I love John Prescott!

Loved him for chinning that dude wot frew an egg at him, and for getting out of his car (when he's in Blackpool) and having chish 'n' fips at Harry Ramsden's with the people.

He seems down to earth to me, though I know nuffink much about politics.

Why wold the poor need to fly? They'll have no money for frivulous things like holidays

LOL, no, I mean those that can just afford to as cheap air travel opened up the skies to many more millions of passengers. Those working classes maybe that float around the level at which every penny counts might be affected (amongst other changes going on?) I don't know - just guessing out loud.

We will need to fly all of those Johnny foreigners (who are over here taking all of our jobs) back home.

Back home with you, worm!!

"Moves to drive investment in airport facilities for passengers and cut regulation and bureaucracy" - I'm not 100% sure, but it does seem to point towards privatising security/passport control??

UK airports to become "better not bigger" - Travel Trade Gazette

Not really sure what any of this means, but the CAA was useless to me before. I know I've read the airline industry wants EC261/2004 weakened (they never played ball with it anyway!) and that they wanted the gov. to help them out. With the proposed changes to APD and this, I think they are looking to boost the airline industry somewhat - who have had it tough! But I think they will try and shaft the consumer more at the end of the day.

So, maybe less flights - higher fares due to the per plane new tax - less need for new runways/infrastructure & green benefits (not that a single penny of green tax has ever gone to a green issue, lol) but it sounds good enough - I just think the consumer will be hit somehow! The well off will be able to fly, but the poorer less...this also has a great effect on the balance of payments again! In other words, less flights, less regulation, less consumer rights & less leakage.

I'm only guessing and can see a good side to all that, I can just see a bad side too...time will tell - but I'll be looking to get a cheap flight in soon!!

A number of you have obviously been left to clean up BB after others have been talking through their bum again to try and justify their invalid points and obvious discrimination! Sorry if any offence caused by this remark Thia

LOL, you can say bum, I don't mind in the slightest, haha Although 'Thia' sounds a bit camp and I don't do drag.

DD, I respect your right to be religious. I am too. I'm not catholic, but that's my business. The difference is though, I wouldn't expect the state (British taxpayers) to accomadate a 'state visit' by a high ranking religious figure. I would expect to pay for the privalige if I wished to see them.

Innit, sister.

Let's try again. Why should the taxpayer pay for the pope to come? Should the tax payer then pay for every single religious leader in the world to come at the same expense (or respective cost) Or is the pope special because he precides over approx 1000 people?

Why the celebs? Who cares? All religions have them? Surely that didn't make even one point.

Do I have to name athiest celebs, no, I thought not. Should I mention people who are against this who are celebs, nope? Let's leave that one!

Sorry Daniella, 'real murderers' doesn't compute. I'm not going there, though.

Also, who cares who has money or not! Now't to do with it, except to say they should fund their beliefs by themselves. I mean this type of event.

Well done Latty - I'm knackered if I run to the shop! :D

Fine, but where is the discrimination? I am saying all such expenditure is bonkers, innit? I don't see a 15 million arabic visit or athiest party? If they want to come then fine - just, err, pay for it.

The pope is head of state, but isn't recognised as one, he has no immunity (real immunity) that's why people are trying to have him arrested. Also, head of state my arris, as the article explains, it is of no economic benefit to the country unlike real heads of states popping along.

Nah, I agree things get spent that doesn't benefit all - but this one is a pure waste of money that the queen, seemingly, has had the taxpayer shoulder.

I am not against the queen purely because of the effect she has on the country's balance of payments or trade account, and I would argue that if she was booted out or anything that feeling of 'catching a glimpse' would be gone if it were just a tourist attraction rather than a residence. It just adds to the intrigue? Guessing.

However, she definately costs more than that per capita (taxpayer) as evidenced here.

BBC News - Who should pay for the Pope's visit?

I'm not getting into this waste of money on the religious front because I can't be ar5ed. But, the queen is basically spending this money by inviting him, isn't she? So there is 8M plus many more millions in security costs. The stinkly wealthy church is chipping in 7 million - how kind, and I'll wager all of it was taken by those that dug deep in their poor pockets.

So, in a time of cutbacks, is this really necessary? Here was me thinking he was going to get locked up when the crim landed on our shores? (ahem).

Not blaming the coalition or labour (who will have authorised this I assume) but I'd like to see the coalition bloody stop this madness!!

(There, I managed to keep my Catholic hatred to myself)

*goes and spits expletives in the corner*

I signed up with Experian at my last address - well, sort of. I couldn't finish the application since I couldn't remember the post code of the address I lived at some 5 years ago. It was a new build and wasn't available on the web.

Even though I never finished the application they kept the data as I turned each page and along came the enemy - so you don't even have to submit the application and they help themselves.

I have the post code now, but I won't be doing that again. I won't be applying for any credit I do not need, and I won't be checking to see what 'new defaults' the DCA gits enter when they purchase any debt (rather than updating the original default date) until another 4 years have passed.

Sexuality is not a life choice, you cannot choose to be gay, straight, ?, bi etc. The sooner we all recognise that the better.

 

In my opinion there should be parity between the age of consent, if it is lawful for straight teenagers at 16 then it should be for gay, ? and bi teenagers.

 

Hiv is an issue for people of all sexualities as is any other sexually transmitted disease.

 

The allocation of resources for IVF treatment should be decided on fairness and not dependant on the decision maker's religious beliefs, sexuality or moral standpoint.

 

Just thought I would throw my two penneth in.

Thank you. You managed to say concisely what I was trying to say.

Btw AC, I assume '? or homosexual' was a mistake.

And if you are so fed up, maybe you should stop making wrong statements about people.

Just an observation.

'misconstrued'

You said it out loud?

I never wanted to argue with you, but you said what you said. It was offensive and wrong, to me.

My best friend who died last year was gay. He had a mixture of straight and gay friends. We all got on very well together. Never even thought about it - we were all friends. We had a lot of giggles. Over 500 people attended his funeral. He was loved. No-one gave a flying f**k that he was gay. He had been thinking about adoption. Everyone would have supported him.

 

My boss in my longest job - many years - was gay, and so were his friends. Never even thought about it - apart from the funnies. Oh, I am a dizzy queen, he'd say frequently. His boyfriends wandered in and out of the office. I got on with all of them.

 

In my street there are three gay couples. I know two of them very well. We have a very friendly street. They are just everyone's neighbours, just like the rest of us. One couple have a child who is a credit to them.

 

None of them carry on like you do, Thailand. I'm sorry you have had such misery to deal with, but there are millions of gay people who are not suffering the same angst as you clearly are, and who aren't looking for a homophobic slant in everything other people say. If you aren't, I apologize, but it does come across like that.

 

No doubt you will now say that my friendships and experiences and therefore lack of homophobia have nothing to do with it, as you have said to AC.

That's the thing, isn't it. You have me defined - yet are a million miles away! No offence, but you are indeed off on one. It's just what you see. You think I'm on some sort of mission, which, I might add, I half don't blame you since you know how anti-catholic I am. BUT, no - your wrong, DD. Don't judge my 'angst' honey, I just don't like comments such as 'I think NOT' and thoughts of HIV (which are always aimed at gays no matter what excuse comes up)

I am sorry about my 'misery' but I think you confuse my frustration with what has been said.

Such a lovely story though.

Still, 'None of them carry on like me' WOW. Here was I thinking I was just defending 'orrible misgivings about HIV which won't be deleted?

You don't know me at all, and nor do I know you, so lets stick to the facts of what have ben said. Maybe you should read AC's posts again, but, I fear it is lost on you.

Thailand, I meant no disrespect to you or, anybody;

just voicing my opinion to which I am entitled.

As you are yours.

 

You most certainly are.

 

However, I maintain that 16 is too young to make the decision about being, gay and;

teenage boys could be putting their health at risk, risk of HIV etc.

 

OK, you'll never work out there is no decision. You also feel that HIV is contracted out of being gay. If only you knew how your are tapping on the fence of being out of order now.

 

Not going off topic, as I believe this matter has recently been discussed by MP's.

 

Link please, and whatever, yours or their assertions hold no water with me.

 

Incidentally, I used to work in the 'Art' associated industry, therefore in my every day life I encountered both homosexual and heterosexual people.

So??!! At no stage have I attempted to mock your rightful opinion, but good grief, how does that claim make one iota of difference? Especially in view of your latest mis-informed claims.

I feel I am now taking this further off topic, but my word, is it any wonder.

We should just agree to disagree.

I do hope peeps are getting your 'tongue in cheek'

Anyway, I heard you dabbled in '81....could be a rumour, but it seemed real -so I'm gonna stick to it and pass on my feelings about your bi-ness.

LMFAO! No, just a trainee.

I want to go pro, but people who have never lived it seemingly know more than me about it, and due to these thoughts, or passed on thoughts, I think I'm going to fail and 'choose' to be straight. HURRAH!! Normality resumes...

I would have gave up my wage as a boy to be straight - if only I'd known. Meh.

Whilst you keep providing reasons for not being a homophobe, you still seem blissfully unaware of how hurtful the things you seemingly believe and say can be. Not for me anymore, but I remember. Does your darling man not tell you it is not about choice? Just asking.

Also, it is too hard a concept for us all to just not make assumptions about others? (too young, yes). I'm not having a pop, I loathe religion and I don't exactly love those that follow it...but that is about something that is truely held by belief, not reality, and young 16 year old homosexuals are ruled by their feelings - something that is not easy considering how others think - I should know, I remember those dark days.

I remember at 10 feeling awful about it, only to find out 16 is still taboo.

There's you're problem. It being your use of the word 'decision'. There is none. Yes, you are 'old-fashioned' and that was never any excuse by the way.

Still, it's your view and you are welcome to keep it to yourself, lol.

Very pleased you admitted that. I knew when I was about 7 for the record, and hearing that tainted view is beyond annoying me anymore - it is plausable you fell foul of ridiculous stereotypes and listened to people who knew nothing about it. I ain't having a go - but you are incredibly incorrect in your view. I'm not being funny with you, because I understand why you think that, but you need to stop that now. (IMO, of course).

Best I leave it there, as clearly the subject is emotive

Don't let an emotive issue stop you! Nothing wrong in free speech - I loathe it being muted without good reason. If it upsets or not is subjective; we all have our stances! Out and out offence is bad, IMO, but you haven't done that AFAIC.

However, whilst you made a comment that said 'I think NOT' in regard to the age of homosexual consent, I would ask that you explain it. I'm glad bookie posted - because, yes, the red mist had descended after reading it. All the posts after stating there was no offence meant fell on deaf ears because, I don't understand why you said it.

So, please tell me why you felt the upper case was neccessary, and the whole 'think NOT' thang just smacks of 'isn't it obvious'.

If you don't agree that's fine, but I would like to know why 16 is so, um, 'not'.

Good.

LL - sorry if I took your thread OT.

Oh, and just to add - people are offended by other people's political views and I don't see why religion should be any different.

I can well imagine that there will be a number of people belonging to a great many religions who use CAG. I would suggest that it's appropriate to respect the views of others.

 

I respect that not everyone has a religion that they believe in, but many people do, and for those that do it can be very offensive to show disrespect towards people of any faith.

 

Live and let live.

Can I just get some clarification here. Catholics (I am talking about the Vatican here - not so much the follwers) 'live' but they do not 'let live'. They order milllions of Africans not to wear condoms and great numbers subsequently die. Fact, yes?

So are you saying that these things should never be discussed and just 'live and let live'? Whilst I am sometimes over the top, and I apologise for that, it is born out of the frustration of having to watch these people get away with what they do.

I am not going to say nothing and exercise my right to free speech (within rules) as I was stating an opinion about what they get up to and is not my intention to flame or mock individuals.

The pope is due to visit claiming he is head of state (which he is not and not recognised by the international community in any case). He allows his mob to not report child rape. Another fact, and I do not see why I should not mention it.

I am not looking to argue with you on this Caro, but 'live and let live' just doesn't cut the mustard. If anybody is offended by my words then they can post that, albeit I hammer home the point that my words are not aimed at any individual, although it may leave a bad taste in my mouth which is just tough on me!

I'd better keep my big mouth shut about religious people.

However, an example of what they are capable of:

YouTube - Creationism propaganda for children caught on camera

Child abuse in my book.

Religion.

 

How sad.

Wise words.

+1