Jump to content

Carmina Fothergill

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Carmina Fothergill

  • Rank
    Member
  1. She developed the most dangerous idea we've ever seen in our lifetime, that a government doesn't exist to run the country, but can operate as a business making profit for the select few by using the country as a resource. Once that was established, subsequent governments could continue what she'd started. So it's no surprise none of them wanted to change anything, and naturally the Labour government was going to become a Thatcherite government and indeed all parties would converge as Thatcherites. And that's exactly what's happened. That's why this country is in such a dire mess and none o
  2. Personally, I'd prefer an independent police force impartially upholding the law. Voting for people representing political parties looks like a very dangerous prescedent to me.
  3. Well, I asked for clarification on what exactly the issues are with the gay marriage thing, because the really relevant questions didn't seme to have been clarified by the people making a noise about it. But with regard to church cries of persecution I was speaking of wider issues. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the many public statements about Christians being persecuted. It happens a lot. Comments about `militant' atheists who threaten the churches, for instance. Now, obviously there are some very strident atheists who shout a lot - though it could also be pointed out that some Chri
  4. Well, that just the question, isn't it? Probably all of us, at some time or another. But certain groups like to think they're being persecuted when they can't get their own way. There are, of course, some small but very vocal groups who like to assume they can speak for every person who shares some faith similar to their own - for example Christian people of the fundamentalist sects who presume to speak on behalf of all Christians, while they quietly condemn most other Christian groups anyway. They identify with the courageous and genuinely persecuted Christians in their New Testament and thin
  5. Do you mean gay people, or the churches? The description would apply to the more vocal element in both camps (pun intended), probably to the embarassment of the more stable people in both camps.
  6. Surpringly, Blake's reference seems to be the `mills' of Newtonian mechanics and the rationalist philosophies of Oxford and Cambridge universities at the time. I've always suspected he used the actual mills of the industrial north as an image of the latter, though. The lesson, really, is that nothing in Blake is straighforward or signifies what you'd expect. That makes him either fascinating or a complete pain in the proverbial, depending on your viewpoint.
  7. Thanks. So it's as I thought, then - a lot of shouting about something that isn't a problem, with the usual church hysteria about being `persecuted.'
  8. For the record, Jerusalem is neither about armed rebellion nor heaven. Nor is is called Jerusalem. It's the preface to a much larger poem by William Blake called Milton. Blake did write a poem called Jerusalem, but that's something else entirely. With Parry's music it became a hymn and was titled Jerusalem, with no input from Blake himself. And as for what it's about, that would involve an in-depth study of Blake's ideas. Suffice to say he was highly critical of established religion and would pretty definitely not be very impressed with his work being an established church hymn. His re
  9. There's been a lot of shouting about this in the press, but it still isn't clear to me what the issues really are. Is the legislation going to say churches can marry gay couples, or that the must marry them? From what's been reported of various church people it would seem the latter. But how can legislation make a church marry two people? The church is supposed to interview the couple and decide if they're suitable, on a unique couple by couple basis. At least, that's how it was always done before. Has that ceased to be the case? Do churches now marry anybody who asks, without checking? Or
  10. Point taken. But when other companies want to run a car park and make sure people are using the shops, they bother to install a ticket dispenser and give the shops the option of giving free parking when the ticket is presented to them. Other car parks in Warrington do that. But CMS just can't be bothered doing all that. Either that, or their intention is to make money from fines. However you look at it, they're not a reputable and responsible parking company.
  11. This may be of interest. It seems CMS aren't the only people misusing of car parks to extort money from drivers. At least these people are in court. Perhaps we can hope CMS end up there as well: http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/rogue_clampers_made_500_000_1_3541677
  12. And one other thing. He told me he intends to send a cheque by post because there's no way he's going to give his credit card details to a company that has already shown itself to be a bunch of crooks.
  13. My friend intends to take this up with Helen Jones, pointing out how damaging it is to shopping in Warrington, and also saying how it would increase traffic because anyone who wanted to shop in the other parts of town would have to drive off Riverside and park up again elsewhere. I'll suggest he refers her to this discussion. He also intends to write to several of the retailers on Riverside to explain why they're losing customers, and to their head offices to warn them what will happen if they open new outlets on sites where CMS run the car park. He does intend to pay the fine, because he
  14. My friend said there were plenty of spaces yesterday - and there often are when he visits. He's never had any problems finding a space. He's now had his appeal summarily dismissed by CMS, without any proper reply to the points he raised. Though evidently forced to pay these crooks, he doesn't intend to let the matter rest. Incidentally I think the retailers have far more reason to be concerned about falling sales because people start to go elsewhere than they have about people nipping across the road for ten minutes before shopping (or after shopping, as the case may be). If this is a
  15. Unfortunately not. He would have been fined anyway, as the fine is for leaving the car park, not for failing to shop there. This is the main point: there's a ridiculous limitation on your actions that no reasonable person would expect. Exactly. My friend intends to go out of town in future, or order from the Internet - starting with the goods he would have bought yesterday if the incident hadn't happened. The link you provided wasn't working just now, so I can't comment on that, but they'd photographed his car. The point is, my friend has no objections to being fined if
×
×
  • Create New...