Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Country Specific / UK Mac Group / August 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Bloody Hell

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Steve Firth - 21 Aug 2008 19:42 GMT
"In a statement, police said today: "Anthony David Atherton, 50, of
Victoria Road, Heaton, Bolton, was charged with attempted rape, threats
to kill, false imprisonment and possession of a Class A drug on Tuesday
August 19."

<http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1063604_dot_com_millionai
re_arrested>

He used to post here occasionally and was fairly helpful, unusual for
the MD of a company to pay such close interest in his customers. It
looks like he's gone Oyston.
Pd - 21 Aug 2008 21:21 GMT
> "In a statement, police said today: "Anthony David Atherton, 50, of
> Victoria Road, Heaton, Bolton, was charged with attempted rape, threats
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the MD of a company to pay such close interest in his customers. It
> looks like he's gone Oyston.

The clue is "Class A drug". Sufficient coke is a pretty reliable method
of turning the nicest people into selfish arrogant arseholes.

Signature

Pd

roger.valentine@yahoo.com - 22 Aug 2008 03:20 GMT
> > "In a statement, police said today: "Anthony David Atherton, 50, of
> > Victoria Road, Heaton, Bolton, was charged with attempted rape, threats
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> Pd

I know people who do a bit of coke. They're young professional types
who do it some weekends. There has been no rape!
Rowland McDonnell - 22 Aug 2008 04:52 GMT
[snip]

> I know people who do a bit of coke. They're young professional types
> who do it some weekends. There has been no rape!

This man has been *accused* of rape.  He has not been convicted of rape
yet.

Many people who are accused of rape are not convicted.  In some cases,
it seems likely that's just due to a lack of enough evidence (or the
lack of a decent prosecuter) to convince the court.  In other cases,
it's because the prosecution is based on a malicious and false
allegation.

That sort of thing happens for real.  It's a big problem even when only
a few do it because it inclines people to the idea that an accusation of
rape is /likely/ to be false and malicious.

The same problem applies to allegations of child molestation - there has
been at least one case in recent years where a man has been convicted
and sent to prison for such an offence allegedly committed a decade or
more in the past, and it then turns out that the accusers were grown men
with strings of convictions for all sorts of crimes, and got paid for
giving evidence.  So the conviction got overturned and he got let out,
but only after having had to endure years behind bars as a convicted
kiddy-fiddler, which means you get the worse possible treatment from
prison staff and are under constant threat of serious harm from other
inmates.

What's particular sad is that the accused in the case I'm thinking of
was a decent man who loved working with chidren to help them develop and
grow and had been doing so for years.  These cases have meant that men
are now much less likely to be willing to work with children, simply
because the personal risks are too great.

Aside from that, anyone who takes coke regularly - even if it's merely
`some weekends' - suffers from a personality change that tends to turn
them into selfish arrogant bastards.

Think Gordon Gecko.  Think `Greed is good'.

There was an issue of Woman's Hour that delved into the matter heavily
not so long ago - a lot of professional women are using coke, and they
had one such *ex* coke user doing her proselytising bit, explaining just
how bad the effects are on you in that line.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Justin C - 22 Aug 2008 19:30 GMT
> anyone who takes coke regularly - even if it's merely
> `some weekends' - suffers from a personality change that tends to turn
> them into selfish arrogant bastards.

The only person I know[1] that uses cocaine, was a selfish arrogant
bastard before he started.

    Justin.

1. Well, the only person I know who has admitted it in my presence.
Signature

Justin C, by the sea.

Rowland McDonnell - 22 Aug 2008 21:24 GMT
> > anyone who takes coke regularly - even if it's merely
> > `some weekends' - suffers from a personality change that tends to turn
> > them into selfish arrogant bastards.
>
> The only person I know[1] that uses cocaine, was a selfish arrogant
> bastard before he started.

[snip]

Yeah, and the coke just makes it worse.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Stimpy - 22 Aug 2008 09:01 GMT
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:20:50 +0100, roger.valentine@yahoo.com wrote
>>> "In a statement, police said today: "Anthony David Atherton, 50, of
>>> Victoria Road, Heaton, Bolton, was charged with attempted rape, threats
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I know people who do a bit of coke. They're young professional types
> who do it some weekends. There has been no rape!

'a bit...' 'some weekends...'   That's not quite the same as consistent,
daily consumption over an extended period.
Steve Firth - 22 Aug 2008 09:28 GMT
> 'a bit...' 'some weekends...'   That's not quite the same as consistent,
> daily consumption over an extended period.

I'll jump in and say that there's no indication yet that Mr A. Had been
involved in "daily consumption [of cocaine] over an extended period."
And my astonishment is more driven by the "bloody hell he never struck
me as someone who would have these accusations flung at him".
Stimpy - 22 Aug 2008 18:38 GMT
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:28:26 +0100, Steve Firth wrote

>> 'a bit...' 'some weekends...'   That's not quite the same as consistent,
>> daily consumption over an extended period.
>
> I'll jump in and say that there's no indication yet that Mr A. Had been
> involved in "daily consumption [of cocaine] over an extended period."

...and I'll jump in and say that I didn't link my comment to Mr A.  

I was responding to pd's comment that "Sufficient coke is a pretty reliable
method of turning the nicest people into selfish arrogant arseholes"
Peter Ceresole - 21 Aug 2008 22:09 GMT
> <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1063604_dot_com_millionai
> re_arrested>
>
> He used to post here occasionally and was fairly helpful, unusual for
> the MD of a company to pay such close interest in his customers. It
> looks like he's gone Oyston.

Looks like he made a lot of cash when he sold Dabs.

Always a dodgy business for any person, making a lot of money.
Signature

Peter

Rowland McDonnell - 21 Aug 2008 22:24 GMT
> > <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1063604_dot_com_millionai
> > re_arrested>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Looks like he made a lot of cash when he sold Dabs.

You don't need a lot of cash to f.ck yourself up badly with coke these
days.  The low price of cocaine in the UK is why we have almost no
problems with crystalline methamphatamine.

(I know a lass who used to take a lot of cocaine - her income was just
enough to pay for her basic living costs and the price of a few nights
out each week.  Works on the phones for cab firms, mostly - but she can
afford cocaine.  I say `used' to take a lot of cocaine.  I've spoken to
her about it lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots,
oh yes.  I seem to have to got through - somehow without my oft repeated
witterings being dismissed as nagging.  I view it as a big win.)

> Always a dodgy business for any person, making a lot of money.

I've lived in Bolton.

His face is a certain local `type'.  Atherton's just down the road -
this Mr Atherton's obviously from a old Lanky family.  And not a nice
one either by the look of him.

He looks like the kind of person who'd be guilty of what he's just been
charged with.

Anyway, my wife's had to deal with the police today.  One of her
foundation students (a Muslim[1]) has been rounded up by the cops.

It seems that he's part of a gang that's been breaking into banks and
other things.  He got caught when he was posing as a member of the CID,
asking questions of a bank employee in the bank - having blagged his way
in without showing a warrant card or anything.  Bank employee got
suspicious, blagger flashes his university student card.  Bank employee
reads what card actually says, blagger gets cuffed.

The cops wanted to know if he could have learnt his various technical
skills on the foundation course he's on.  Given what he's been doing,
not a cat in hell's chance.

Rowland.

[1]  The point of mentioning that is to make the point that just 'cos
you're a Muslim rounded up by the cops doesn't mean you're not a real
crook.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

chris - 22 Aug 2008 09:45 GMT
> I've lived in Bolton.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> He looks like the kind of person who'd be guilty of what he's just been
> charged with.

FFS. How prejudicial is that!? He's not even been convicted of anything
yet and you're already making him out as a serial offender, just because
he's that 'type' and has the 'look'...

You'd probably have him executed as well, 'just to be safe'! Wouldn't you?
Phillip Walters - 22 Aug 2008 09:55 GMT
> > I've lived in Bolton.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You'd probably have him executed as well, 'just to be safe'! Wouldn't you?

Reminds me of the time I was on jury duty, we had just retired to
consider our verdict, when the archetypal "Little old lady" said, I
think he is guilty, I dont like the look of him. British Justice leading
the world.

Signature

Phil

http://www.philwalters.co.uk

Bruce Horrocks - 22 Aug 2008 21:09 GMT
> Reminds me of the time I was on jury duty, we had just retired to
> consider our verdict, when the archetypal "Little old lady" said, I
> think he is guilty, I dont like the look of him. British Justice leading
> the world.

Nothing wrong with that unless, of course, that last comma is hiding a
'because' instead of an 'and'.

Signature

Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

Rowland McDonnell - 22 Aug 2008 21:24 GMT
[snip]

> Reminds me of the time I was on jury duty, we had just retired to
> consider our verdict, when the archetypal "Little old lady" said, I
> think he is guilty, I dont like the look of him. British Justice leading
> the world.

Three points:

That kind of thing is why you have a dozen people on an English jury.

And it is possible for an experienced person to form a valid if
unreliable judgement on character by looking at someone in real life -
it's why the defendent appears in court in front of the jury.

*AND* I recall reading that `way back when', the word of one Jew was
considered to be more reliable than a dozen Englishmen - in English
courts.  It seems that English justice doesn't much trust the English...
Admittedly, this was back in the days when it was the Normans running
things.  Bloody French.  Or do I mean bloody Vikings?

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Jim - 22 Aug 2008 09:58 GMT
>> I've lived in Bolton.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> You'd probably have him executed as well, 'just to be safe'! Wouldn't you?

About 15 years ago I was on jury duty. The case was a simple 'assault in a
pub' deal. In the summing up, the judge made it as clear as he could that we
had to judge the man based on the facts, and the facts alone.

In the jury room the first damn thing that one stupid bloody housewife said
was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we couldn't find
him guilty just because he hadn't shaved.

Jim
Signature

http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

Things our resident MCSE didn't know how to do today:
open a port on the XP firewall.

Flavio Matani - 22 Aug 2008 09:59 GMT
> >> I've lived in Bolton.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we couldn't find
> him guilty just because he hadn't shaved.

Very similar experience last year in jury service...

I suppose we all need to label things and put them into boxes, that
helps us make sense of a complicated outside world. Like most things,
this goes wrong and becomes the foundation of prejudice.. or something..

Signature

flavio matani
guitar tuition
http://www.flaviomatani.co.uk
http://fflavio.com

Peter Ceresole - 22 Aug 2008 10:22 GMT
> > In the jury room the first damn thing that one stupid bloody housewife said
> > was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we couldn't find
> > him guilty just because he hadn't shaved.
>
> Very similar experience last year in jury service...

Well yes, that was my experience too, but it's *supposed* to be a jury
of the accused's peers, not sociologists or moral philosophers. And when
I was on jury service, all that stuff was rapidly zeroed out.
Admittedly, that means the first ten minutes is spent in neutralising
the bigoted members without alienating them- which is important if
you're ever hoping to get home- and from then onwards the discussion was
focused and decent. I reckon it's still the least worst system.
Signature

Peter

Rowland McDonnell - 24 Aug 2008 19:30 GMT
> > > In the jury room the first damn thing that one stupid bloody housewife
> > > said was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Well yes, that was my experience too, but it's *supposed* to be a jury
> of the accused's peers, not sociologists or moral philosophers.

So what you're saying is that a sociologist is somehow, what?  Lesser
than a normal person?  Unfit to serve on a jury?

Or that a moral philosopher is somehow better than a normal person, and
so unfit to serve on a jury?

Or that a jury should consist purely of people `from the same social
class and grouping as the assused', so that (for example) when I was on
a jury, we had *NO* jury member who counted as a `peer' - the accused
was a foreign student.  We had one student on the jury (me, more or
less) and one immigrant (the real life version of Harry Enfield's Savros
the kebab shop owner).

By those lights, there were no peers of the accused, or so I'd say - and
if you reckon a sociologist cannot be classed as a peer of `the man on
the Clapham omnibus', those lights are surely your lights?

> And when
> I was on jury service, all that stuff was rapidly zeroed out.
> Admittedly, that means the first ten minutes is spent in neutralising
> the bigoted members without alienating them- which is important if
> you're ever hoping to get home-

The jury I was on turned into a three way discussion between me (who
wanted to give the accused a fair hearing), the small businessman (who
was *really* keen on a rapid conclusion to the debate), and Stavros (who
could see the bugger was guilty as hell and didn't care that the
evidence wasn't good enough to show his guilt).

There were another nine people there - they seemed to be happy to let
the discussion work its way out between us three.

> and from then onwards the discussion was
> focused and decent. I reckon it's still the least worst system.

Yep.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Simon Dobbs - 22 Aug 2008 10:49 GMT
>>> I've lived in Bolton.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Jim

When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.
Chris Ridd - 22 Aug 2008 10:52 GMT
> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.

That was my understanding too, though that restriction might time out.

Cheers,

Chris
Jim - 22 Aug 2008 10:55 GMT
>> In the jury room the first damn thing that one stupid bloody housewife said
>> was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we couldn't find
>> him guilty just because he hadn't shaved.
>
> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.

Given that it was a long time ago and I haven't said anything that could pin
it down to anyone at all, my response would be 'bite me'.

Jim
Signature

http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk  http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

Things our resident MCSE didn't know how to do today:
open a port on the XP firewall.

Steve Firth - 22 Aug 2008 11:09 GMT
> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.

#1 - The first rule of Jury Service is, you do not talk about Jury
Service.

#2 - The second rule of Jury Service is, you DO NOT talk about Jury
Service.
Graham J - 22 Aug 2008 11:43 GMT
>> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
>> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> #2 - The second rule of Jury Service is, you DO NOT talk about Jury
> Service

Interesting that a few high profile cases recently have featured media
interviews with jury members (Jill Dando comes to mind ...)

Signature

Graham J

Simon Dobbs - 22 Aug 2008 12:56 GMT
>>> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
>>> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Interesting that a few high profile cases recently have featured media
> interviews with jury members (Jill Dando comes to mind ...)

running a very real risk for all concerned of being hauled up in front of the
judge and being banged up for contempt of court.
Rowland McDonnell - 24 Aug 2008 19:29 GMT
[snip]

> running a very real risk for all concerned of being hauled up in front of
> the judge and being banged up for contempt of court.

Look, the judge also tells the jury in many cases that they *MUST* make
a decision like X, or based on Y, or that they *MUST* follow his
direction to return a verdict of Z due to some technical legal point.

But the judge lies when he says that - the jury is always absolutely
free to do whatever it likes for any reason it likes.  Why else do you
think the jury sits in private, without any court person there at all?

I suspect that if the matter were looked in to carefully, then you'd
find that there were only certain things about what goes on in the jury
room that one isn't allowed to talk about.  And I'd certainly not trust
the judge in the courtroom to tell me the truth, given that they always
lie to juries about how they have to behave in other ways.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Simon Dobbs - 25 Aug 2008 13:17 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Rowland.

Do you ever read a thread properly? Yes a judge gives directions and a jury
goes its own way in making a decision, but really, if a judge believes that
malpractice has occurred, he is free to discharge the jury (as happened
recently when a juror was making his own investigations) or put people in
jail for contempt of court. It happens, so how can you dispute it?
Rowland McDonnell - 25 Aug 2008 22:25 GMT
[snip]

> Do you ever read a thread properly? Yes a judge gives directions and a jury
> goes its own way in making a decision, but really, if a judge believes that
> malpractice has occurred, he is free to discharge the jury (as happened
> recently when a juror was making his own investigations) or put people in
> jail for contempt of court. It happens, so how can you dispute it?

<very very puzzled>  I've no idea what you're getting at at all.

I've not disputed that a judge sometimes discharges a jury.  Nor have I
disputed that jury members sometimes get `done' for contempt of court.

Perhaps the problem here is that you have failed to read my posts
carefully enough?

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Simon Dobbs - 25 Aug 2008 23:00 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Rowland.

honestly, I give up.

You said judges lie because they direct juries what to do and what not to do,
including discuss matters outside the jury room, but have no power to do
anything about it. I say well, juries have been discharged for doing what the
judge says not to do and people have been held in contempt similarly. If
judges lie about their own powers, how can they then exert those powers? They
seem to do it without any problem.

You have no logic Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell - 26 Aug 2008 00:32 GMT
> > [snip]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> You said judges lie because they direct juries what to do and what not to do,

Yes indeed.

> including discuss matters outside the jury room, but have no power to do
> anything about it.

That's not what I wrote.

> I say well, juries have been discharged for doing what the
> judge says not to do and people have been held in contempt similarly. If
> judges lie about their own powers, how can they then exert those powers? They
> seem to do it without any problem.
>
> You have no logic Rowland.

You don't seem able to read English.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Rowland McDonnell - 24 Aug 2008 19:29 GMT
[snip]

> When I did my jury service a couple of years ago I was told that it was
> illegal to discuss what went on in the jury room.

That's what I was told.

I've paid little attention to that restriction myself.  I reckon that if
you can't tie up what I say with any particular people or any particular
case, then there's nothing to worry about.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Rowland McDonnell - 22 Aug 2008 21:24 GMT
> >> I've lived in Bolton.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> was "well, he looks a rough sort". I had to remind her that we couldn't find
> him guilty just because he hadn't shaved.

I've been on a jury.  The housewives did make comments along those
lines.  It would have been a mistake to have *ignored* their character
assessments - they're good at what they do in that line, these
experienced people who know lots of people.

The judge might direct the jury in various ways, telling you that you've
got to do X, Y, or Z - but the fact of the matter is that the jury is
free to do whatever the hell it likes for whatever reason it likes.

I ended up chairman on that jury (at the age of 19ish - eek!   When the
judge asked me to give our verdict, my voice came out as a croak to
begin with).  I was the one who had been taking notes.  I was the one
who had the list of evidence.  I was the one who pointed out the absence
of good evidence for most of what the sod in the dock had been accused
of.

*AFTER* we had given our verdict, some other facts came to light which
if we had been told earlier, would have seen the bugger being found
guilty for a lot more and he'd've been sent down.

And yes, I did have that much control over the rest of jury.

But there was no way I could have let that happen on the basis of the
evidence we had been given during the trial.  The point of trials is to
keep the not guilty from being punished - that was uppermost in my mind.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

jim - 22 Aug 2008 21:58 GMT
> I ended up chairman on that jury (at the age of 19ish - eek!   When the
> judge asked me to give our verdict, my voice came out as a croak to
> begin with).  I was the one who had been taking notes.  I was the one
> who had the list of evidence.  I was the one who pointed out the absence
> of good evidence for most of what the sod in the dock had been accused
> of.

You are, rather disturbingly, me.

<snip>

> But there was no way I could have let that happen on the basis of the
> evidence we had been given during the trial.  The point of trials is to
> keep the not guilty from being punished - that was uppermost in my mind.

Yep. I hate being the moral anchor[0], but sometimes it has it has to be
done.

Jim
[0] I don't consider myself qualified[1]].
[1] Rather interestingly, there was an active fireman there. Very timid
   bloke. Just goes to show, true heroes[2] have a different view of
   things.
[2] that would be him, just in case anyone was confused.
Signature

"Well, well. We've come a long way from the Prime Minister's
exploding cake." - Adam West, Batman.

http://www.UrsaMinorBeta.co.uk   http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK

Rowland McDonnell - 24 Aug 2008 19:29 GMT
> > I ended up chairman on that jury (at the age of 19ish - eek!   When the
> > judge asked me to give our verdict, my voice came out as a croak to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> You are, rather disturbingly, me.

<bleak chuckle>  Well, maybe the reason things work out okay in these
septic isles is that there's just enough of us decent types to make sure
that things do work out properly.

> > But there was no way I could have let that happen on the basis of the
> > evidence we had been given during the trial.  The point of trials is to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Jim
> [0] I don't consider myself qualified[1]].

That's roughly what I was thinking.

> [1] Rather interestingly, there was an active fireman there. Very timid
>     bloke. Just goes to show, true heroes[2] have a different view of
>     things.
> [2] that would be him, just in case anyone was confused.

Heroism is probably the most common virtue.  Not that I'm trying to
devalue any act of heroism.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Phillip Walters - 23 Aug 2008 10:06 GMT
> I ended up chairman on that jury (at the age of 19ish - eek!

I was chosen as the foreman of our jury on the basis of the fact that I
owned a pen, and was able to write a list of food and drink items to be
brought to the jury room. I appeared to be the most organised person in
the room, and people who know me realise thats far from the truth.

Signature

Phil

http://www.philwalters.co.uk

Rowland McDonnell - 22 Aug 2008 21:24 GMT
> > I've lived in Bolton.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> FFS. How prejudicial is that!? He's not even been convicted of anything
> yet and you're already making him out as a serial offender,

Completely wrong in all respects: I'm looking at a lot of things and
come to the conclusion that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns
out that he is guilty of the particular offences he has been charged
with in this single case.

> just because
> he's that 'type' and has the 'look'...

Try reading my others posts in this thread.

Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.

> You'd probably have him executed as well, 'just to be safe'! Wouldn't you?

In my ideal world, someone who walked around with that look on their
face would have received treatment before they committed any antisocial
crimes of the sort he has been accused of.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Simon Dobbs - 22 Aug 2008 21:59 GMT
> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> reflects your character

I guess that's why I look like an innocent young thing with beautiful
complexion and bright blue eyes- the only lines are laughter lines.

Shame about the gut.

The arse is still pretty pert though, and women lurve my thighs.
Rowland McDonnell - 24 Aug 2008 19:29 GMT
> > Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> > reflects your character
>
> I guess that's why I look like an innocent young thing with beautiful
> complexion and bright blue eyes- the only lines are laughter lines.

There are a disturbingly large number of us about, I think you'll find.

Believe it or not, the lines on my face are mostly laughter lines.

> Shame about the gut.
>
> The arse is still pretty pert though, and women lurve my thighs.

Whereas I get no exercise at all but don't have a gut to speak of.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Bella Jones - 27 Aug 2008 15:15 GMT
> > Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> > reflects your character
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> The arse is still pretty pert though, and women lurve my thighs.

I meant to shudder in response to this post, but didn't get round to it.

Signature

bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk

Pd - 27 Aug 2008 16:37 GMT
> > The arse is still pretty pert though, and women lurve my thighs.
>
> I meant to shudder in response to this post, but didn't get round to it.

I shuddered enough for both of us. I have also removed my eyes with a
corncob fork as a precautionary measure.

Signature

Pd

Simon Dobbs - 27 Aug 2008 17:30 GMT
>>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
>>> reflects your character
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> I meant to shudder in response to this post, but didn't get round to it.

don't you beleive me? I can provide testimonies.
Bella Jones - 29 Aug 2008 21:58 GMT
> >>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> >>> reflects your character
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >
> > I meant to shudder in response to this post, but didn't get round to it.

> don't you beleive me? I can provide testimonies.

Go on then.

Signature

bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk

Simon Dobbs - 30 Aug 2008 23:38 GMT
>>>>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
>>>>> reflects your character
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Go on then.

you, you take things so *literally* you do
I mean, modesty prevents, well
I'm shy.
chris - 25 Aug 2008 08:51 GMT
>>> I've lived in Bolton.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Completely wrong in all respects:

What? Are you saying it's *not* prejudicial to say what you said without
any evidence at all?

Like you said in one of your other posts: "The point of trials is to
keep the not guilty from being punished," which is based on the evidence
presented. Here, there's been no evidence, but still you're matching up
how he looks to the allegations and drawing your own conclusions. That
clearly is prejudicial. By definition.

> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.

Even if someone looks like or even is a criminal it does not mean they
are guilty of everything that they are accused of.

You're wrong, it can't be a 'valid if unreliable guide.' That's an
oxymoron. Something that is unreliable cannot be valid.

> In my ideal world, someone who walked around with that look on their
> face would have received treatment before they committed any antisocial
> crimes of the sort he has been accused of.

<shudder> Are you the new head of pre-crime? sh.t, the end really is nigh.
Rowland McDonnell - 25 Aug 2008 09:26 GMT
> >>> I've lived in Bolton.
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> What? Are you saying it's *not* prejudicial to say what you said without
> any evidence at all?

The evidence is exactly what I said: the way he looks.

The point is that you're supposed to understand what that means, you're
supposed to take it in a certain way.

> Like you said in one of your other posts: "The point of trials is to
> keep the not guilty from being punished," which is based on the evidence
> presented. Here, there's been no evidence, but still you're matching up
> how he looks to the allegations and drawing your own conclusions. That
> clearly is prejudicial. By definition.

Not at all, since my view would have nearly no effect at all on my
analysis of any evidence that I was presented with about his alleged
offences.

I can be sure of that because like everyone, I form an opinion about
people when I look at them; but unlike most people I think about that
opinion, work out what it is, and then apply further thinking to unbias
the bias that my automatic opinion forming causes.  If it weren't for me
thinking the words that I typed above, I would not be able to do that so
I'd be a lot more biased against the bugger than otherwise.

All you can get from the way his face looks is a species of character
assessment.

> > Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> > reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.
>
> Even if someone looks like or even is a criminal it does not mean they
> are guilty of everything that they are accused of.

So what?

> You're wrong, it can't be a 'valid if unreliable guide.' That's an
> oxymoron. Something that is unreliable cannot be valid.

I've met a lot of people with his kind of face.  That's the sort of
Lanky face which once threatened to break my arm - and lots of other
disturbing behaviour.  I've never met anyone with /that/ look to their
face who didn't come across as threatening.

I'm not talking about passing people in the street, I'm talking about
interacting with them, talking to them, and so on.  

Whatever he might or might not have done in particular, I'm certain he's
a nasty piece of work.

<shrug>  There's a scary percentage of aggressively violent thugs in
that part of the world - Manchester's got it bad.  I can spot 'em so I
can avoid 'em.  I've only actually been clobbered by one of 'em -
whereupon I ran like hell (managing to put one of the other two on the
floor with a nicely placed foot - shod with a steel toecap - in the side
of his knee as I did my best to reach Mach 3.  Safety *trainers*, not
boots...).

That part of the world - in Manchester and S. Lancs - has a problem in
its culture that comes out as a certain kind of nasty aggressiveness -
but it's part of the /local culture/ so there's a lot of them like it.
You can see it on their faces.

> > In my ideal world, someone who walked around with that look on their
> > face would have received treatment before they committed any antisocial
> > crimes of the sort he has been accused of.
>
> <shudder> Are you the new head of pre-crime? sh.t, the end really is nigh.

Think of a world designed by Harry Harrison, not PKD.  I said
`treatment', not `erased from society'.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

chris - 25 Aug 2008 13:50 GMT
>>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
>>> reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.
>> Even if someone looks like or even is a criminal it does not mean they
>> are guilty of everything that they are accused of.
>
> So what?

It shows the unreliability of your 'guide'.

>> You're wrong, it can't be a 'valid if unreliable guide.' That's an
>> oxymoron. Something that is unreliable cannot be valid.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> disturbing behaviour.  I've never met anyone with /that/ look to their
> face who didn't come across as threatening.

This could well have something to do with *your* attitude that is
causing that 'kind of face'. Hence why you see a lot of it.

> I'm not talking about passing people in the street, I'm talking about
> interacting with them, talking to them, and so on.  

Ah, yes. It's becoming clearer. You've got an innate ability of pissing
people off.

> That part of the world - in Manchester and S. Lancs - has a problem in
> its culture that comes out as a certain kind of nasty aggressiveness -
> but it's part of the /local culture/ so there's a lot of them like it.
> You can see it on their faces.

Ooh, another gross generalisation.

It's funny, I lived and worked in Manchester for nearly 10 years up
until recently and I never experienced any nasty aggressiveness. I did
get mugged once, but was really too drunk to do anything about it. I
wasn't hurt in any way and they only got about 20 quid.

>>> In my ideal world, someone who walked around with that look on their
>>> face would have received treatment before they committed any antisocial
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Think of a world designed by Harry Harrison, not PKD.  I said
> `treatment', not `erased from society'.

Ah, but what happens when they don't respond to 'treatment'?
Rowland McDonnell - 25 Aug 2008 22:24 GMT
> >>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
> >>> reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It shows the unreliability of your 'guide'.

<puzzled>

But the guide is not meant to give data on what it is that they have
done, so your judgement shows nothing at all.

> >> You're wrong, it can't be a 'valid if unreliable guide.' That's an
> >> oxymoron. Something that is unreliable cannot be valid.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> This could well have something to do with *your* attitude that is
> causing that 'kind of face'. Hence why you see a lot of it.

Well, it could, if it weren't for the fact that that suggestion is
laughably absurd.  And you'd know that if you knew me - which you don't,
which means that your suggestion cannot have any validity.

So what's going on here?  You've come up with an personal attack based
on nothing but your personal prejudice against me personally.

You've made that personally prejudiced personal attack with no basis in
fact, evidence, or reality as a tactic to avoid addressing the issue
that I've brought up.

Consider that this is aggression is problem that I specified that I only
met in Manchester and S. Lancs.

I don't see a lot of it on Merseyside, in Cheshire, in London (or
surrounding counties; I've lived in Middx and Kent), in Wales, the
Midlands (east or west), in Yorkshire, in the South West or even on the
South Coast (not even places like Brighton or Portsmouth or Southampton,
where rough people are often found) - or in fact any part of the UK that
I have visited or lived in aside from Manchester and S. Lancs.

The evidence is that the problem is unquestionably one of aggression in
the local culture of Manchester and S. Lancs.

It's local, you see - put me somewhere else, and I don't meet this
wide-spread aggression.

If it were, as you suggest, a problem with *me*, then I'd meet this sort
of thing everywhere.  But I don't - as you know.  Here's me, pointing
out that your personal attack against my personality was made by you in
a consciously dishonest fashion: you knew it had to be bullshit because
you knew that the problem I met was local to a particular geographical
region so it can't be down to *ME*.

Nasty-minded lies expressed in an excessively aggressive fashion -
that's the behaviour you've just displayed, that is.  You smell like a
typical vilely aggressive Manc, you do (vilely aggressive Mancs are
distinct from decent Mancunian folk).

Furthermore, who says it's just me who's met that sort of thing?  It's
not - it's me and many of my friends and acquaintances.  I have noticed
the local cultural problem with aggression, as have many people I have
known living in Manchester and S. Lancs (anywhere up to about
Blackburn/Oswaldtwistle/Accrington).  We have swapped notes.  I've
suffered a lot less than others I have known - in large part because I'm
capable of being *very* charming and disarming in person as you'd know
if you'd ever met me (unless my head is not on straight, in which case I
tend to get smacked in the face before I have a chance to say anything -
in Manchester, if not in London or on Merseyside).

But there's an interesting point here: the aggressive attitude you are
exhibiting here is exactly the sort of over-the-top totally gratutious
aggression I meet in Manchester - I get the idea that the reason you
think claim that what I see doesn't exist is that you're one of the
nastily aggressive people I have trouble with.

In other words, you're claiming that Mancs aren't nastily aggressive
because they look normal to you - which is true from your point of view,
because you suffer from the same nastily aggressive personality that the
typical nastily aggressive Manc suffers from.

And don't tell me that you don't suffer from that nastily aggressive
personality defect: you've exhibited it in the news posting I'm
responding to.

So pardon me if I take the trouble to keep well clear of you - your
behaviour is socially unacceptable as far as I'm concerned because it's
so nastily aggressive.

I have friends in Manchester even now.  I still visit.  I still meet the
scarily aggressive people - sometimes introduced to them as friends and
acquaintances of those I know.

There's a cultural problem - and you seem to suffer from the same thing.

> > I'm not talking about passing people in the street, I'm talking about
> > interacting with them, talking to them, and so on.  
>
> Ah, yes. It's becoming clearer. You've got an innate ability of pissing
> people off.

It's easy enough to do that in Manchester.  All you have to do is to be
Southern and middle class.

But joking aside, it seems to me that you're exhibiting more of the
nasty in your face aggressiveness that I loathe nastily aggressive Mancs
for - you're one of the type that I'm talking about, regardless of
whether or you got the personality defect from Manchester or somewhere
else entirely.

> > That part of the world - in Manchester and S. Lancs - has a problem in
> > its culture that comes out as a certain kind of nasty aggressiveness -
> > but it's part of the /local culture/ so there's a lot of them like it.
> > You can see it on their faces.
>
> Ooh, another gross generalisation.

Nope, another observation from experience.  Can you not tell the
difference?

> It's funny, I lived and worked in Manchester for nearly 10 years up
> until recently and I never experienced any nasty aggressiveness.

Oh yes you have - but you're nastily aggressive yourself.

You work in a nastily aggressive mode by default, so you you expect that
sort of behaviour from others (anyone who's nastily aggressive like you
are will provoke nasty aggression in others); the fact that there's a
lot of nasty aggressiveness around you is something that's normal for
you.  So you'll not notice any difference: you get people treating you a
certain way wherever you go, because of your antisocially aggressive
default manner.

It's not normal for me to meet nasty aggressive behaviour, since I
generally do not provoke such behaviour (as you do) - only in Manchester
and S. Lancs do I meet a lot of nasty aggression.

> I did
> get mugged once, but was really too drunk to do anything about it. I
> wasn't hurt in any way and they only got about 20 quid.

Ah - well, I've never been in that sort of position.  I've never let
myself be mugged when drunk.  I'm not that stupid.  I've always paid
careful attention to looking after myself.

A cheery smile and a wave has disarmed people I have suspected were
thinking of mugging me on occasion in Manchester.  Lest you think that
was paranoia on my part, this was in Hulme before the re-build at a time
when I was a student and knew a lot of students who *had* been mugged
there.

And this is in an area where I once saw two cars chasing each other,
with gun shots being fired.  I thought `Right, I'm out of the line of
fire at the moment, that's a big lump of reinforced concrete over there
called `the block of flats I live in', my legs seem to be working, ah
good the reinforced concrete is now between me and the guns.'

> >>> In my ideal world, someone who walked around with that look on their
> >>> face would have received treatment before they committed any antisocial
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Ah, but what happens when they don't respond to 'treatment'?

<puzzled>  But I said it was a world designed by Harry Harrison.
Everyone responds to the treatment, which is both fully effective and
fully humane (humane is /very/ important to Harrison).  See what's done
to Angelina in `The Stainless Steel Rat' - one of the first uses of the
method.

Not that you'd read a novel, I don't suppose.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Steve Firth - 25 Aug 2008 22:53 GMT
> <puzzled>  But I said it was a world designed by Harry Harrison.
> Everyone responds to the treatment, which is both fully effective and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Not that you'd read a novel, I don't suppose.

I've read many novels, including several by Mr Harrison including the
one that you refer to. Mr Harrison is a novelist, a fallible human being
making fantasies in which his point of view is the sole rule by which
his world operates and may be judged. His world. His rules.

Anyone who would think that a novelist's rules are applicable outside
that narrow remit is a loon.
Rowland McDonnell - 26 Aug 2008 18:03 GMT
> > <puzzled>  But I said it was a world designed by Harry Harrison.
> > Everyone responds to the treatment, which is both fully effective and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Anyone who would think that a novelist's rules are applicable outside
> that narrow remit is a loon.

Quite - anyone with any wit would understand from the way that I was
proposing that reality should follow a novel that he's not supposed to
take my suggestions entirely 100% seriously.

Your `wit' is limited to nastiness towards others, towards making the
world a worse place.  So you can just f.ck off and die as far as I'm
concerned, you poisonous turd.

Just get off my back.  You're in my killfile - why can't you just crawl
under a rock?

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Steve Firth - 26 Aug 2008 18:06 GMT
> You're in my killfile

Liar.
Simon Dobbs - 25 Aug 2008 23:03 GMT
>>>>> Think about it: by the time you get to *his* age, you've got a face that
>>>>> reflects your character.  It's a valid if unreliable guide.
[quoted text clipped - 177 lines]
>
> Rowland.

the whole world seems to be against this guy. It is a shame.
Rowland McDonnell - 26 Aug 2008 00:32 GMT
[snip scores of lines of unwanted quotation]

> the whole world seems to be against this guy. It is a shame.

It's a shame that you seem unable to engage in rational discussion,
preferring to switch to snide personal abuse any time anyone comes up
with opinions that you do not care for.

It's a shame that you're such an antisocial tosser, but that can't be
helped; the world is full of poisonous dickheads like you.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Simon Dobbs - 26 Aug 2008 13:36 GMT
> [snip scores of lines of unwanted quotation]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Rowland.

QED
Steve Firth - 26 Aug 2008 13:51 GMT
> It's a shame that you seem unable to engage in rational discussion,
> preferring to switch to snide personal abuse any time anyone comes up
> with opinions that you do not care for.
>
> It's a shame that you're such an antisocial tosser, but that can't be
> helped; the world is full of poisonous dickheads like you.

<snork>

And I'll be Rowland McStupid can't see the irony. The reason that the
world seems full of "poisonous dickheads" to you Rowland McBollocks is
because of what you give out.
chris - 26 Aug 2008 15:09 GMT
>> It's a shame that you're such an antisocial tosser, but that can't be
>> helped; the world is full of poisonous dickheads like you.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> world seems full of "poisonous dickheads" to you Rowland McBollocks is
> because of what you give out.

Hey! That observation is mine, keep off!
:)
Rowland McDonnell - 26 Aug 2008 18:00 GMT
> > It's a shame that you seem unable to engage in rational discussion,
> > preferring to switch to snide personal abuse any time anyone comes up
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> world seems full of "poisonous dickheads" to you Rowland McBollocks is
> because of what you give out.

f.ck off and die you poisonous sh.t.

`What I dish out'?  You lying turd!

I've had you in my killfile for years, you nasty piece of work.

You're just a nasty sh.t who likes being nasty and why the f.ck won't
you just f.ck off and leave me alone, you f.cker.

Rowland.

Signature

Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                           Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Steve Firth - 26 Aug 2008 18:06 GMT
> I've had you in my killfile for years,

Liar.
chris - 26 Aug 2008 10:20 GMT
>>> I've met a lot of people with his kind of face.  That's the sort of
>>> Lanky face which once threatened to break my arm - and lots of other
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> laughably absurd.  And you'd know that if you knew me - which you don't,
> which means that your suggestion cannot have any validity.

Obviously I don't know you, but the attitude that comes across from your
prejudiced and snobbish opinions on this thread lead to this, perhaps
glib, suggestion.

> You've made that personally prejudiced personal attack with no basis in
> fact, evidence, or reality as a tactic to avoid addressing the issue
> that I've brought up.

The 'evidence' is your postings in this thread. I thought I was
expressly addressing the 'issue': that your opinion of Mr Atherton is
prejudiced.

> The evidence is that the problem is unquestionably one of aggression in
> the local culture of Manchester and S. Lancs.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If it were, as you suggest, a problem with *me*, then I'd meet this sort
> of thing everywhere.  But I don't - as you know.

I only know that now. You never mentioned before that you haven't had
this elsewhere.

> Nasty-minded lies expressed in an excessively aggressive fashion -
> that's the behaviour you've just displayed, that is.  You smell like a
> typical vilely aggressive Manc, you do (vilely aggressive Mancs are
> distinct from decent Mancunian folk).

So now, you're moving through the senses. First it was sight and now
it's smell. Over usenet too - that's impressive.

However, you couldn't be further from the truth. I have no family
history (that I know of) further north than London, on the English side
of my family. The only affiliation I have with Manc is the good times I
had and good friends I (still) have in and around Manchester.

> But there's an interesting point here: the aggressive attitude you are
> exhibiting here is exactly the sort of over-the-top totally gratutious
> aggression I meet in Manchester.

Am I really being gratuitously aggressive? I think you need to turn your
sensitivity meter down a couple of notches. All I was doing was pointing
out, that based on /my/ experiences, perhaps the effect you are
experiences is not totally disassociated from you. i.e. your observation
is not generally valid. Nor is mine, for that matter, but I'm not
claiming it is.

> In other words, you're claiming that Mancs aren't nastily aggressive
> because they look normal to you - which is true from your point of view,

Exactly my point. Your claim is true from your point of view, as is
mine. Neither is likely to be totally correct in order to make
generalisations.

> because you suffer from the same nastily aggressive personality that the
> typical nastily aggressive Manc suffers from.

Nope. Clearly, you don't know me either...

> And don't tell me that you don't suffer from that nastily aggressive
> personality defect: you've exhibited it in the news posting I'm
> responding to.

OK. If you say so. I think the postings speak for themselves on both sides.

>> Ah, yes. It's becoming clearer. You've got an innate ability of pissing
>> people off.
>
> It's easy enough to do that in Manchester.  All you have to do is to be
> Southern and middle class.

Like me, you mean? I don't claim to have the charm and wit you say you
do, but I do stick out as being non-local in practically the whole of
the UK. I don't have an innate Manc-ness that protects me.

> But joking aside, it seems to me that you're exhibiting more of the
> nasty in your face aggressiveness that I loathe nastily aggressive Mancs
> for - you're one of the type that I'm talking about, regardless of
> whether or you got the personality defect from Manchester or somewhere
> else entirely.

Oh, you were 'joking' were you? Now it's personal! It hurts...

>>> That part of the world - in Manchester and S. Lancs - has a problem in
>>> its culture that comes out as a certain kind of nasty aggressiveness -
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Nope, another observation from experience.  Can you not tell the
> difference?

Yes. It's still a gross generalisation, though.

>> I did
>> get mugged once, but was really too drunk to do anything about it. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> myself be mugged when drunk.  I'm not that stupid.  I've always paid
> careful attention to looking after myself.

I agree, I was stupid to be walking down Whitworth street at 2am heading
towards Piccadilly station and catch a bus home. ;)

The stupid thing I /did/ do was stop, when this girl wanted to ask me a
'question'. Before I knew it she had her hands in my pockets...

> A cheery smile and a wave has disarmed people I have suspected were
> thinking of mugging me on occasion in Manchester.  Lest you think that
> was paranoia on my part, this was in Hulme before the re-build at a time
> when I was a student and knew a lot of students who *had* been mugged
> there.

As students, we /all/ knew other students who'd been mugged. They're an
easy target; young, not very streetwise, often drunk and usually living
in the cheaper/dodgier parts of town. I'd be surprised if Manc were any
worse than any other large city.

> Not that you'd read a novel, I don't suppose.

A hat trick of generalisations, brilliant!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.