My eyes glazed over when I read that.

Put a jumper on?

.

you don’t ride an I-Pad, if the I-Pad bricks itself it won’t put you in a wheelchair or require a trip to the dentist for expensive treatment

Fair point.

I bought a Specialized bike a while ago which had a misaligned rear triangle. Further inspection of the offered replacement revealed that was also on the piss. None of the bikes were any good. Maybe the R+D dept was on the piss as well when that frame was designed.

Just heard a news reporter on the radio say ‘Aloo Akbar’. Sounds like a tasty potato dish down the local Indian takeaway place.

IIRC they all have plenty of justifications why they regard homosexuality as “bad”.

They may think they do. The law states otherwise:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work
in education
as a consumer
when using public services
when buying or renting property
as a member or guest of a private club or association
You are legally protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.

You’re also protected from discrimination if:

you’re associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, eg a family member or friend
you’ve complained about discrimination or supported someone else’s claim

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination

I notice religious organisations appear to be missing from places where your rights are protected.

No, sorry, but someone can regard homosexuality as a sin without being a homophobe.

So, if they are prejudiced against homosexuals, they aren’t homophobic? Sorry, but that’s absolute nonsense. Homosexuality is a fact. Beleiving homosexuality is a ‘sin’ is a fiction.

But I do think that you greatly diminish your own argument by pointing a great big “Homophobia” foam-finger at anyone that disagrees, rather than listening to their concerns.

What ‘concerns’ are these? I’ve yet to hear anything that makes any real sense.

to try to be clear, im not telling anyone to stay indoors.

Forgive my obvious confusion, then.

a very large minority in this country would be well advised to get and keep off the streets tonight.

?

rightly or wrongly there are times when keeping you head down makes sense.

So, all brown people should stay indoors then? Because there may be a few nutters out there intent on causing harm?

Maybe we should discharge all military personnel from service immediately then, following that logic. As they are all obviously at risk.

Ultimately there will be one loser. Muslims. Really sad that a whacky minority will alienate and if these attacks become more frequent worse for the good people who believe in Islam.

I think it’s wrong to label the attacks as by ‘Islamists’, as is being reported on the news from Whitehall. This itself is inflamatory and sure to ignite fear and hatred.

do you really have to ask?

Not really. I’d just like soobalias to justify their statement.

I expect he means anyone that’s looks like they may appear to be a muslim. There’s a fair chance of some equally deranged white supremacist nut job going out looking for revenge.

If that is the case, then should the police and appropriate agencies not be mobilised to help protect people within our nation, from hate crime?

charity chuggers? people carrying guns and machetes?

Chuggers, I’d agree with you on.

people who can’t engage their brains when using the internet after reading a sensational news item?

That would be fantastic. The streets would be half empty. Could we not impose such restrictions permanently?

a very large minority in this country would be well advised to get and keep off the streets tonight.

Who, and why?

Doesn’t exactly apply in today’s society though does it?

Of course it does. How ignorant. For example, millions of Muslims live in areas with poor sanitation, lack of electricity for refrigerations, an where the production and storage of pork wouldn’t be advisable on health grounds. So, still rather relveant to an awful lot of people.

Religions are full of irrational beliefs and rules – some of which may have once been rational and some of which are just there because their chosen deity “said so” (the most irrational belief of all).

So it is probably the wrong place to look for rationality. That doesn’t mean they are homophobic though.

Your first point is correct; there’s a load of nonsense wrapped up in religion (as well as plenty of good stuff). But certainly the main Abrahamic religions do forbid homosexuality, with no historical or current justification. Ergo, they are inherently homophobic. And anyone using such religious doctrine to oppose Gay marriage is espousing homophobic ideology.

Fair enough. But you came here obviously spoiling for one.

Seems that I’m simply correcting your mistakes, is all.

With pleasure:

http://modmyi.com/content/9326-imac-wannabe-pops-up-china.html

Edited. Can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument.

No, not really.

So what is it then, that forms a rational basis for the objection to Gay marriage, if not homophobia? If the principle of Occam’s Razor is applied, I can’t see anything but homophobia ultimately, personally. The argument about ‘procreation’ is null and void as it’s not an obligation under religion or law to do so. So stripped right down, the argument against comes back to homophobia.

You seem annoyed that there is no one on this thread for you to shout at

Not really; I’m just challenging anyone who believes there is a justification to oppose the right of Gay people (or indeed anyone) to get married and have equal rights in society, to come forward and do so. So far, no-one has. Ergo, we in a so-called ‘civilized’ society shouldn’t even be having this debate.

I don’t think I am. The iMac I’m typing this on is made mostly in China, yet marketed as an ‘American’ product. The components that it comprises are mainly designed, tested and manufactured in China, not the USA. And my own experience has shown that virtually identical (and n some cases actually identical) products are sold in different markets under different brands, at diffrent prices. I don’t see how the cycle manufacturing industry is any different to any other that uses China.

Because one company invested in research, design, manufacture and marketing whereas the other company just manufactured. They didn’t need to do the research as they stole an existing design and piggy backed on that products marketing to sell their own product. The end result ‘may’ be the same but the process that the two companies took to arrive at that product is very different.

What if the R+D is in fact done by the parent company, who own the factory, and the name on the frame is simply a brand? China makes products for many markets, and identical products are sold in different countries under different brands. I’m sure those paying for the ‘premium’ brand would love to think they are getting an exclusive product, but are they? I’d suspect there are manycases where they are not, and merely buying into hype and marketing bullshit. I certanly think somepeople here are fooled into thinking that China isn’t capabel of high-tech engineering and manufacturing without outside assistance. Which is ironic,considering just about every computer we’re using to post on here will have had many of it’s components designed, tested and made in China.

So, ism’t it possible that the same product you’d pay £X for here, is available in other global markets under different brands, with different paint jobs/component specs etc? Possibly for a lot lower prices?

Well you don’t really know its identical. Not much chance of knowing either unless you xray or cut it up.

What if it is actually identical? What justifies the price difference?

and punters are none the wiser.

Exactly.

Carry machine guns and RPGs.

The main religious objection, as I understand it, is that their religion (whatever that may be) defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There are those that worry that if homosexuals are allowed to have full legal marriages, but the church continues to forbid them from having religious ceremonies, then they will likely be sued for discrimination and ultimately be forced to allow such ceremonies even though they go against their beliefs.

There are others who don’t think this will happen but worry that it somehow “dilutes” the definition of “marriage” (because apparently religious marriage is not just about two people that love each other – they specifically have to be different genders for some reason)

Homophobia then.

And then there are those that raise other interesting legal points, such as it allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes etc.

So why aren’t they making a fuss about ‘straight’ marriages of convenience then? Bogus argument.

Personally, I view anyone who objects to same sex marriage in the same way I view people who use the phrase ‘I’m not a racist, but…..’.
They don’t actually want people to be happy.
They’re just scared & insecure.

It’s all about power and control. Certain organisations (like the CofE) want to retain as much societal control as possible, to serve their own ends. This is ultimately divisive, unjust and against any notion of true equality. Why should those who choose (for, unlike a person’s sexuality, their religion is a choice) to follow a particular religion get to dictate what everyone else can and cannot do?

Slippery slope – what next marry your sister, your dog or your bike

What a load of bollocks.

At no point did the person who opposed his own party and forced through equality legislation for gay marriage say he respects homophobia

He stated that he respects the views of those who are homophobic.

What do you do if you are an MP who believes in Gay Marriage but a significant number of your constituents, perhaps even a majority, have told you they are opposed to it?

It is your democratic duty to represent the views of your constituents.

Yes, but within a legal and ethical framework. It’s also your duty to uphold the rights of all your constituants and not favour one group over another, if doing so impinges on the freedom and rights of others.

Many of the “against” campaign have their own reasons, and while I don’t agree with them, I think it is short-sighted and a little disingenuous to dismiss them all as “homophobic”.

So what viable arguments do they have, opposing Gay marriage then? If it’s not homophobia, what is it?

Simple solution would be to remove the privilege of all religious institutions to perform legal marriage ceremonies, and require that all marriages can only be fully legal if performed in a civil non-denominational secular ‘ceremony’. By all means, get ‘married’ in a church etc, but that would have no legal weight. You’d still need to register the marriage at a civil level. This would equalise all marriages under law. Then, the Church of whatever can be free to hold ceremonies for whomever they choose, but everyone would still have the right to be ‘maried’.

Well, the chair was apparently identical in every way to the ‘original’. Just like yours it seems. Cheaper labour costs aside, how can one identical product justifiably cost many times more?

I have a cheap pair of Aldi or whatever cycling shoes, they cost about £18. The sole pattern is identical to a pair of Specialized ones. The uppers may be an older ‘Specialized’ design. The specialized version is £60-70. Why?

David Cameron was on the radio this morning, saying how he ‘respects’ those who oppose Gay marriage. So, he’s publicly stated he respects those who are homophobic and don’t believe in equality. As simple as that.

If we lived in a truly civilised society, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. It’s nonsense.

It’s not a ‘licenced’ Eames Chair, I was joking

I’m releived to hear that. The Eames chairs are a perfect example of how companies rip people off; a friend has had both a ‘real’ chair and a ‘fake, and the two were indistinguishable. More than likely made in the same factory. He sold the ‘real’ one at a sizeable profit, and kept the ‘fake’.

I suspect that the same practice happens with bike frames; companies know that we are mugs enough to pay massive premiums for ‘brands’, so they hike the proces of goods up to whatever they can get away with. All so people can say ‘I’ve got a genuine X product’. And whilst there undoubtedly are cheap inferior knock offs out there, a lot of the ‘this product isn’t as good as a ‘real’ version’ is more than likely just bullshit spread by those with a vested interest in making as much profit as possible.

So; what if the ‘real’ frames are simply liveried up and skilfully marketed versions of the ‘off the peg’ product the Chinese company supplies to anyone? Are western companies really doing allthat ‘R+D’, or is all that work actually being done in China, and the end product simply sold on here for a huge mak up? Is the cycle industry really any different to the clothing industry, or the consumer electronics industry? What are we actually paying for; a product or a brand?

Shibboleth; is that a ‘real’ Eames chair, or a ‘fake?

Lewis Hamilton makes me laugh. He’s from Stevenage!

Some years ago, I had to have a load of t-shirts printed up for a promotion. The supplier discretely told us that these were exactly the same as sold by a top designer label (they didn’t specify which), who had the t-shirts shipped over from China to Italy, where ‘made in Italy’ labels were sewn in. The labels themselves were in fact made in Italy. Somehow, this made the deception ‘legal’. They were very nice t-shirts. I’d paid less than £3 per unit; the ‘designer label’ versions sold for over £40.

Caveat Emptor.

There’s no reason why a backstreet factory employing half a dozen peasants can’t produce a frame of an equivalent quality to Ten Tech – the company that made my real Cervelo.

No, but sadly the British cycle manufacturing industry s all but dead.

‘Fakes’ aside,I think the truth is that we are paying a huge premium for certain branded items, when the manufacturers are selling identical products in other markets, for a lot less. So the ‘unbranded’ items could in fact be the exact same thing as the branded ones. No?

Somewhere, someone s laughing at us.

No

Do you have proof of this?

It’s just that Merida (Ok, Taiwanese rather than Chinese) make Specialized, and have also made Carrera frames sold in Halfords, which were almost identical. But a lot cheaper. Made in the same factory. I’d imagine the same practice is common in Chinese industries which supply globally.

Aren’t most bikes made in China anyway? So the ‘cheap’ brands are made in exactly the same factories as the expensive ones? Could it be that bicycle ‘manufacturers’ are in fact simply ‘brands’ created by Chinese-owned or based manufacturers to sell goods to people in affluent countries for a lot more than they do to those in poorer countries? IE, we’re being riped off because we’re willing to pay a lot more for a particular ‘brand’? Exactly the same situation exists in the clothing industry, so I can’t see how the global cycle industry is any different.

Wish I could get a Chinese iPad:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100648407

Isn’t ‘iPad’ a Chinse invention anyway? And that it is in fact nasty Western companies ripping them off, not the other way round?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18669394

Unfortunately I can’t attend Pedal on Parliament 2, however, I thoroughly support the aims and objectives of Pedal on Parliament and I urge as many cyclists and non-cyclists alike to attend.

Is that ok?

I always stop and ask. It is simply the right thing to do, irrespective of whether you think they were ill-prepared or not.

I second that. I stopped to help a young lad the other day; his chain had fallen off because his rear mech cable had gone and the limit stop screws were too far out. This was on a busy canal path, and loads of cyclists were out. He was really grateful, and amazed anyone had stopped at all. He’d been there for over half an our apparently, obviously struggling. Took 5 minutes to sort him out, and he rode off happy.

I just find it a bit sad that no-one else had bothered to stop to see if he was ok. Maybe they were all like Shibboleth.

Or maybe it was because the lad was black.

“Chris Boardman And Chris Hoy sending their support.”

What does that mean? That they think it’s a good idea but can’t/can’t be arsed to attend?

In that case, can I send my support? I think it’s a great idea.

But they aren’t, a lot of clubs have a history of far right views, but even those clubs “firms” are not exclusively white.

As I said before; a relatively very small number of exceptions does not prove the rule.

The point is, that we as a society don’t see football hooliganism as a ‘white’ problem, because it isn’t. Hooliganism has nothing to do with ethnicity, and everything to do with issues of ignorance, frustration, anger and low self esteem. The motivation for criminal activity by all sots of individuals including those from traveling communities as well as those who live in houses, has nothing to do with ethnicity either. Therefore, people need to look beyond myths and misinformation, and see the underlying causes of social problems. Because if you want to actually address an issue, and improve things, then it’s crucial to employ this approach, rather than the narrow-minded ‘all X people are so-and-so’s’ type of rhetoric.

I’m reminded of a popular phrase from my childhood (which goes back way further than that); ‘black people have a marvellous sense of rhythm’. Stereotypical, and perhaps condescending and patronising, yet mainly meant with affection and indeed admiration. Racist? No. I never felt truly comfortable with it though, it just didn’t sit right with me. And none of my black friends ever seemed offended by it, they were more like ‘yeah, whatever’ about it.

I wonder what the ‘PC Brigade’ would make of it now?

Has anyone got any pictures of trails in the Lakes? to give me a better idea of what to expect?

“I don’t know that they are. And I’ve never presumed that they are.

Do you have anything that shows that to be the case ?”

Just about every news report on tv about hooliganism, the many documentaries that have covered the issue, and what I and many others have witnessed in pubs/town centres/outside grounds.

Or simply do a Google image search; all the UK hooligans appear to be white.

No I think he was just bemoaning the fact that no-one stopped to see if they were ok or needed help. Only takes a moment to ask someone if they’re ok.

Taste of Siam, Mornington Crescent end of Camden Hight st. Very cheap, and very tasty.

Not a ‘tour’, but a few days in the Lakes soon. Middle-aged codgers pootling around slowly and eating and drinking.

Hoping to visit a bit of South America by bike next autumn though. Lots of planning required for that one.

I don’t know, would it?

Well, there has been a lot of discussions about the Oxford ‘grooming’ case, and much comment about how the culture and ethnicity of the abusers had a bearing on their actions, and some here seem to believe that travellers are inherently criminal/anti social, so I’m interested in whether anyone considers football hooliganism in the UK to be a ‘white’ problem. Or are the actions of a minority of individuals more to do with the fact they are dysfunctional, disturbed or just plain violent nutters, rather than an entire culture being guilty of their crimes?

I’d hazard it suggests a predisposition towards football amongst white men.

But football is played in the Uk by people (male and female) of all ethnicities. Why are hooligans almost always white?

And why don’t we ever seem to discuss the ethnicity of said hooligans, as we do with travellers, or particular sex abusers?

Would it be fair to say that football hooliganism is a ‘white’ problem in this country?