Jamie123

Yesterday I drove my daughter back to university, and (paranoid as usual) I was dreading being dragged into an argument on this subject. I was even rehearsing my "defence" ("Am I the Supreme Court? Am I? Yes or no? No. I'm not, am I? I'm just your Dad. So it's no use your complaining to me, is there?"). All nonsense. She didn't say a single word about it, though I'm wondering now if she's even heard the news. It wouldn't surprise me if she hasn't, since she's been living with my wife who is not very interested in following the news. (Though she did seem to know about Pope Francis.) Now she's (they're) back at university I'm sure her (their) LGBTQ+(?) friends will have plenty to say on the subject. Actually it was quite a good day - though not without complications. When I arrived at my wife's apartment I found out I'd brought the wrong suitcases, so my wife went to Primark to buy another one which annoyed me momentarily ('coz I'm an old skinflint who doesn't like spending money). Then it turned out the Easter egg I got for my wife was white chocolate (which over the past two years of separation I'd forgotten she didn't like) so I went to Poundland to get her another. Of course, Easter eggs were all sold out, but I did find a whole stack of those new non-orange Terry's chocolate oranges on the top shelf. When I tried to get them down they toppled over and rained down on me like hailstones. About twenty of them hit me square in the face and broke my glasses. Luckily it was only the frames that were broken, not the lenses. When I went to the opticians, the only frames they had that fit the lenses looked like the ones David Tennant wore when he was Doctor Who... ...so I thought at least I'll look like David Tennant, which is kinda cool. But when my wife and daughter saw me they said I didn't look at all like David Tennant and I just looked dorky. Well, there you go. Anyway, we had driven for well over an hour before my daughter realized she had forgotten to pack her medicine. There was no way I was going to turn back at that stage (the sun was already well over the yard arm) so we had the whole rigmarole of trying to get an emergency prescription before the shops closed. Luckily we managed it, though it wasn't cheap. Then when I was taking my wife home, I had another guilt-inducing experience where this guy behind me wasn't happy about how fast I was driving kept flashing me. I nearly always enter into an imaginary dialogue with these people. Driver behind: [Flash flash flash] Me: "Yeah whatever. Flash flash flash." Driver behind: [Flash flash flash] Me: "Yes I heard you first time." Driver behind: [Flash flash flash] Me: "Listen maty, if you don't like how fast I'm going you can quite easily overtake me. I'm not going any faster just to please you, so keep your flashy flash-flash to yourself." My wife really hates it when I do that. I pointed out that I didn't do anything to retaliate, but it still triggers her. I ought to know better, but when you've got a flashy-flashy-flashman on your tail it's not easy to keep your mouth shut. Finally got back to my house about midnight. But on the whole, it could have been a worse day.

Correct - though it's more often abbreviated UKSC. It's what used to be called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (Law Lords), which was a subcommittee of the House of Lords devoted to legal matters. They are now quite separate from the Lords, though the judges still have the courtesy title "Lord" (or "Lady").

Yes I know Pope Francis is dead (and peace be upon him) but something else happened this past weekend which is causing much more of a splash: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/19/europe/uk-supreme-court-biological-woman-intl/index.html The Supreme Court has ruled that as far as the Equality Act 2010 goes, gender is defined by what a person was born as, not how they choose to identify. Right now Starmer-schmarmer is keeping a very low profile, but from here on he can't use the Equality Act to justify allowing trans-women into female-only spaces, or allowing trans-women to beat the socks off actual women in women's sports. I'm seeing my "child" this coming Thursday and I'm taking her (them) back up to college Friday. I may be worrying unnecessarily (she knows I'm a disgraceful reactionary Neanderthal) but I'm a bit uneasy about what to say if she brings it up. And to be honest, I think this may be a false dawn for "real gender" anyway. If I understand correctly, all the government needs to do is to get a new law passed to replace the 2010 act, making it explicit that "woman" includes trans-women, and the Law Lords' ruling becomes completely moot.

Many years ago I knew a Scottish ex-Catholic JW convert. He was always coming to visit me, sometimes alone and sometimes with his wife. I liked both of them a lot. He was an ex army man, who had also been an officer in the Royal Air Force. I also sometimes used to talk to his wife when I was on the bus into town. She was a very pretty woman, but she had a strange skin condition that made her come out in red blotches. This worried me the first time I saw it but she assured me she was fine. (Don't know why I'm telling you this detail - I'm rambling.) Anyway, on one occasion he asked me "do you know who the God of this world is?" and was gobsmacked when I answered "the Devil". He wanted to know how I knew this, and I said it was traditional Christian doctrine and had been for centuries. This was news to him. He said he had had no idea until he had met the JWs. It may not be talked about much - especially these days - but it's right there in scripture. The Devil promised to give Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" if he would worship him. Its there throughout Christian literature: to give you one example, it is the entire premise of C.S. Lewis' "Cosmic Trilogy". I didn't tell him (though maybe I should have!) that he must have very poorly explored traditional Christianity before rejecting in favour of JWism.

Mr. Sherlock Holmes and his friend Dr. Watson went camping together. One night, as they lay looking up at the starry sky, Holmes said: "Watson, what do you see up there?" Watson replied; "I see thousands and thousands of stars." "And what does that tell you?" asked Holmes? "Well, Holmes," said Watson. "It tells me that the universe is vast beyond comprehension. Each of those stars is a sun, with worlds of its own, which may have beings on them who are looking up at the stars just as we are, asking whether they are alone in the universe." Holmes was silent for a few moments. "What does it tell you, Holmes?" asked Watson at last. "It tells me," said Holmes slowly. "That someone has stolen our tent!"

https://daggionline.blogspot.com/2005/10/when-im-in-heaven.html?m=1

...so time for a bit of highly offensive cultural appropriation! Yakki-da everybody!

I've not made any secret of the fact that, although I'm still a practicing Anglican, I'm not a great fan of the Church. So I don’t totally disagree with your assessment of it. I suppose I get a kind of comfort from the continuity the Church of England provides - stretching back to Saint Augustine - to a time even before England was a single country. You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

I also wonder whether Collins really was such a "good vicar". It's worth noting that a gentleman-priest in those days was not so much a pastor or a preacher serving his flock, as a Church tax collector. He could employ some poorly-connected nobody to do the actual vicaring (for the 18th century equivalent of "minimum wage") and spend his time collecting tithes from wealthy (and poor) farmers, or ingratiating himself with potential patrons in the hope of acquiring new parishes to milk wealth from.

Better to have been a happy oyster...

We might all be oysters in the cosmic oyster bed...

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins Enjoy what you have and take delight in every small thing. And give no thought to what other people think of you. Could this be the long sought-after key to happiness?

I think "whole life order" means you will never be released alive. Its quite rare - most murderers do get out eventually, but some are considered so bad that they get "whole life" sentences.

And the judge. I know old Rumpole aways complains about "The Judge for the Prosecution" (he nearly always defends) but at least in theory the judge is neutral.

I know this has nothing to do with the insane vs. evil debate, but I have always been totally against the death penalty. I agree that if Axel Rudakubana were some isolated case which set no precedent there might be a case for it, but you can be sure that if it were allowed for him it would soon be applied to many other less clear cut cases. People are convicted of murder on purely circumstantial evidence, and sometimes these same people are later found innocent. They may have lost years of their lives, but they can still be let out of prison. No hanged man can ever be let out of the grave. One of the most heart-rending cases was Stefan Kiszko, who had an emotional age if 12 and was told by the police he could go home for Christmas if he confessed to murdering a little girl called Lesley Molseed. He had a useless defence in the form of Lord "Toad-Face" Waddington QC and he spent 16 years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Aside from many other inconsistencies in the prosecution, he suffered from hypogonadism and could not produce headed sperm. The sperms found on the victim had heads. Later still, DNA evidence was used to find the real killer who is now thankfully behind bars. But had capital punishment not been abolished, Kiszko would have been hanged. Now you may say that Kiszko and others like him are rare cases, and that most murder convictions are safe. If a few innocent people need to be killed on order to create a deterrent against others committing murder then its a "price worth paying". (Though it's funny how the people who use that phrase are never the ones who are going to have to pay the price.) But as Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." But is it true that the death penalty deters potential murderers? That question needs to be answered by evidence, not blind supposition. Ok rant over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czepl8406n8t You're going to hate me for saying this, but I cannot believe that Axel Rudakubana is sane. It's no use telling me he's "perfectly sane, just evil". He's not. "Perfectly sane" people, even if they're evil, do not go around stabbing little girls for no reason, and with no regard for the consequences to themselves. He's now in prison for life. True, he could be released on license when he's 70 (assuming he survives five decades in prison) but he probably won't be. He's thrown his life away for no other reason that he likes to play stabby-stabby with little children. That is not "sanity". He belongs in a very secure mental institution, for however long it takes him to be properly cured, with no guarantee that he will ever be released.

Now how to waste the rest of Friday afternoon...

That reminds me a tiny bit of an early 1980s comedy sketch I have never been able to find since. It's at a chess tournament, where a very dignified Grand Master (played by Mel Smith) is getting thrashed by the scruffy, nose-picking preteen "Wonder Boy of Chess" (played by a very young Rowan Atkinson). The commentator is saying "And what will this revered veteran do at this moment of humiliating defeat?" Suddenly Mel Smith stands up, cuffs Rowan Atkinson round the head, and starts blubbing like a baby. P.S. I found it. Mandela effect at work here. It wasn't Mel Smith, it was some other geezer. Plus it was Atkinson who blubs at the end.

The question was rhetorical, but I think you guessed that! Most people on YouTube agreed with me, but a few did seem to find it funny. It might have been funny in a cartoon, but not with a real animal.

There are some really lovely animal videos. I used to like watching the ones with the cat and the otter playing together. I don't know if they're still online.

Poor kitty! Am I the only person who not only finds this not funny, but who thinks that whoever set it up should be made to share a bed with Mr. Pinchy and all his brothers and sisters?

Another example aside from "tart" is "pussy". I understand in the US, this is primarily vulgar slang for female genitalia, though the original meaning of "cat" still survives (just). For example in the Tom and Jerry cartoons, whenever Tom interrupts Spike's nap with his violent pursuit of Jerry, Spike grabs him and says "Now listen here, pussy cat!" There's also Tweety bird saying: "I tought I taw a puddy tat". In the UK it's the other way around: the primary meaning is still "cat" but we are well aware of the secondary meaning, and the cross-reference is a frequent source of bawdy humour. There used to be a popular comedy show called Are You Being Served, which featured a character called Mrs. Slocombe (played by Mollie Sugden). At least once in every episode, Mrs. Slocombe would make an innocent comment about her cat, which was always open to alternative interpretation. Examples: "My pussy was in such a state this morning!" "Mr. Humphries, leave my pussy alone!" In an interview years later, the show's writer David Croft said "Mrs. Slocombe was talking about her cat! Anything else was entirely in your mind!" Which was absolutely true!

Hours vs. Ours just made me remember this from the 1980s. https://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI?si=ckiF5vQ2i8JNLvGs "No they're not ours, they're hours, h. o. u. r. s. No, not h-ours, hours. It's silent!!! I don't know!!!!"

Many many years ago a coworker was surprised that I knew what a whore was. I don't know where he thought I went to school, but even if I'd read nothing but the Bible, I'd not have avoided knowing about prostitution. It shows how much scripture he'd read.

As You Like It Act 2 scene 7. In Shakespeare's time the h was not silent, so he was actually making a rather naughty pun which goes unnoticed today.