View Full Version : What is happening to society?

11th May 2004, 11:08
Been wondering this for a while now. I moved out of the UK in 1999 and it seems to me, from the outside looking in, that society is degenerating more and more as time goes by.

Take this mornings headlines on the BBC:

Sex attacker drags girl into car - Greater Manchester. Police are advising women to avoid going anywhere on their own at night.

A five month old wallaby was kicked to death by three children aged between eight and eleven at Dudley Zoo.

Relaxing drinking laws could lead to an increase in violent crime.

A third man is charged with kicking a man to death in Bristol.

Teenagers are putting lives in danger taking drugs and setting fires in derelict warehouses in Aldershot.

Admittedly things like this have been going on for years - but they seemed to be much fewer and further between. This is a small selection from one mornings news for goodness sake.

Is Britain really degenerating into lawlessness and more to the point what can be done to reverse the trend?

11th May 2004, 11:11
Yes Britain is collapsing around us at the moment, and we are in dire need of strong leadership to stamp this out and get the country back on track.

The country has gone soft over the years and it's time to make some major changes, but not sure who's out their that's got the guts and determination to do it.

11th May 2004, 11:14
What we need is a new Cromwell-a benevolent dictator.

Hopefully not such a [email protected][email protected] though!

11th May 2004, 12:14
Try and get it into the heads of PC-luvvie-do-gooders that discipline is not the same as child abuse, and that telling a child off for doing wrong is not breaching their human rights.

Couple that with putting everyone who defends criminals ahead of victims, i.e. most of the CPS, onto a distant island and nuking it and we should start to get somewhere.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 12:44
Yeh and lets add the Campaign for Civil liberties, and Ammnesty International to the list, be a lot of wimmin with chaps haircuts and steel rimmed glasses wandering about that island though just been two of em on the news, bloody clones of each other.


11th May 2004, 12:52
Whatever your political stance, someone like Mrs. T is what we need. She defeated virtually everyone she took on (with the exception of her own party) and had the courage and conviction to see things through to the end. I personally feel that the majority of what she achieved turned out to be right for the country (although it sometimes didn't feel like it at the time).

11th May 2004, 12:55

I don't live in the UK but your questions are the same ones normal people are raising all over the world, at least in western democracies. Those not fortunate enough to live in such free thinking societies never get the chance to complain about anything.

Everything you complain about happened in previous generations; nothing is new under the sun. They may or may not be more common now, or they may just be more openly reported. It reminds me of the difference between the Kennedy and Clinton years. Both of them would have shagged a black dog on a chain; in 1962 the journalists knew but said nothing, in 1996 the journalists couldn't wait to be first to get the story on the front page.

In one sense I'm glad. The old days of husbands "owning" wives and bashing them at will, of fathers sexually abusing children without anybody feeling free to report it are thankfully gone. To those who wish to revert to those days I say you have a nasty secret agenda. Let there be more openness in exposing these predators.

In another way it's sad because every cycle tends to be taken to extremes. I share the contempt of a lot of people here for the do-gooders to whom everybody is a victim but nobody a perpetrator. If we are going to be heard in our attempts to make things more just for our children, let both sides be heard. May I give a general example?

Mrs B is a social worker who used to specialise in the field of child abuse. Over 25 years I have shared a lot of desperation and tears over some of the things she has seen. It is difficult to describe the depths of human depravity.

Now have a think about the tabloid headlines we all see. Example 1: Heartless Welfare Takes Child From Innocent Parents!

(Cut to story of "innocent and heartbroken parents just doing their best under difficult circumstances"... blah blah)

Example 2: "Child Bashed! Where was the Welfare We All Pay For?" ... cut to photos of bashed baby with story of nasty single parents out on alcohol and drugs with the inevitable results... Why do we pay our taxes for these bludging social workers when our intrepid reporters can easily uncover situations like this?

It's very comforting to sit on your arse and blame it all on "luvvies", but you can't have it both ways. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Stop forming your opinions from tabloid newpapers and learn to think for yourself. There really are two sides to EVERY story.

11th May 2004, 13:03
Agree with timmcat, someone with the fortitude and determination of Maggie is needed to knock the ivory tower, luvvie PC do gooders heads together and bring them back to reality. What is needed is someone to remind everyone of the values of personal responsibility, the need to look after oneself and not expect the government to bail oneself out on every occassion, and to instill a sense of pride in our country and environment so we can put the 'great' back into Great Britain.


Notso Fantastic
11th May 2004, 13:05
Bring back Maggie. It was unforgivable those Tory wets cutting away the ground under her, and we (and they) have been paying ever since. And Major condemned us to at least 2 Labour terms. Woe is us!

11th May 2004, 13:19
There have been many threads on this Board knocking Religion (all religion, not any one in particular).

I'm no Bible thumper myself, but I do think there is a clear correlation between the decline in religious belief and the rise of anti social behaviour. Community spirit, and respect for others which was engendered into most religious beliefs has been replaced by materialism and the ME culture.

Maybe Religion wasn't such a bad thing after all, huh?

11th May 2004, 13:58
I'm not a Thatcherite (don't think I'm an anything-ite in today's political climate...), however, one positive attribute to Thatcher was that she wasn't backwards at coming forwards, therefore people were polarised into taking sides and discussing the implications whether they agreed or not.

From what I can see with Bliar his only doctrine is that of retaining power. IMHO his policy sends a message to the populous of "do whatever the hell you want, just don't get caught". We've seen innumerable instances where this ethic has been applied to his cohorts, such as the Jo Moore email...Tip of the iceberg methinks.

At least when you have a leadership that is outspoken people can take one side or other, with the current grinning sociopath no one knows what the hell they stand for.

11th May 2004, 14:17
It's all down to discipline, good manners and consideration, now in decline in the once good old UK. :(

11th May 2004, 14:41
Ironic that people are calling for another 'Maggie' in a thread which asked 'What is happening to society?'.

Maggie once famously said "There is no such thing as society".

It was a revealing comment. If you believed in her ideology, the breakdown in 'society' values is the price you have paid. She was a strong leader, no doubt, and had a generally good record on economics, although she pushed her ideology obsessively in cases where it would never work - Poll Tax/privatisation of the railways etc. Many of 'society's' ills are a direct result of her flawed world view.

I agree that there has been a breakdown in moral values, the secularisation of society has a lot to do with it, despite the fact I am strongly opposed to religion - it served some positive purposes. The new religion that Thatcher brought to Britain was the worship of money.

I'm not going to level the blame entirely at Thatcher - the PC left have to take a share of the blame, but it was Thatcher's divisiveness and polarization of the political scene that is perhaps most responsible in my view.

It was not Major who lost the election in 1997, it was Thatcher, the British voters just were not prepared to elect Kinnock in 1992 as he was still tarred with the brush of loony left years. No chance of a Tory victory next year either.

11th May 2004, 14:51
Being very simplistic and this is a big generalisation, parents and schools are not allowed to punish children who therefore grow up with no respect whatsoever for authority.

The children then, at an early age start their lives of crime, intimidation, bullying, all the epithets you can think of. They get caught and are lightly reprimanded. They grow into adulthood with even less respect for anything good or moral.

Invariably they end up in a police cell and then to Court, which then releases them and puts them on probation. They offend again and are (sometimes) sent to prison but are let out having served very little time of the original sentance. And so on.

The Courts need to uphold the police and general public, lets have some stiff prison sentences and if it is for ten years, let it be for ten years. It wont take long for these delinquents/thugs whatever you want to call them to realise that they could be losing a large chunk of their freedom. As has been said many times, what about justice for the victims of this abhorrent behaviour.

I do not wish to go into the rights and wrongs of what is going on in the Middle East or war in Iraq etc, nor to their particular way of life as this is not the purpose of this thread.

I understand, the children of an average Muslim family (and also many far eastern families) are brought up to respect all, and especially older members of society. The few I know are polite and respectful. Their justice system I believe, is swift and sharp and possibly to us over the top. However, I understand that it is probably safer to walk in those Middle Eastern towns than it is in London, Glasgow and Manchester.

I don't suppose you see many such headlines in the Middle East as appeared last week in the UK press '83 year old woman raped' how sick is that.

Onan the Clumsy
11th May 2004, 14:55
What do you think it was like in Victorian Britain? Do you suppose people weren't getting kicked to death by the score in darkened streets? Or that women were advised to stroll around on their own?

Was religion a major social force then? Was Great Britain aptly named? Was there a luvvie left? Was there a sense of personal responsibility?

I don't think much has changed really.

11th May 2004, 15:04
Wedge, if you are going to quote someone, put it in context. Here it is in the context of the interview "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Never truer words spoken if you ask me.


11th May 2004, 15:16
Wise words there Ozzy.

I totally agree with what Mrs T said there. Entitlement / benefit MUST come from obligation.

'Lazy, never worked in my life and never intend' too types should not get benefits of any sort. It has always been my belief that those classed as unemployed, who are able to work, but not actively looking should be put to good use to do whatever the local community needs. To gain benefits they must actually earn those benefits in the same way that I earn my salary.

I am sure that the majority of those who can't be bothered to work can be trained to perform one of many jobs that are in desparate need now. How many are 'officially' unemployed? I think it was something like 800,000 recently. That's an awful lot of people that could be working for the government / local councils in order to clean up and (you could argue) rebuild the country.

Of course, benefits payments would then be called wages. Sounds communist doesn't it, but communism is a good concept that has in history been abused by some very corrupt individuals.

Just need someone to stand up and say...if you don't have the intention to work then we have no intention to pay you any benefit.

Windy Militant
11th May 2004, 15:56
Things were better under Maggie were they?
We don't seem to have had any major outbreakes of Civil unrest lately. I seem to recall that when the grocers daughter was in charge they were all the rage! (so to speak)
Or have we forgotten Brixton, Toxteth and St Pauls. :rolleyes: ;)

tony draper
11th May 2004, 16:05
We had have something similar in the North West WM.

11th May 2004, 16:23

I agree, where I live, if you receive unemployment benefit the government puts you to work in the community (if you are physically and mentally able) or you dont get the benefit - the system works quite well


Seems similar but surely we should have moved on a bit since then? We have in most other things


11th May 2004, 16:32
Let me see now, other strong leaders who had a deeply held belief in what they were doing:

Adolf Hitler
Josef Stalin
Pol Pot
Mao Zedong

You can say what you like about them but they certainly sorted out their countries. Reduced crime got the trains running on time and got rid of all those that didnt agree. Damnit, why can't we have more strong authoritarian leaders?


surely not
11th May 2004, 17:07
Oh boy there are some entrenched views in this thread!!

In my opinion one of the biggest negatives of the Thatcher years was the acceptance of the 'get on at any cost' mentality. Success and money was the creed and don't worry how you get it. People adopted a 'look after number 1 and sod the rest' attitude. Compassion was seen as weakness, tolerance as indecisiveness and buliding for the future was replaced by get what you can today.

During the Thatcher years we had Punk music, allegedly the music of dissatisfied youth; glue sniffing was all the rage, and glue sniffers were blamed for numerous vicious assaults on old ladys; the Police were taken from the streets and into squad cars where they were said to be more effective; the family silver was given away cheaply to her cronies as with BA to Lord King, the railways and buses to Conservative party sponsors all at below cost; Unemployment was a massive problem and growing; Council houses were sold off, then the interest rates went through the roof so many homes were sold as fire sales to landlords; sleaze surrounded her govt. in a far worse way at the end than has happened subsequently.

On the plus side she sorted out the overpowerful unions. She negotiated strongly with Europe, accepting that we should remain in for trade reasons, but not as a footstool for others. Initially she was able to listen to all sections of the party, but alas this didn't last and that was when she became megolamaniac.

The lager louts and loutesses of today are the product of parents from her time of government. The lack of parental control is mainly by parents who started their families during her years in office and were subject to her Govts ideals.

Teachers would love to have a greater control of children in their classes, but the minute they do the Parents go in and start laying down the law and threatening them. The judges and juries make the decisions that are now considered soft and ineffective, yet many of these grew up in the years of Thatcher.

If there is a decline in standards it is because people turn a blind eye to those bringing the standards down. How many parents talk with their children about what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't? It's easier to pack them off to boarding school or leave them in front of the telly, or leave them playing violent video games.

Surely we all have to take some responsibility for falling standards?

11th May 2004, 18:05
surely not

Punk began in 1976 in the USA so I don't think that the Thatcher govt caused that to happen. Youth always rebels no matter what external influences are present.
As for unenployment wasn't the First Election slogan "Labour isn't working" there was large unemployment before she came to power and the effect of thw sweeping changes to Trades Unoion Laws was to allow employers to more easily get rid of employees during "modernisation"
Sleaze. The only difference I can see between the two parties is The Tories were greedy for money and sex and Labour is greedy for power, at least when a Tory was caught he more often than not had the good grace to fall on his sword as opposed to this bunch of corrupt, decietful liars.
IMHO European Law has done more to undermine the ability of people to determine how to raise their children than helped them.
Having said all that I full agree with your final statement, we should all take reponsibility for our own and (if you have them) our offsprings behaviour and we should have the ability to raise those children without interference (within reason of course) from external parties.

11th May 2004, 18:14
We've all sat back and watched it happen because it was easier not to get involved, so we're all to blame.

11th May 2004, 18:43
It's not rational to say we are all to blame. There are a lot of good people in the UK doing excellent work, and bringing up their kids beautifully. Unfortunately it's an uphill struggle with no end in sight. My view, which I know won't be popular, is that Thatcher's over-long reign ruined the people's will and spirit.

Employment protection rights destroyed. High unemployment, with the figures being constantly "adjusted". Mass repossessions of property. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

I'm sure we all remember wonderful statements like: "The rate of rise in unemployment has slowed down this month". The people knew in the end that nobody cared, and the obvious end result of that is the "stuff you - I'm alright" attitude that now prevails.

Contributors above are right to say that a lot of parents are failing to instil the right values in their offspring, but bear in mind that those parents are depressed and fed up with the constant financial struggle just to survive in the UK.

I do not for one minute agree that these awful things have "always happened". There are some hideous atrocities going on now, being committed by younger and younger people. Publicly we see, for example, Jeffrey Archer getting lenient treatment, and have-a-go heroes being imprisoned by idiot judges.

Blair hasn't really got to grips with criminal justice, but if Maggie was back today she wouldn't crack it either. We are a very long way down the slippery slope now.

11th May 2004, 18:57
It's not rational to say we are all to blame. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...."those who disagree with me are irrational".

That explains the straitjacket, then............. :ooh:

11th May 2004, 18:58
As one of my bosses used to say, don't bring me problems bring me solutions. So, we all know that the country is shafted and in need of change, but what changes are needed and how can it be done?

Any suggestions?

11th May 2004, 19:35
A couple of off-the-cuff suggestions that would improve things IMHO:

The end of private funding for the main 3 political parties. I realise many will object to this, but feel the miniscule tax rise required for implementation will be a small price to pay. All the 3 main parties would have the same amount to spend on a campaign. Have no idea of the maths, but I can't see it costing the taxpayer more than a quid or two a year each, small price for an end to corporations dictating legislation. No more Ecclestone-esque fiascos.

A GENUINELY independent press complaints / standards / ethics committee, not the "self policed" PCC we have now...

11th May 2004, 20:19
Oh yes - sorry - we are all to blame. I was mistaken, there isn't one good person left in the UK to fight the good fight.

11th May 2004, 20:34
Thank you, spork. These straps chafe something cruel, you know...........

11th May 2004, 21:42
Margaret Thatcher NEVER privatised the Railways. Both she and Nicholas Ridley considered it an impossibility.

The Railways were privatised under that complete to**er Major.

Bliar and his henchmen promised to take back into public ownership which was why the price for the assets was so low.

When Bliar got into power he backtracked...and interestingly enough look at the number of Labour supporting senior managers (and Bliar cronies) in the privatised railway companies now.

The Bliar Government (surely a contradiction in terms) had ample opportunity to put matters right but as with everything else they touch, they made a mess of it. Hence we have the Network Rail (or NOTwork Rail) situation.

So if you must blame someone for the Railways you now know who really is to blame.

11th May 2004, 21:51
So, is that Blair, Major, or both? :confused:

11th May 2004, 22:02

Major for the pathetic need to show 'something' for posterity.

Bliar (and his henchmen) for for public utternaces that forced and kept down the price of the assets so that it really did become 'bargain basement' stuff.

Bliar and his Government for not taking action to take the Railways back into public ownership or similar.

Bliar for his failure to manage the inevitable demise of Railtrack.

Bliar for the continued propping up of a broken system.

Bliar for allowing the SRA and the Rail Regulator to continue as they have.

Bliar for a situation where the terms railways, cronies, subsidies, state support (sorry....'investment' !) now spring to mind.

You will find many interesting comments made by Gwyneth Dunwoody, the Chairlady of the Railways Select Committe and a committed Labour MP and person in respect of the present situation on the Railways, and the lack of leadership shown since 1997.

Although not of her Political persuausion I have meet and talked with the lady and have great admiration for her.

11th May 2004, 22:03
Although not of her Political persuausion I have meet and talked with the lady and have great admiration for her. See - I knew we had something in common. :ok:

You could also add the "feather-bedding" of Virgin Rail to Bliar's list of iniquity.

11th May 2004, 22:14
Now that would have been very dangerous for me.

14th May 2004, 12:36
At the risk of depressing everyone, I post the following link:


I assume it doesn't breach any copyrights.

14th May 2004, 13:15
I read that teacher diary in the paper issue of Private Eye. It's saddening and depressing, and knowing several in or recently departed from the teaching profession, none were surprised by what they read when I showed it to them.

What's the cause of all this in our schooling? Removal of all avenues of effective discipline for teachers and support staff? A more general lack of respect among children? Politically correct inclusion of the most disruptive? Could go on and on....



Ace Rimmer
14th May 2004, 15:43
Had the pleasure of interviewing Ms Dunwoody and have met her of more than a few occaisions - again not of her political stripe but I have nothing but admiration for the woman.

14th May 2004, 15:55
I have responsibility for a very large number of young people and can honestly say that 99% of them are good kids. The other 1% are toerags who take up a disproportionate amount of staff time and by default leave one, sometimes, thinking that the whole barrel is full of bad uns. At this point it has to be a good old dose of perspective.

That said, Mrs 4f recently chastised an 8 year old who dropped some sweet wrappers in the school playground. Said child was mortified and replied that it was the teachers job to clear up after them. After a little kind education, child deposited litter in nearby bin. At that age it can only come from parental example.

14th May 2004, 16:40
It's all down to discipline, good manners and consideration, now in decline in the once good old UK

er....when was that then?

14th May 2004, 18:00
This topic was addressed a few years ago by the Statler Brothers:

Everybody knows when you go to the show
You can't take the kids along
You've gotta read the paper
And know the code of GPG and R and X
And you gotta know what the movie's about
Before you even go
Tex Ritter's gone and Disney's dead
And the screen is filled with sex

Whatever happened to Randolph Scott
Ridin' the train alone
Whatever happened to Gene and Tex
And Roy and Rex, The Durango Kid
Oh, whatever happened to Randolph Scott
His horse plain as could be
Whatever happened to Randolph Scott
Has happened to the best of me

Everybody's tryin' to make a comment
About our doubts and fears
True Grit's the only movie
I've really understood in years
You gotta take your analyst along
To see if it's fit to see
Whatever happened to Randolph Scott
Has happened to the industry

Whatever happened to Johnny Mack Brown
And Alan Rocky Lane
Whatever happened to Lash LaRue
I'd love to see them again
Whatever happened to Smiley Burnette
Tim Holt and Gene Autry
Whatever happened to all of these
Has happened to the best of me
Whatever happened to Randolph Scott
Has happened to the industry


14th May 2004, 18:18
Well said Binos on page 1. While death and taxes are the only certainties in life, I think you can add another one to that list. The older generation will always whinge about the current generation and will forever go on about the "good old days.." The grass was always greener, summers warmer....etc

This is how its always been throughout time. Has nobody read any of Dickens' brilliant works? Victorian Britain in the inner cities was a vile place.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
14th May 2004, 18:41
The Railways were privatised under that complete to**er Major.

Bliar and his henchmen promised to take back into public ownership which was why the price for the assets was so low.

Hang on. Am I missing something? Tosspot Major sells the Rail assets off for peanuts, but what has that got to do with Princess Tone? If he had wanted to buy back the assets, he would have to have paid the then market price, not the price Major sold them for.

That was just unaffordable.

I have no time at all for the useless smoke-and-mirrors bunch of high-taxing non-deliverers we have in power at the moment, but Major's giving away of the the national asset of the railways for next to nothing is worse than anything Tone's lot have done. It was rushed through in a fit of pique in the last dieing days of that government. Those that did it should be held personally liable for the difference in value between what those assets were worth and what we got for them.


15th May 2004, 01:44
Yes, Wedge, that is what she said:
Maggie once famously said "There is no such thing as society".

Would you like to complete the quotation so that we all have her full meaning?

15th May 2004, 04:14
It's going to hell because it's overrun with people.

Boss Raptor
15th May 2004, 10:11
We should borrow President Putin and the (ex) FSB boys

15th May 2004, 14:19
The brilliant comic Bernie Mac said it best:

"Ain't but two things keep a kid in line. Church, and whuppins.
Big Momma used to hit me so hard, make my teeth click...."

15th May 2004, 14:44
Bring back hanging the birch and a classed society where people know and accept they place

Discipline parents for the lack of parental control

Deport all the immigrants the nation will be a better place

15th May 2004, 15:06
These are Mrs Thatcher's words that followed "no such thing as society":
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.

15th May 2004, 16:18
Hanging the birch & accept they place :confused:

Being a bit cryptical there Engineer?

Just looked up the meaning of deport to make sure I didn't misunderstand your intention: to eject (an alien) forcefully from a country.
Can't fault you there; don't want hordes of those pesky green eyed ETs taking over The Home Land do we now?

Davaar, don't know enough about the intricacies of Mrs Thatchers policies to comment on them, but can't fault the woman for the comment you quote.
Sounds like common sense.

15th May 2004, 18:51
Well, progress has not all been downhill. I am not so very old but I can remember the West of Scotland, pre-war. One often saw children with "leg-irons" or "leg-braces". I do not know the technical term. These were the victims of deficiency diseases, ricketts and the like, brought on by poverty in the Depression. Their leg bones were all bent out of shape.

The British government was very concerned after WWI by the difference in physique between Empire troops and British troops. Malnutrition was the answer. Look at the "Bantam Battalions" in WWI: men around 5'0", smaller almost than the Lee-Enfield. Fought valiantly, of course.

Around 1938 one child in our street got "scarlet fever", an expression I have not heard in decades. The house was quarantined and I may be wrong, but I think the street was cordoned off. What I recall especially was the terror in the neighbourhood.

Just after the war I had an inner ear infection, very painful. There was a big production as a senior physician from the local hospital came to the house to try an experimental wonder drug, in very short supply: penicillin.

Go back not much further, to the early 19th century. Sir Samuel Romilly proposed abolition in England of the death penalty for stealing a handerchief. The Crown law officers assured him this would endanger the whole criminal law.

Then there was the penalty for treason, hanging, drawing and quartering, with the man's bowels ripped from his body and thrown in his face while he still palpated. The Attorney General asked Romilly: "Are the safeguards, the ancient landmarks, the bulwarks of the Constitution, to be thus hastily removed?". Replied Romilly: "What! to throw the bowels of an offender into his face, one of the safeguards of the British Constitution! I ought to confess that until this night, I was wholly ignorant of this bulwark."

tony draper
15th May 2004, 19:49
Very good series on at the mo about the History of London, apparently the number of offences one could be hung for was increased to 350 in 1770 I think it was, before that, in more enlightened times it was only 320.
Used to be a good family day out the hangings at Tyburn apparently, it mentioned one poor chap who was burned alive at the stake for being caught eating a pork chop during lent, one is very fond of pork chops but one thinks if one had been alive then one would have forgone pork chops for the duration.
Old Henry V111 had 82,000 people executed during his reign, his virginal daughter carried on the family tradition, but she was not as generous, his other daughter was,bloody left footers.


16th May 2004, 09:12

I assume the term cryptical was meant in the leisure sense ie

indicating solution indirectly: with an indirect solution or clue, for example, crosswords, puzzles, or anagrams

However your comments come to late they have all ready taken over the place.:D

As for Thacterism worst thing that happened to UK unless you are a devout conservative


Friday is a good day in Saudi Arabia you can go down to the Mosque in JED or RUH and watch a public flogging execution or limb chopping exercise. A bit like Tyburn really a nice family day out you might even catch the odd bloody left footer there literally.

tony draper
16th May 2004, 09:38
Indeed Mr Engineer, we have lost the ability to take pleasure in the simple things of life here now, imagine a highwayman's last speech and public hanging now? we wouldn't be able to get near for feckin TV luuvies with microphones and camera crews.