Jump to content

Carmina Fothergill

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carmina Fothergill

  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 of the mainstream parties are interested in doing anything except continuing the damage.
  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 Christians shout a lot more - but I must say I have never seen an atheist being `militant.' Sometimes silly, beside the point, showing a distinct lack of understanding and empathy, yes, but militant? No. I'd be interested to see one of these militant atheists, but no-one seems to be able to point one out. The best they can usually do is Richard Dawkins, who is usually behaving like a gentleman and not looking in the least militant. There's a lot of noise about people not being allowed to wear crosses at work, and similar stuff. When these cases come to court they always get thrown out once the full story is heard. But most of the `persecution' cries seem to come from people who can't tolerate anyone thinking and believing something different from themselves. Look beyond the noise and that's usually what you find. The sad thing is, there are Christians (and others) who genuinely are persecuted in different parts of the world and who often show real courage and patience in such situations. In my view people who moan about `persecution' just because they can't have their own way and impose their will on everyone else don't bear comparison with those who show courage and patience in genuine adversity. This is why I asked what the issues really are with the gay marriage question. If the churches are really being forced to marry people they don't approve of, then surely that's wrong. But if they're just being told that gay marriages are going to be recognised in society as a marriage, and churches can choose to do them if they approve, that's a very different issue.
  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 think if someone in modern society doesn't do what they think they should do, that's persecution - despite the accepted presence of Christian churches all over Britain, the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, and a distinct absence of lions, amphitheatres and so on. It shows a definite lack of historical context, common sense, and emotional maturity, but it happens quite a lot. (And of course it has a negative impact on the few genuine cases where Christian people actually are treated as less than equal.)
  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. I've Googled Red Routes, and it seems there are at least three different meanings in different parts of the country. In other words people seem to like the term, for some reason, but having decided they like it, they can't decide what it's going to refer to. In one part of the country a Red Route is a clearway (no stopping). Elsewhere it's a route that has somehow (no proper explanation was given) been made faster and less congested because of some kind of integrated traffic scheme. And in yet other areas it's a high risk accident area. From context I'd guess it has the third meaning in Warrington. But what are we supposed to do when people make up these terms and then can't agree on what they're going to mean?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.'
  9. 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 religion was the Imagination, which needs to be glossed with the meaning of Imagination in the Romantic movement generally, with specific provisos about Blake's own highly individual interpretations. To try to demystify that, imagine if one of the poems spoken by the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter books was to be taken out of context and regarded as a self-sufficient piece of writing unrelated to the books it occurs in, and was then set to music and sung in churches as a hymn. It's a bit like that. Blake's writing belongs in a specific context, which appears to have been forgotten. Anyway, after that detour, back to the main subject....
  10. 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 do they have to marry anyone they're told they should marry? And does this apply to all churches or just to the state church, the C of E?
  11. Red Route? Am I allowed to drive down one of these if I didn't vote Labour?
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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 doesn't feel he can avoid it. He feels it's absurd, but he was tricked into it and it isn't worth trying to fight it. Putting his energies into stopping CMS doing this will cost CMS far more than they get from him, and will hopefully save other people from the same fate. I'm sorry to see they've already got more people, but inevitibly they will until they're stopped completely.
  16. 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 problem, other people manage to run their car parks by installing a payment scheme, with exemption for people who buy goods. CMS couldn't be bothered installing any such system, and nor could they be bothered (assuming what my friend says is correct) putting up signs in lettering large enough to be read by drivers as they enter the car park. From what he says, the signs are designed to be read by pedestrians, and are of the type commonly put up in car parks to give general warnings about not leaving valuables and so forth. None of this is about people trying to avoid paying, or misusing the car park. It's about paying customers being mistreated and driven away from the retail park, to the loss of the shops there.
  17. 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 he breaks a reasonable rule. Like Algy in the next post he once forgot to pay and was perfectly willing to pay the resulting fine. What he objects to - and I agree - is that a ridiculous ruling that no sensible person would expect is being enforced. Are we supposed to read every notice displayed in car parks in future in case there's some bizarre ruling that no-one in their right mind would ever think up? My friend's intention last night was to contact the various national businesses who have outlets at Riverside and point out to them that not only will he not be going back there but he will also not be using other car parks run by this same company, so it's not in their interests to enter into agreements with this car park company when planning future sites. Obviously his situation is only the tip of the iceberg, and many more people are going to feel the same way.
  18. A friend of mine went to the Riverside retail park near Bridge Foot today to go to Homebase. As he was made redundant recently he went over to the Job Centre to sign on, then went to put his job search details back into his car before going into Homebase. When he did so he found a parking ticket on his car, issued because he had `left the site.' He went into Homebase to see if the staff could tell him where to find the parking attendant. They couldn't, but he managed to find him anyway and had a fruitless discussion in which he tried to make it clear that he was a regular visitor to the site and frequently shopped at Homebase. He got nowhere with that, and has lodged an appeal on the car park owner's website Apparently there are notices on the car park (which he tells me aren't obvious until you stop to read them in detail, and can't be read from your car as you drive in) which say you aren't allowed to leave the site after parking your car. As my friend remarked, who reads the `warning' notices in detail on a car park? They usually contain general advice such as not to leave valuables in your car. Who ever heard - until now - of a restriction on leaving the site when you're a paying customer at the shops? I've never in my life heard of anyone stopping to read car park notices in detail in case they stipulate some bizarre restriction. Nor has my friend, and he says he's never noticed anyone standing reading any of these notices. Well, you wouldn't, would you? So basically you can't nip across the road for a few minutes when shopping there, much less buy what you want and then go to some other shop in town. And if the shops there don't have what you want, you need to drive off, drive round town and park again before you can shop somewhere else. We thought I should post this to warn other people, because any normal person could be caught out and fined because of this absurd ruling. I can't remember the last time I parked there, but my friend says he won't be going back - as he pointed out, what's to stop the same parking attendant just saying someone left the site even if they didn't. You have no ticket, nothing to prove your right to park there. All you have is your word against theirs, and it's obvious they're trying to catch people out to fine them.
  19. Posted by me, saeveral days ago: "It needs to be stressed these aren't the old church schools we used to have, but slick, American- style fundamentalist institutions based on propaganda and misinformation." From several of the posts since, it still needs to be stressed. These are not the old style faith schools that we used to have. If people continue to think that, we'll have very serious problems when it's too late to do anything about them. Please, please do some research and find out what's involved.
  20. Definitely a bad thing, but how bad depends on who the school gets sold to. Selling our children's education to the highest bidder has got to be a bad thing regardless. If the worst happens, your children's education gets put into the hands of fundamentalists who are more interested in indoctrinating kids than educating them - as has happened in several schools in Britain already. It needs to be stressed these aren't the old church schools we used to have, but slick, American- style fundamentalist institutions based on propaganda and misinformation. It's beyond belief that this is even a question in this country. We would never have had an absurd situation like this at one time. The fact that most British people are unaware of what's involved and are consequently completely unprepared for it makes this even more dangerous.
  21. (Not Carmina.) Well, if you insist, though it sounds to me like you're stretching a point to make it fit. But the main point is, you're still failing to understand the concept of the Internet. The idea is to facilitate movement around the net by means of links. That benefits everybody - including the advertisers, incidentally. Limiting linking goes against the whole ethos of the Internet and doesn't benefit anybody. It doesn't benefit the users of this site, who are interested in Warrington, and nor does it benefit the people who want their adverts to be seen, if traffic is limited by refusal to post relevant links.
  22. This isn't Carmina. She uses my computer and I'm the person she quoted about the Internet being a free exchange of information, which is why I'm replying. Amazon, ebay, Tesco, Sainsbury's and so on are all irrelevant. They all sell goods. Your website doesn't. All you have is a site that calls itself Warrington Worldwide but won't extend as far as Lymm and Stockton Heath, which is really very funny.
  23. Oh well - I asked the person whose computer I use, and he suggested I look at Cheshire Kat's profile to see how to send her a message. He also told me that in more than ten years on the Internet he's never once seen this kind of refusal to link to another site, except on rival pop music fan sites. Everyone else treats the Internet as an open system, regardless of advertising. And that's my limited experience as well. As it turned out I didn't even need to send Cheshire Kat a message. The link to the forbidden site opened up another site I hadn't known was there. I must say the idea of a hidden site that can't be named or linked to appeals to me. I've now read a very interesting article and I will now be emailing the Council Highways Department to ask if it's true that we're supposed to negotiate these bumps with one wheel on and one wheel off - and to ask why we've never been told that before.
  24. Have I missed it somewhere in the four pages of this topic, or has Cheshire Kat's link still not been reinstated? It obviously isn't a `secret' link any longer, as the whys and wherefores have now been discussed (sort of). Enough electronic ink seems to have been spilled to make it clear that there was once a link that we're not allowed to see, at any rate. Speaking as a responsible adult, I'd rather like to be able to click on this forbidden link, regardless of the views of people who seem to want to protect forum users from doing that. I think we should be given the option.
  25. Wave power still makes a lot more sense than anything else, especially as we're an island. (Someone suggested that taking some of the power out of incoming waves may possibly help reduce erosion of the coastline as well, but I don't know if that's feasible or not.) Apparently Margaret Thatcher scuppered this. She gave the nuclear industry the responsibility of calculating the cost per killowatt, and of course they came up with a much higher figure than their own cost, which suited Thatcher's own nuclear weapons agenda - of course. The true cost was quite a bit lower than the cost of the nuclear industry generating the equivalent amount of power, but by the time that was determined the decision had been taken based on the false figure and our wave power options had been sunk. So by now we could be 20/25 years into a green energy programme that would make sense and be largely invisible to most of us. It might be added that we'd need a lot less power if people didn't waste it with things like leaving their TV on standby for long periods. Back in the early 90s it was reported that enough power was wasted this way per day to power Birmingham. The figure now if probably far higher, as far more people do things the lazy way than they did 15 years ago.
  • Create New...