst respecting your own point of view without comment.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Sep 08, 2011, 11:29
Sep 08, 2011, 10:11
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: I stand by my original statement whilst respecting your own point of view without comment. Would that you had extended the same courtesy to Rhiannon!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 10:51
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I stand by my original statement whilst respecting your own point of view without comment. Would that you had extended the same courtesy to Rhiannon! I don't think there's any need to extend this any further Nigel than what has already been said. A return to stones would be much more enjoyable and prefered by most I suspect cos that's where I'm headed.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 11:05
|
||
Actually, the opening post of the thread couldn't be more stone related or valid for this site. It is not that but the very unfortunate tangents that have been the problem and have wrecked it.
|
|||
|
Gwass 193 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 12:48
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Rhiannon. Any form of fighting in public by gangs of youths impinges on the public to a degree, but the public were not the target in those days like they are now. It is obvious and should not be used to try and prove your point which is not valid. PS I've been in a few staff rooms in my time. You should reserve your dismissive "not valid" stamp of disapproval for the claim that the majority of the occupants are almost communists. That was me and I disagree that it's not a valid point. Also I didn't say that the majority of occupants were almost communist, I said a large number are which is fair comment and I don't feel I need to "reserve" it at all on an open free speech forum. A large number are extremely unionized, the unions links to communism are well know so to say that a large number are verging on communism isn't a false statement at all. Also I feel the 'taking a valid thread off on tangents' may have been aimed at me, if it wasn't then I genuinely apologise but my 1st comment was a perfectly valid and on topic one about the (obvios IMO) link between the extra numbers of people coming here and the need for more houses & threat to our 'sacred land'. It was the reactions to that reasonable point which took us off on tangents. Finally, I feel in the main it's been a polite 50/50 debate with everyone holding their own so there's no need to rush to the defence of anyone as they've been giving as good as they get in a sensible grown up debate. There's been no victimization of anyone so it's not necessary. All the best Gwass
|
|||
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 13:10
|
||
|
Well, with a hundred and seventeen posts I don't think it's been wrecked. I'm going to write to Ken Clark and ask him to suggest to IDS that he go and live among the feral underclass for a couple of weeks. I could mentor him as 'an ex prisoner' in Newcastle's West End. That'd put some understanding into his assertions, perhaps. As you know, I have a copper mine in Northumberland. It's possible to scrabble down it until the way becomes unsafe. There's no props of any kind and there are roof falls. The received knowledge is that it was children that worked these shafts. So there was no school for them. Their lifestyle is almost unimaginable. It does bear thinking about. !
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 13:20
|
||
|
Yes, you said a large number of occupants of staff rooms were almost communists, that a large number are unionised and the unions links to communism are well known and the Left has taken over state schools. I confess that as someone with experience of various staff rooms and two teaching unions I don't recognise any of that as a valid description.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 08, 2011, 13:27
|
||
I'm not against tangents, in fact I love them, it's just a shame that a big deal like the government letting developers off the leash hasn't been properly addressed, here of all places. Rotherwas Ribbon wasn't wrecked by pressure from immigrants but by developers catering to housing demand from rich people and there are likely to be a hell of a lot of prehistoric site losses from now on for exactly the same reason. That ought to be recognised, and fully discussed here, I'd have thought.
|
| Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
