Alteredbhoy

Members
  • Content count

    2,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Alteredbhoy

  • Rank
    Forum legend
  • Birthday December 26

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://mumblersmusings.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • 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

6,239 profile views
  1. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    Your posts are priceless Amazon, please don't stop. They're better than a lot of the contributions on the Jokes thread. I wasn't aware that Volvo had joined EFTA. I have tried to find references to this on the internet, but have been unable to find anything. I suspect that you are confusing the car manufacturer Volvo, with the nation Sweden. Volvo produce about 600,000 cars per annum of which about 7% are sold in the UK. The UK exports 20 times more vehicles to the EU than Volvo does to the UK. I have no idea why you think that the relative population and geographical sizes of Sweden and the UK means that Sweden is dependant upon exporting to the UK for its survival. Are you suggesting that Swedish trade to the UK is essential because of the relative sizes? Maybe you could tell me how much trade is done between the UK and Greenland. Greenland is much larger than the UK in land mass and LESS (I'm uncertain why this word has to be capitalised, but you did it, so I will too, to ensure you understand the meaning) than Tonbridge Wells. The population of London is about 160 times BIGGER than that of Greenland. Did Greenland's leaving the EU bring Tonbridge Wells to its knees? No? So how will the Tonbridge Wells leaving the EU bring Sweden to its knees? The Volvo drivers of Tonbridge Wells will hold the entire EU to ransom. I find it very odd that you are in a favour of Brexit, when this will mean that your Danish relatives will be significantly less able to visit you, or you them. Probably more of a benefit to them than you.
  2. Requiem for the Boatman

    Oh well it was pleasant while it lasted. Another account to add to the block list.
  3. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    I'm pleased that the SHQ resident member of the Aryan master race is so attuned to his heritage. I don't quite understand how someone who sees himself as the defender of "our culture" from the hordes of migrants flooding our shores, can also claim to be German and Danish too. Isn't it also a little odd that someone with so strong an English culture has no interest in our national sport? And how exactly does a Swedish car manufacturer support the British car component industry more than any other? If you are so keen on Swedish cars and their integration with UK markets, why one earth did you vote to leave the EU? You have no interest in any person's username, but are bothered apparently by their skin colour, religion and voting intentions. I smell a rat.
  4. Stocking tops, suspender bumps and seams (when seen through the café window). More on my flickr
  5. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    If you are so keen on keeping "our culture alive" (whatever our culture is - probably curry and a German Monarchy, supporting a football team of foreigners, driving a German car while watching an Aussie soap opera on a Japanese TV) why do you choose a username that is a river in South America or a huge tax dodging American corporation. Aren't their any English (I've assumed you are not Scottish, Welsh or Irish) rivers or company names you could choose? I would suggest an amalgam of the London based French Connection UK and the little known tributary of the river Torridge, making your profile name FCUK Duntz It seems much more in keeping with our view of "our culture" don't you think?
  6. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    I find this topic interesting. A lot of [psters have said that BJ is simply saying what everyone (presumably what they) are thinking (i.e. that the burka should be banned). But BJ actually said the exact opposite. He argued that there was no place in British society for laws banning people from wearing clothes. But so as not to appear a total snowflake or melt to those who favour draconian laws, he threw in a casual slur at the end, saying that they looked like letterboxes or bank robbers. All the arguments that posters here make about security and requiring to see a person's face to ensure they aren't concealing a gun, were rejected by BJ, but the insult was thrown out in the hope that those who actually wanted him to come out in favour of a ban, would hear the unpleasant snarl and assume that "he's just saying what we all think". The insult was totally un-necessary and added nothing to his argument, apart from meaning that those who disagreed with his general argument would be confused as to what he actually said (or meant). It's a bit like saying, "Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to voice that opinion. I fully respect that people have the right to an opinion that is different to mine. But if anyone does have an opinion different to mine, then they're obviously stupid". Isn't it truly odd, that a man who goes out jogging wearing clothes that look like a hundred weight of potatoes poured into a mismatched duvet and pillowcase set, finds it appropriate to offer Muslim women fashion advice? Then we come to the argument that there is no mention of the requirement to wear a burka in the Quran, as if somehow its absence from the Quran leads to calls for its bans not being Anti-Islamic. Clearly only things in the Quran are Islamic, so banning something not in the Quran is okay and not discriminatory. That's a bit like saying (well a lot actually) that because there is nothing in the New Testament about people wearing little silver crucifix pendants around their necks, it is not anti-Christian for organisations like British Airways from preventing their employees from wearing them. The Quran also makes no reference of followers of Islam using explosives or cars to attack Londoners. It is therefore inconsistent of people to use the absence of the Burqa from the Koran as an indication that it has nothing to with Islam, but at the same time associate the terrorist offences using items that are not mentioned in the Quran specifically with Islam. Finally (for now) there is a lot of talk about the burqa being forced upon women by the men and being a sign of exploitation and domination. Doesn't it strike posters as odd, that on a website forum about a rarely worn item of female underwear, where the main frequenters are male, often bemoaning the fact that the number of women who voluntarily wear the aforementioned article are complaining because men of another culture encourage their women to wear certain clothes? Neither stockings, nor the Burqa are mentioned in Quran (apparently). Is it acceptable for a Muslim woman to wear stockings under her burqa? As due to it's not being mentioned in the Quran, it is acceptable to call for a ban on the Burqa without it being Islamophobic, is it also acceptable to call for a ban on the wearing of stockings? As because some men force their women to wear the burqa and this leads to calls for a ban, should stockings be banned if men try to persuade their partners to wear stockings for their benefit? There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy.
  7. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    You've also forgotten that he was sacked from the Conservative front bench by Michael Howard, when the Tories were in opposition. He had lied to his boss in answer to a direct question and was then found out. Lying seems to be a character trait for Boris.
  8. Boris Johnson burqa remarks.

    I don't believe Rex Scedric Tudor Caesar that it was the Government that banned hoodies from shopping centres. The breathalyser has been used by the Police in the UK for 50 years and using the consultation or lack of it from 50 years ago is not really a strong argument. Even so, I would fully expect that any change in the blood alcohol limits permitted would be the subject of consultation. However that consultation would be with recognised representatives of organised bodies, such as the NHS, the motoring organisations, possibly representatives of the hospitality industry. There is no organised group representative of drunk drivers. Fortunately, the Government of the UK is nowhere near as dictatorial as you would have it.