The only problem with religion, is——- aaah—– religion?

No, it’s (some of) the practitioners of (some of) them.

THANK YOU!! The point I have been repeating ad nauseam in various threads for more than a year, but it never seems to provoke any comment or response.

In politics, there’s no such word as “can’t.” If there’s any chance of their gravy train leaving the rails, some way to “renegotiate” will always be found. Cynical? Who. me?
I’m just an ordinary mug, who saw “Broon” and his mob do away with the 10% tax band, so that everybody lost the same amount, but those on low income (like pensioners who were daft enough to take out private pensions) lost a greater percentage of their income.
Now, the latest shower have not changed the tax bands, so, out of a £5 pension increase, I immediately lose 20%, and, yet again, I see the “apathetic” jibe trotted out as an attack on those who won’t vote; certainly, there are those who can’t be bothered, but there are also huge numbers who loathe politicians, as a breed, and would dearly like to find someone (anyone?) remotely interested in the peasants of this nation.
Go ahead, make voting compulsory, but add a “none of the above” box to the form, and lets see how many votes that “party” gets.

. Co-educational ideas began with the left wing take over in the 60s..

No, they didn’t; from 1945 to 1951, I was taught in classes that comprised boys and girls; at the 11-plus boys and girls, who passed, were sent to separate schools, while those who remained behind stayed in mixed classes until they left school.

Educate boys alongside girls and they become more interested in each other rather than learning to read and write – with the now so predictable consequences

Not until puberty sets in; prior to that they largely hate each other.

You cant argue or debate with Snafu- he is always right and everyone who objects is wrong.

It’s taken you lot long enough to work that one out.

Being suspicious, by nature, I pressed “scan” first, to find that I’m not “an amazingly gullible person,” neither do I have fingerprints on my screen. I never have been able to fathom out the thought processes of those who find practical “jokes” funny.

Well, thats the whole, entire forum scrubbed then – we weren’t there, we have no reason to talk about it. Charlie, please stop talking utter rubbish…

What he is saying (which is not utter rubbish) is that, as we were not at the trial (so did not hear all the testimonies) we have no right to challenge the verdict.
Given your admitted prejudices, concerning some defendants “guilt,” it’s just as well you were not on the jury; we’ve been told, ad nauseam, about your superior intellect, but to put yourself above all 12 jurors (who were there) takes arrogance to a new level.

Mr Brooks, your summation is not what has been expressed at all. However it does suggest you have a propensity for reading and believing such terrible rags as those produced by the creatures you mention in your inaccurate description of others positions.

Ah, yet another amateur psychologist; unfortunately for your “summation,” I gave up reading newspapers about 40 years ago.
In your resume of Brooks’s relationship with Coulson, you have (conveniently?) omitted “lover,” and, as some of us know (and can even speak from first-hand experience,) “Love is blind.”

Perhaps you should take notice of your own item at the bottom of your input:-
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts”