ForumGarden

Lord knows It's difficult enough for Charities to get abandoned dogs re-homed.

One charity that has more difficulty than most In re-homing Is the Ex Racing Greyhound charity because people are clueless as to their needs. Loving homes are often deterred from choosing a Greyhound because they wrongly believe that the dog needs an enormous amount of exercise and this would be time consuming and unsuitable for their life-style.

A Greyhound only requires 20 minutes walking per day... no more than an hour which can be divided Into two, even three brief walks.

I am not prone to watching 'The One Show' but I caught the prog last night with Dame Helen Mirren. She was commenting on a report they did on the amount of dogs being abandoned... The subject got round to Greyhounds and she said: Nay, she stated:

" People don't go for Greyhounds because they need 40 miles of exercise a day"

I have also never felt the need to complain or write to programme makers In the past although I am tempted every time I see David Dickinson on my screen calling himself 'The Duke'... But last night I phone The One Show and complained..... Apparently, I was not alone...

She probably set the Greyhound re-homing charity back 50 years by one ridiculous comment....

Why Helen ?

Why not the abandoned Greyhounds ?

Oh my god......did I just say that ?

And for repeating an urban myth she deserves shooting?

Nah, don't shoot her. She has to nice of a set of cans to get shot just for mistaking the amount of mile a greyhound needs a day.

Bryn Mawr;1389092 wrote: And for repeating an urban myth she deserves shooting?


Oh ok, maybe shooting was an over-reaction.

How about a poke In the eye with a sharp stick or a nudge n the ribs with a rancid Kipper?

Can I do the poking ?

First Adrian Brody. Now Helen Mirren. Oscar, are you Perez Hilton?

May I lay down a moderator ruling? Threats of physical violence against anyone, member or not, are completely out of court on FG even when said in jest. There's a stack of loonies out there for whom "Helen Mirren needs shooting" is all the push they need to go over the edge. Were I Helen Mirren I'd not find this thread amusing in the slightest.

I did consider composting it but the alternative, that we discuss the boundary of acceptable threats, seemed more productive.

Absolutely no violence against Helen Mirren is needed, neither would it be desirable nor proper. Get some bloody perspective and avoid attempts at humour in unfunny contexts.

Seriously, were I her I'd feel less safe than I did before I saw it.

I posted that I wanted to punch Adrian Brody in the throat. Was that acceptable?

SnoozeAgain;1389204 wrote: I posted that I wanted to punch Adrian Brody in the throat. Was that acceptable?


Why the hell should it be? What's so attractive about violence? Who are you trying to impress? Either you need an anger management course or you didn't literally mean it. If you didn't literally mean it, what meaning can it carry?

It isn't a matter of acceptability at the moment, it's a matter of tone. It's an avoidance of ugliness. The world's an ugly enough place already without trying to upset complete strangers whose names you happen to know. Why would anyone go into acting if these threats of violence grew more widespread? What you wrote says nothing at all about Adrian Brody, it's all about you. As for Helen Mirren, I go so far as to apologize to her on behalf of the site and to say we're trying to sort it out.

That he's a smug bastard that needs a punch.

You're a fool, Snooze. Perhaps his public image is one of a person whom you'd genuinely like to punch. So what. There's no such person, you can't punch a public image created by media leeches, at worst all you can do is punch the person with the same name. Goading others into punching Adrian Brody would be pretty despicable too.

Would it be acceptable for me to threaten Helen with being made love to, to within an inch of her life ?

Bruv;1389213 wrote: Would it be acceptable for me to threaten Helen with being made love to, to within an inch of her life ?


I think we'd need to invite her to register as a member and discuss it, before we could work that one out. Try posting a recent photo in which you appear to be excited.

It'll take more than an inch, I think.

Why does she have to join FG to get a ruling ?

There is a ruling about shooting her without her need to contribute.

'Appear to be excited'? I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

Here we go again.... sigh

Spot.... If I had the time and the Inclination, I could go back through threads over the past 5 years where who have written that you'd like to see various violent endings for Margaret Thatcher. There may be a few others In there also.

Anyone seriously wishing to harm Helen Mirren and finds this thread on the net will very soon realise from the first post that It is about abandoned dogs and not which best AKA to use against the women.

It Is you over-reacting here when you have littered this forum In the past with similar comments. You may not have said they need shooting but you have very recently had a little tantrum here over what words used by Journalists or Judges.

I know you have posted that someone needed shooting .... I just don't have the time to find the thread. I do however, have a damn good memory for these things and maybe the next time I have a sleepless night, I'll find them.

You know darn well, the title of this thread was as tongue In Cheek as any other member here who has written they wanted to punch or kill someone over the years.... It Is the subject of your sudden disapproval that should be questioned.

It's hypocritics again Spot.... As Snooze said.... why not others who have written similar or the same over the years?

Practice what you preach Spot and we may progress. If you feel that strongly, then delete It.... Sorry but I have better things to do than pander to your trolling.

Looks like I will be keeping my violent Sponge Bob Square Pants thoughts to my self now.

oscar;1389226 wrote: Here we go again.... sigh

Spot.... If I had the time and the Inclination, I could go back through threads over the past 5 years where who have written that you'd like to see various violent endings for Margaret Thatcher.


Rubbish. I deny it utterly. What you just claimed is grotesquely and demonstrably untrue and you lie through your crooked teeth. I know perfectly well that I've consistently wished long life on the woman for the simple reason that I do. I am, and for a long time have been, firmly of the opinion that only the good deserve to die young.

The same applies to everything I've ever written about George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and anyone else you care to name. I have never once wished an early end on any of them and have often expressed a desire that they should remain in the land of the living for as long as humanly possible.

I'd be interested to know whether you can find even a single instance of my expressing a wish that someone die a premature death. I'm unaware of any.

spot;1389229 wrote:

I'd be interested to know whether you can find even a single instance of my expressing a wish that someone die a premature death. I'm unaware of any.


Doesn't making sandwiches for a street party at the natural demise of Thatcher count as evil thoughts ?

spot;1389229 wrote: Rubbish. I deny it utterly. What you just claimed is grotesquely and demonstrably untrue and you lie through your crooked teeth. I know perfectly well that I've consistently wished long life on the woman for the simple reason that I do. I am, and for a long time have been, firmly of the opinion that only the good deserve to die young.

The same applies to everything I've ever written about George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and anyone else you care to name. I have never once wished an early end on any of them and have often expressed a desire that they should remain in the land of the living for as long as humanly possible.

I'd be interested to know whether you can find even a single instance of my expressing a wish that someone die a premature death. I'm unaware of any.


Protest all you like.

Insist I'm lying all you like.

Even Snooze posted re: your previous rantings and Ill thoughts toward Thatcher.

The difference here Is that the title of my OP was very tounge In Cheek whereas your rants about Thatcher were genuine Ill feeling.

I genuinely do not have enough hours In the day right now.... but I will search and find your posts at some point.

How do you know that oscar wasn't referring to camera use?

Well, true to my word... I went a searching..... what do you know ? It took me all of 60 seconds to find this:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/polls ... tcher.html

OK.... so far I have not found Spot posting violence to Margaret Thatcher but then this Is the result after 60 seconds searching.... There Is plenty more of these hate filled threads to trawl through when I have the time and If I have the Inclination.

Having said that, Spot has had quite some rant here about Thatcher that one can only describe as hate fuelled.

My point of this exercise Is this:..... As I said In my previous posts, we have some double standards and hypocrisy here again from Spot who seems to make the forum rules up as he goes along. In the thread I found, Saffy ( a friend of mine so no dig at her here ), even goes as far as to say she wants to drive a stake through Margaret Thatchers heart. Does Spot come In and protest about the ' violence' shown In Saffy's post and take her to task? NO...

As I said Spot.... practice what you preach and we can all progress. As It Is, your Indignation at my thread title Is solely dependant on who wrote It and not what It contains. That is hypocrisy old boy.....

By not objecting to any of the posts In that thread wishing harm and violence to Thatcher and the fact you continued to contribute to that thread Spot, you are actually condoning the posts suggesting violence toward her. Thus, your standards and principles are about as consistent and reliable as a French breast Implant.

It's simple. If the forum Is going to object to one members terminology which I suspect everyone knew Immediately that It was tongue In cheek, then have some consistency. Don't revel In posts offering up violent ends to one figurehead but then suddenly get some standards when It doesn't suit.

spot;1389205 wrote: Why the hell should it be? What's so attractive about violence? Who are you trying to impress? Either you need an anger management course or you didn't literally mean it. If you didn't literally mean it, what meaning can it carry?

It isn't a matter of acceptability at the moment, it's a matter of tone. It's an avoidance of ugliness. The world's an ugly enough place already without trying to upset complete strangers whose names you happen to know. Why would anyone go into acting if these threats of violence grew more widespread? What you wrote says nothing at all about Adrian Brody, it's all about you. As for Helen Mirren, I go so far as to apologize to her on behalf of the site and to say we're trying to sort it out.


I refer you back to the post you made re: Thatcher and the public urinating on her grave. Or do you think others would not find that distasteful ?

Now... How does Snooze's thread entitled 'I want to punch Adrian Brody In the throat' differ from this or the act of violence that Saffy posted In the Thatcher thread?

All three were tounge In cheek, anyone can see that.

However, this was your post In the Thatcher thread I linked In my former post.

Spot

" I'm more likely to say the wretched creature's grave will overflow with urine for the next hundred years to such an extent they'll have to install drainage. They'll need at least six foot of concrete over her just to stop enthusiasts putting a stake through her chest every Christmas and even then it'll have to be the sort of concrete you can't drill through."

Because in her grave she's already dead, you witless goon. Consequently it's not "my expressing a wish that someone die a premature death", it's not a violent ending, it's a simple formal desecration. I'm entirely in favour of desecration as a means of shocking public opinion. Pissing over Thatcher's cooling corpse isn't an act of violence, it's an act of political protest as would be training dogs to void their bowels whenever they squeeze through into her mausoleum. Violence, on the other hand, is completely out of the question in every instance, a point that seems continually to elude you.

Maybe English isn't your strong suit. Or, come to that, thinking. You simply can't be tongue-in-cheek when proposing an animal rights murder, there have already been too many of those attempted over the years by extremists to whom the thread title and OP wouldn't seem even slightly comic.

For all that you've periodically tried to turn violence into something amusing ever since your arrival here, it isn't and never can be.

Adrien Brody thinks spot's a twat.

spot;1389327 wrote: Because in her grave she's already dead, you witless goon. Consequently it's not "my expressing a wish that someone die a premature death", it's not a violent ending, it's a simple formal desecration. I'm entirely in favour of desecration as a means of shocking public opinion. Pissing over Thatcher's cooling corpse isn't an act of violence, it's an act of political protest as would be training dogs to void their bowels whenever they squeeze through into her mausoleum. Violence, on the other hand, is completely out of the question in every instance, a point that seems continually to elude you.

Maybe English isn't your strong suit. Or, come to that, thinking. You simply can't be tongue-in-cheek when proposing an animal rights murder, there have already been too many of those attempted over the years by extremists to whom the thread title and OP wouldn't seem even slightly comic.

For all that you've periodically tried to turn violence into something amusing ever since your arrival here, it isn't and never can be.
Periodically, you have made the rules of the forum up as you go along to suit.

First of all, let's get this straight Spot. You were happy to leave an OP In a thread about a cock sucking party that offended some members and you were happy to leave another new thread In which the poster posted that he had been sucking his dogs penis. Yet here we are suddenly having some standards? Oh please !!

Yes Spot, I was well aware the posts In the thread I linked were violence after the demise of Thatcher. That Is Irrelevant. That thread could Incite others to break the law just as you are claiming my title here has.

If you were consistent, It may be of some help. So what Is It here? On one hand you are claiming that this Is so serious It will Incite animal rights nut jobs to take out Helen Mirren but on the other hand you are claiming that I am making an attempt to be humerous. So what Is It? Only, If you ha any grasp of English, the two concepts do not go together do they? It Is either a deadly serious animal rights rant or It's a attempted comical look at a celebrity making a tit of herself on TV?

Again I ask.... When Snooze posted the title ' I want to punch Adrien Brody In the throat', why did you not Intervene and post your disapproval at the time?

I think we all know the answer Spot don't we?

oscar;1389334 wrote: Yes Spot, I was well aware the posts In the thread I linked were violence after the demise of Thatcher. That Is Irrelevant.No, oscar. it's not irrelevant, it's impossible. Violence against a person is only possible while the person is alive. Once they're dead, the phrase you need is desecration of the corpse.

spot;1389380 wrote: No, oscar. it's not irrelevant, it's impossible. Violence against a person is only possible while the person is alive. Once they're dead, the phrase you need is desecration of the corpse.


Again I ask.... When Snooze posted the title ' I want to punch Adrien Brody In the throat', why did you not Intervene and post your disapproval at the time?

oscar;1389381 wrote: Again I ask.... When Snooze posted the title ' I want to punch Adrien Brody In the throat', why did you not Intervene and post your disapproval at the time?


It hadn't escalated to your death threat, a month ago. The one you describe as amusing. Tongue in cheek equates to an element of amusement, I think? Anyway, no, I don't see the two as comparable.

spot;1389384 wrote: It hadn't escalated to your death threat, a month ago. The one you describe as amusing. Tongue in cheek equates to an element of amusement, I think? Anyway, no, I don't see the two as comparable.


A death threat ? No Spot... an over-active Imagination and the never-ending desire to find something In my posts to troll.

I want to punch Adrien Brody In the throat ( a heavy blow to the throat can cause death ) Is no different here. What Is different to you, Is the poster not the content.

Yet there you are, Inciting the public to desecrate Thatchers grave when she has passed. And you think you have standards ? Don't make me laugh.

Practice what you preach and this forum may progress.

Anyone reading the first post would have the brains to realise oscar was speaking figuratively. Bit silly having a go at her though - why did none of the others present correct her?

Literal and figurative language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and was not seriously suggesting someone should go out and shoot her. Stop squabbling or I shall ask the other moderators to make you kiss and make up live in forum TV.

First of all, let's get this straight Spot. You were happy to leave an OP In a thread about a cock sucking party that offended some members and you were happy to leave another new thread In which the poster posted that he had been sucking his dogs penis. Yet here we are suddenly having some standards? Oh please !!


Missed them but don't think I'll bother looking for them.

As to Thatcher I think it would be an insult to the british people should anyone seriously suggest she be given a state funeral or any kind of state memorial memorial and you'd probably find the majority of the population dislike her intensely. I would not wish her dead - given her mental condition it's arguably a living death but I still would not wish that on anyone. As a matter of principle I have not and will not be going to see the film about her life. Dancing or pissing on her grave is a bit pointless and rather childish though.

gmc;1389412 wrote: Anyone reading the first post would have the brains to realise oscar was speaking figuratively. Bit silly having a go at her though - why did none of the others present correct her?

Literal and figurative language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and was not seriously suggesting someone should go out and shoot her. Stop squabbling or I shall ask the other moderators to make you kiss and make up live in forum TV.



Missed them but don't think I'll bother looking for them.

As to Thatcher I think it would be an insult to the british people should anyone seriously suggest she be given a state funeral or any kind of state memorial memorial and you'd probably find the majority of the population dislike her intensely. I would not wish her dead - given her mental condition it's arguably a living death but I still would not wish that on anyone. As a matter of principle I have not and will not be going to see the film about her life. Dancing or pissing on her grave is a bit pointless and rather childish though.
Simply because It's an opportunity to trash Oscar's thread silly boy.

I had every right to be annoyed with the silly women. I myself have chucked plenty of hard earned cash over the years to the Ex Greyhound re-homing charity and then some stupid comment on prime time TV sets the charity back years.... doesn't mean anyone wants the women dead does It ?

No... sorry... Thatcher SHOULD have a state funeral. She was a great Stateswoman.

oscar;1389415 wrote:

No... sorry... Thatcher SHOULD have a state funeral. She was a great Stateswoman.


Don't know about the State Funeral I shall pass on that one, but would agree for all her very many faults she had more balls and vision than any politician in my lifetime.

Bruv;1389422 wrote: Don't know about the State Funeral I shall pass on that one, but would agree for all her very many faults she had more balls and vision than any politician in my lifetime.


Like any Prime Minister, she had her faults, she made bad policies and she made bad decisions but, I was actually proud of her In a mad cow disease type kind of way.

She fought hard for us within Europe. She took no crap from anyone, took no prisoners and pandered to none. She was a force to be reckoned with and In her own mad way, held respect from world leaders.

She was a Stateswomen In every sense of the word.

oscar;1389424 wrote: Like any Prime Minister, she had her faults, she made bad policies and she made bad decisions but, I was actually proud of her In a mad cow disease type kind of way.

She fought hard for us within Europe. She took no crap from anyone, took no prisoners and pandered to none. She was a force to be reckoned with and In her own mad way, held respect from world leaders.

She was a Stateswomen In every sense of the word.


I despise her for what she did to this country. It would be an insult to all those whose communities she destroyed. The state we are in now can be traced back to the changes she set in place.

gmc;1389540 wrote: I despise her for what she did to this country. It would be an insult to all those whose communities she destroyed. The state we are in now can be traced back to the changes she set in place. Many of hr policies were destructive I agree.

We are still suffering the end result of 'The right to buy policy' on council houses. Whilst some Nationalist Parties will attribute housing shortages to Immigration, I believe the problems began back with the right to buy scheme. It did nothing than paper over the cracks short term. Massive discounts were given and homes sold for way below market value. Over the years, local authorities have never really caught up by replacing affordable housing and why building contractors now often have to designate a certain amount of new builds to local authorities. I know that during the time I spent on housing committee, the waiting list for a council home was some years depending on circumstances.