snafuDidn’t know this was a popularity contest.
Boo hoo I feel so alone…
snafuSeats were available period, it is just he wanted to sit by his wife, sorry
Well, guess we know what happens to MrsT when you travel together on a crowded train – “I got my seat, love, you go see if there is a seat at the other end of the train…”
but on a public service if not reserved you cannot expect people to move simply so you can sit next to whom you wish, in certain circles that could be seen as racism.
I am willing to bet that nobody had given any thought that might be considered ‘racist’ within this problem. Well done.
You to your wife, still both searching for a seat on the train (as above) – “you can sit there, I’m not sitting next to any potential suicide bombers.”
MrsT – “She is a bride on her way to her wedding…’
The other side of the coin is – why were no seats booked for the team ?
Hey – even I know how to book seats on a train etc ; )
Maybe the journey was last minute, maybe there was a chance that the journey would be called off, maybe his internet connection was cut off, but congratulations on your knowledge.
I do believe there is a place for a socialist party in this country, and am at a complete loss to understand why such a party was not formed when there was a complete vacuum formed when the Labour party under Blair jumped to the right.
I guess that might have been Respect, which deregistered as a political party a week ago.
I really can’t understand why people give a ****.
A chance to run down someone with whom they share no political ambitions? Who wouldn’t jump at the opportunity. Certainly not the right wingers on this forum…
snafuA writer of a political comedy or two…
Sir Antony Jay, the co-writer of the political satires Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, has died at the age of 86. He was surrounded by his wife and family when he died peacefully on Sunday evening after a long illness.
snafuBecause he is another lying politician Beermat, so much for his holier than thou beliefs.
Heh, you ever met a politician who didn’t? There are a few – but they are the precious few.
BUT the railways are overcrowded on some lines at the busiest times of the day, and the government are not bothered because the businesses are not bothered because they can get away with a piddling poor service since it is only the users who are inconvenienced, and the poor bloody front line staff who get the sharp end of the complaints about overcrowding, cancellations and breakdowns. That the train was not full does not mean that they always have seats, I’ve travelled on enough trains to know that you certainly don’t travel at peak time unless you can’t possibly help it and if you can’t help it then getting a seat involves arriving early enough (ie, when the train arrives, before the cleaners have time to remove all the newspapers…) at the terminal or be prepared to stand or sit on the floor.
I’ve been to more than enough press calls to know that appearances can be deceiving (prearranged door knocks to discuss policy which were supposed to be a surprise, meeting the ‘public’ who turn out to be members of the fan club and thus don’t ask any difficult questions, etc) so maybe this was more of an opportunity grabbed at the wrong moment. Branson might whinge but when all is said and done there are more rail ‘clients’ who would agree with the initial video.
Not that you will accept that.
snafuMe?
snafuWhy is Jeremy a turd?
I think it is because they – the above postees – are neo-Blairites and they are after someone more inclined to make Britain a fairer and more equal place for all, and provide a land fit for heroes…
Ok, wrong, it is because they are the kind of nutters who believe the Daily Mail is too liberal and wishy-washy.
snafuJeremy Vine? Clarkson? Beadle?
Beadle is deceased, passed on, ex, snuffed, dead.
Could still do it, but just saying, y’know?
snafuAnd I stuck my nose in because…see previous posts.
snafuI won’t be ‘lining you up against any wall’. You deserve preservation as a living demonstration of one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’.
As for your point re Shoreham; I’m a license holder and a keen supporter of transparency – the more especially in aviation matters. It matters immensely that we dig for the causes of accidents, that is how we find and analyse information that leads both to conclusions and possibly prevention.
If at times we have to be more than indelicate so far as human feelings are concerned, that is tough but necessary if we are to avoid repetition. We can’t over indulge in understandable human sentimentality at the expense of rationality.
Censorship that perhaps serves a useful purpose for the few should not prevent benefit to the many.
Yes John – jump in before you know what the argument is! – the TV detector vans won’t be troubling you, but you certainly need transparencies in aeroplanes, unless you are really confident in your ability to use your instruments…;o)
But my call for the removal of videos of people being shot dead has little to do with censorship and nothing to do with air crash investigation – more to do with this being a family friendly site and allowing children to join and/or view, my eldest daughter included. You don’t like that take it up with Key and the webmaster: they don’t want you to have ‘adult’ conversations and view ‘adult’ videos and pictures.
Ho, hum… Not my censorship either – the regulars will not accept images of the impact or wreckage from fatal crashes out of respect.
Thought you’d been here long enough to have seen that in the numerous crashes over the past five years.
Typical Snowflake smacked ass response, can’t continue with the main event so switches the argument, which someone has failed to check up about…
Hey Twinkle, you going to bring this up with the BBC?
Snowflake warning….
Still whining then, motormouth? Hope you are not trying to chat me up with your seemingly ‘cute’ nicknames for me…
Well, John would rather attack me even when he has not a clue about what the discussion is as long as he can take up a contrary viewpoint to mine, but enough of that.
I am rather confused about your point in posting the BBC link. You seem to think that I have a problem, but I am merely pointing out that had that been posted on the Historic forum in the afternoon/evening of the incident then there would be members who would make their feelings about the disrespect shown known in the same way that they shout down speculation about the cause on the day.
That is my point, that it is the members who do not want such imagery.
So let us get back to why you want to make gun deaths visible on this forum. You are aware that in that third video there was footage of a young boy being shot and killed, by mistake, by the police? Get in contact with the webmaster and tell him you want to feature people being shot and killed on video, mention that fact, see what his answer is, go on, I dare you.
What is it about seeing a death on film with you anyway? Is it seeing that moment when a live body suddenly loses that spark and becomes just another hunk of meat? Is it that this is the closest you can come to actually shooting somebody without the psychological after effects or getting into trouble with the law? When you see a man die on the screen are you grinning, does your mouth hang open and you start dribbling, do you find you’ve forgotten to breathe or blink, does it make you feel ‘funny’ in a nice way, inside? When you were young did you enjoy pulling the legs off live spiders and flies? Did it make you feel strong, powerful? Have you consulted a doctor? Maybe you could go out and meet people, get yourself a life.
Ok, let the whining commence, but please, do tell…
Ah, a moderator has posted. Maybe you will be satisfied with his answer. I doubt it, but we can hope.
snafuGosh is it that time already?
John, I have no illusions that when you browbeat the population into power I will be amongst those you will have lined up against the bullet-pocked wall with a blindfold on.
I am aware of the concentration camps, but we are not talking about those. They are historic and demonstrate the barbarity of a particular regime – unlike the videos provided by your friend. He posted three YouTube videos showing two incidents of US police shooting an individual each, viewed via their bodycam, and one compilation of several filmed shootings (from their bodycams, on-car cameras and CCTV) of non police (including a child) and at least one security guard.
In the interests of your apparent anti-censorship bias, John, would you favour pictures of the Shoreham crash (one year ago, if you remember), flames and all, being posted on the evening of the accident? Not posting those images…isn’t that censorship as well?
Unless, maybe, you are into death porn too?
snafuWhine moan grumble moan moan moan rant…
You believe what you want to believe, about me, about my post, about why I reported your post, about your own desires and fantasies, and why a moderator would stoop so low as to delete your post when obviously there was nothing wrong, offensive or gross about them as far as your standards in life are concerned.
You want to know why a moderator deleted your grubby little post – ask a moderator. Not satisfied – ask the webmaster. Hell, why not raise a post and hold a discussion? Maybe I will if you don’t have the guts, but do remember that it is usually the case that no correspondence is entered into (their decision is final, and they will not give you a reason or even reply) with moderators/webmaster. Some forums would have banned you for decency reasons, so think yourself lucky that Key seems not to be bothered that some post death porn vids or (as happened on Historic a few weeks ago) images of semi nude women (with little connection to aviation other than they were standing in front of a biz jet) with no punishment or warning other than the post or thread being deleted.
Now go back to searching for right wing, xenophobic rants on YouTube, don’t forget to wipe the spittle from your monitor screen and try and get a life rather than use the internet as a surrogate existence.
snafuSNAFU.
Yes? (Best mention now that I have been a moderator on a couple of websites, but not at the moment.)
Death Porn
Indeed.
Seeing as it came straight from YouTube, which is open to all ages, why then has the videos in question not been taken down as inappropriate to viewers below 16 years?
That is something for YouTube, wouldn’t you say?
Correct me, but the thread is about the American infatuation with firearms, being endemic with US culture. The videos chosen showed that the Police are always in the line of fire and are naturally wary of people who do not comply with their authority. Banning guns will not stop them being used, the US population are trapped between a rock & a hard place, major culture change is the only way it will change, just how you would do that is another thing entirely.
The third video was not just the police but security guards and others via CCTV, from what I recall.
If your life involves getting off on seeing guns drawn and people being shot then that is your life – what does that say about you? But putting those vids on here, with that warning, is essentially inviting people (almost daring them) to watch your kink: you knew that you were crossing a line, you are culpable.
There’s far worst things kids view today, they happily sit down to watch modern horror films, that to be honest I would not dream of watching, but still they do.
Indeed, but not on this forum.
Sanitizing images of death does what exactly, I didn’t hear anyone having qualms over the view of the drowned Syrian boy on the beach on the news, or being shielded from watching documentaries showing soldiers getting shot, blown up, crushed & burned, or the horrendous film of the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators in history lessons at school…
Were those pictures posted on here? Not that I am aware of.
Typical Liberal snowflake attitude, shocking things happen, not showing the consequences of them is criminal…
Or maybe sensible considering where this is, where we are, and public decency? I guess you’d love for this forum to show images of dismemberment, disembowelment, the effects of a shotgun in suicide attempts, what happens when someone gets hit by a train, a guide on how to torture people maybe?
Get real. This is the general discussion section on an aviation forum website, not Ogrish or LiveLeak. Most of those videos would not get played, in full, on British TV at anytime so it is hardly the place to tell Key that they must feature Death Porn and like it or else be branded as overbearing monsters for keeping that sort of imagery from demanding eyes.
At what age did you show your kids real videos of people being beheaded by Isis? Three, four years old? Just because it happens does not mean it needs to be rebroadcast during children’s TV time or shown in infant or junior schools (or any school, for that matter).
Stu.
No reply to the Spitfire point, I notice.
snafuI reported it.
As I have previously been informed and have mentioned several times this is a family forum. Therefore it is not a place for death porn.
Seeing people being shot and killed/injured is not very family friendly. You obviously get off on seeing deaths on film and know where to find this sort of thing but, like porn, others who might not want to see it should not have it forced upon them – and ‘others’ will include children. You knew these videos would be contentious since you warned that viewer discretion was required.
In addition what sort of response would you expect if, for example, a Spitfire crashed at an airshow this afternoon and you posted your video showing the full, grisly imagery on the historic forum? Welcomed with open arms or – at best – requested to show some respect for the departed?
snafuThank you for your prompt response.
snafuDo we really need this?
No we don’t…. Posts removed… Mods..
Sign In
