• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Alteredbhoy

  • Rank
    Forum legend
  • Birthday December 26

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Peterborough & Brussels
  • Interests
    Stockings, ladies in stockings, politics and statistics (more of an occupational involvement)

    Work regularly takes me to live in foreign countries, but I continue to pop back from time to time to see what is going on.
  • Favourite hosiery brand or style
    Whatever you are wearing

Recent Profile Visitors

4,587 profile views
  1. I don't really care about your view of the UN rowlf. But I agree that Human Rights are the rights of the individual. But all those rights I mentioned are the rights of the individual, in fact the most basic rights which ought to have applied throughout the ages. And that is why the right to own a gun is not on the list, for one reason, because it is an invention of man. It is odd that you mock the rights given by Government when your right to own a gun is just such a right. It seems to me that as with most things, you really don't have much of a clue. So tell me which of the rights I mentioned do you think we're not given to us by God?
  2. What utter tosh rowlf. The Human Rights in which I believe are those espoused by the United Nations. The right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right to freedom of choice in marriage, the right to freedom of thought, religion and expression, the right to be able to work, the right not be discriminated against over irrelevant factors. As a UK and EU citizen, I have all these rights. The rights of Americans to own a gun severely affects the right of life to other Americans. You spout the words Human Tights as if they are a disease. Which of these rights that I have described are the ones that man made and not God?
  3. You see rowlf, that's where we differ. I have no desire to own a gun and no need to own one as the overwhelming majority of the British population do not own one either. So long as just about everyone doesn't own one, then I don't need one and I'm perfectly happy to be part of a society that has collectively agreed it doesn't need guns. The fact that Americans cannot collectively agree such a thing and are prepared to bear the consequences of that lack of agreement says far more about Americans than it does about anything else. A nation that allows its children to be shot at regular intervals in order to satisfy its individualistic needs is selfish and barely deserves to be called civilised. A nation that puts the right to own a firearm above the rights of school children to be safe at school, is sick.
  4. So the best way to deal with mental health issues is to provide teachers with guns? The implication surely being that the teachers will shoot anyone with a mental health issue. "I'm sorry Mrs Cruz, but Freddie was looking a little anxious before his exam this morning and I wasn't sure whether he had a gun or not, so for the safety of the other pupils, I shot him. Better safe than sorry." But what happens if the pressure of carrying a gun causes the teacher to have mental health issues? We had better arm the pupils as well.
  5. Don't mock, these are the people keeping the US free of tyrannical Government. Which one is you rowlf?
  6. Actually the red herring was the Police falsely trying to place the blame for Hillsborough on the shoulders of drunken supporters in order to escape their own criminal liability.
  7. So the US Government's role is to protect you from rampaging Mexicans and Muslims, but couldn't give two figs about whether you are in danger from an American citizen? The Government will protect you from people who live thousands of miles away, but from the looney down the road with the arsenal of weapons? That's your personal responsibility buster. What kind of madness is this?
  8. The argument suggesting social media has caused the rise of school shootings in the US is a total red herring. Correlation is not the same as cause. There has been a massive rise in social media usage in the UK too, without any equivalent increase in school shootings. The difference is (surprise, surprise) the access to a gun. In many topics rowlf has stated that the first purpose of the Government in any state is the defence and security of its citizens. This argument is commonly used as a reason to restrict the rights of immigrants and foreigners. But when the threat comes from gun owning citizens, the right to own a gun suddenly takes priority over the Government's duty to safeguard its citizens. It is a totally inconsistent argument.
  9. Birmingham snowhill

    This made me recall a sighting that I had at Snowhill Station over 20 years ago.
  10. I don't go into Sleaford much anymore, but over the past couple of years I have had a couple of sightings there. Firstly a mother wearing lace top nude hold ups taking her child to the William Alvey school on her bike. The second about this time last year was a middle aged well dressed lady also riding a bike but down Carre Street showing the tops of her black stockings.
  11. I'm right with you there rowlf. If only the UK Government would abolish gun control and let every Tom, Dick and Harriet walk the streets of Wolverhampton packing a six shooter, we'd all be so much happier and relaxed in the UK. Are you for real? I'm really miserable at the thought of not being able to shoot the pedestrian who steps out in front of my car without warning because my Government won't let me own a gun. At least I suppose your shooter wasn't a Muslim or we'd have heard all about it by now. A Muslim with a mental health issue. Absolutely nothing to do with the guns.
  12. Out of the frying pan?

    You seem to think Blott that we can just decide that our future will be a success whatever path we choose to take, but that just is not the case. We will only be successful if choose a path that optimises our chances of success and minimises the risks of failure. Choosing to abandon a free trade agreement with our 27 nearest neighbours, who collectively form the largest trading bloc on the globe, in the vain hope that we can strike better deals with economies around the world led by Donald Trump, the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin, seems to me incredibly reckless. Suggesting that people who simply want the best for the UK, but don't agree with your assessment should leave the Country, is arrogance personified. I am interested interested in counter factual history and the most commonly considered theme is the one where Germany wins the second world war and conquers all of Europe and Soviet Russia, if not the United States. To be honest, this was never likely to happen. Germany was lead by a megalomaniac who believed that things would happen simply because he ordered them. He could never invade and conquer the whole of Soviet Russia, but he tried to do so. He was making plans with Mexico to do the same to the United States. He could have invaded the United Kingdom and had he done so and managed to successfully get his troops across the North Sea unscathed by the Royal Navy, once on land his troops would surely have run amok. However he decided not to and to attack Russia instead. Had he conquered the UK, he would probably have decided to attack Russia at a later date and that too would have sealed his fate. The one thing history teaches us, is that evil only succeeds in the short term. In the long term it collapses and is replaced with good governance. Sometimes it is replaced by force, such as Nazi Germany was, and others it just withers and dies, like Soviet Russia, Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile. Had Germany conquered the UK in 1940, I doubt that the society in which we live now would be much different today. Nazi Germany would have been defeated by the Americans, or the Russians and probably both at some point. The United Kingdom would have returned to a democracy and would probably have joined France and Germany in the founding of the EEC rather than standing on the sidelines feeling superior to both. Except that having been defeated militarily, the United Kingdom (and England especially) would not hold the attitude that it continued to be a superpower.