dgul

Members
  • Content count

    3,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Inoperational Bumblebee in Train In Vain   
    Like coffee, we've had normalisation of expenditure on certain things that have become very expensive.
    IMO we should have a policy that no train journey should be more expensive than single-occupancy driving on an 'average car' (running costs only -- not base expenditure like insurance or car tax) plus all day parking.  For concessions it should be no more expensive than driving there-and-back (ie, having a lift).
  2. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Inoperational Bumblebee in Older women   
    Older lesbians -- they're flogging a dead horse there.  A few seconds on the internet would have told them that the nearly all interest is in young lesbians, and no amount of free food is going to change it.
  3. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Byron in Upskirting   
    Exactly.  Private members bill actually means -- MP trying to get new laws made by sneaking it in on a Friday afternoon when they can get a few mates in to vote it through.  Luckily there is a safety net, which this guy made use of -- it doesn't make it go away, just makes it more likely that there'll be at least a little discussion about what it means for normal people.
  4. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Melchett in Upskirting   
    I don't think it should be illegal to point a camera up a woman's skirt.  It is too complex.  Again, you're thinking that the only behaviour where this happens is the perv.  What about if my 12 year old son starts taking pics for some strange dare?  What about accidental shots (where the victim is sitting)?  What about drunken larking about -- what is the definition of 'consent'?  It is far too loose a definition.
    What you want is a law that identifies all sorts of lewd and upsetting behaviours in the sex-space as a generic 'that's definitely pervy'.  Oh, we've got that already.
    Oh, and as for those people getting upset about it happening to them.  Well, I am sorry and I don't think it should be happening, but in the scale of 'harm done' it really does sit right at the bottom (ha!) of the scale.  You know, I'll let you in to a secret -- when a person walks down the road, or waits for a bus, or goes to the gym or works in the office or whatever, there's a fair chance that someone out there somewhere will be thinking naughty thoughts about that person.  They might have a little self-enjoyment later on, recalling the way breasts bounced, or the way lycra stretched over buttocks, or the crafty downblouse when picking up that paperclip, or the way that cock was was outlined when stretching to reach a high shelf, or the manly talk to the team, or the stern words with that late delivery driver who looked like they'd burst crying.  And it isn't just the fit ones -- out there somewhere are people that'll have the memory of wobbling thighs to give them a stiffie, or that huge beer-gut to give them a wide-on.   Note that these people doing the naughty thoughts aren't the sexual predators, or the ones that really should be on the sexual offenders list.  They're everyone (not all the time, but at least some of the time).  We don't talk about it, but we're a sexual beast, and we think about sex far more than 'not at all' -- and thinking about dirty stuff based on a glimpse of stranger-on-the-street is just as great a tittilation as thinking about sex with wife/husband.
    The only way we'll get around this is if we all walk around with massive binbags over us -- oh, that's out -- there's a fetish for that as well.
  5. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from whocares in Upskirting   
    We seem to be in the grips of a kind of mania that leaves people incapable of logical thought for anything, even peripherally, to do with [race, gender stuff, (other peoples') religion, etc].  The guy is part of a group that always votes down ill-thought-through and undebated proposals -- and, given the state of the proposed amendment I can see why.
  6. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from gibbon in Upskirting   
    This is (was) a badly drafted law.  Wording is as follows:
    What does 'beneath clothing' mean?  What if the girl is sitting and the camera is looking forwards?  Do they mean 'beneath' as in 'between the clothing and the ground' or 'beneath' as in between clothing and skin?  Prove 'sexual gratification' -- oh, sure, it is easy when the guy is an unkempt middle aged man in a mac...  
    Beyond that, what happens if I accidentally capture such a picture.  'Oh, can't happen' -- say I'm taking a pic of my kid outside a museum and there's a girl in the near background in a short skirt sitting down and there's a glimpse of knickers -- she complains that I was upskirting her and using kiddo as the excuse for the photo.  Have I upskirted (using the 'beneath' as 'looking up clothing whatever the orientation', which is what i'd suggest they meant)?  She calls the police, and, yes, I've got a picture of her knickers.  Do I then have to prove that I'm not intending to rub one off later?  What about if I put the picture up on Facebook and my mate down the road does actually rub one off?
    This isn't mucking about with telling people off for being a bit naughty -- this is intended to be law.  It is all very well to say 'it is designed for people with cameras in their shoes that are perving in the bus queue' -- but it doesn't limit itself to that and just looks clumsy.  I hadn't realised how badly it was worded before I saw the actual text.  
     
  7. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Cunning Plan in Hell of a storm over tha balkans right now!   
    Talk like a pirate day is in September.
  8. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Rave in Deceased Zombies, small and large   
    Debenhams is dead-man-walking.  It could well survive, but only because Ashley turns it into a Sports Direct concession.
    Carpetright has had it.
    Moss Bros is in trouble, but might well survive depending on how things turn out.
    Kingfisher (B&Q) is going to get hammered.  Probably will survive, but only because of Screwfix.  Expect a few closures.
    Halfords is in a much worse place then they're letting on.  Bike sales (keeping them going) will plummet.
    I don't see how Mothercare can survive in current form.
    Similarly for Paperchase -- they're a 'nice people shopping for nice stuff' shop, but they have huge shops for sales of just a few pretty pens.
    Dunno what's going on with New Look -- should be dead by now.
    WH Smith will hurt next time round the economic cycle.  It'll survive as a brand, but with loss of a decent %age of the current stores.  (Stations and airports will bankroll it).
    We're due to lose a few specialist-but-crap shops on the high street:
    I can imagine we'll lose some of the 'new pawnbrokers' -- Cashconverters, CEx, etc -- they depend on turnover (not the actual loans), but there won't be any.  OTOH traditional pawnbrokers might do okay (as they make money on the 'loan', not simply the resale). There are absolutely loads and loads of vanity shops around.  These will go -- not because they don't make money (they don't make profits now, so there'll be no change there), but because the wealth that bankrolls them will go. I think we'll lose some charity shops --the high street landscape is due for a change.  Perhaps because they can't get volunteers to run the things?  (note, just in case you don't know, that charity shops exist to avoid the landlord having to pay business rates while they have an otherwise unrentable shops -- but local councils are now changing their attitude about how they treat charity shops for rates purposes)
    Oh, and we'll lose coffee-shops.  All of the new ones, hopefully.  They're entirely pro-cyclical, and will just vanish in the next downturn.
    I really don't know about book shops (Waterstones, particularly) -- we've lost so many that the few survivors will probably continue to survive.
    I also don't know what to think of the 'boutique shops' -- Hotel Chocolate, etc.  I've no idea how they currently make money, but I could well imagine that there'll be enough wealth to keep them going.  But it all seems mad to me.
    We'll have consolidation in the mobile phone space.  The current setup is very 2010.
    I also expect we'll lose something big in cars -- not sure which one.  Perhaps Pendragon, but difficult to tell.
    Let's hope we lose Brighthouse -- blood sucking leeches.
    We'll lose a few bookies just because they're cross about FOBT, but that's just them playing the game.
     
     
  9. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Another Shipman?   
    I don't know what went on here, but with the Shipman case there were pains (in the appropriate media, especially early on) to point out that his wasn't a case of 'enthusiastic end-of-life care' -- a point made more clear by his enthusiasm for getting his patients to change their wills in his favour.  
  10. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Another Shipman?   
    I don't know what went on here, but with the Shipman case there were pains (in the appropriate media, especially early on) to point out that his wasn't a case of 'enthusiastic end-of-life care' -- a point made more clear by his enthusiasm for getting his patients to change their wills in his favour.  
  11. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from One percent in Taxi crashes into world cup fans in moscow   
    They'd be more understanding if drunk.  Less so for other reasons.
  12. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from gibbon in Upskirting   
    This is (was) a badly drafted law.  Wording is as follows:
    What does 'beneath clothing' mean?  What if the girl is sitting and the camera is looking forwards?  Do they mean 'beneath' as in 'between the clothing and the ground' or 'beneath' as in between clothing and skin?  Prove 'sexual gratification' -- oh, sure, it is easy when the guy is an unkempt middle aged man in a mac...  
    Beyond that, what happens if I accidentally capture such a picture.  'Oh, can't happen' -- say I'm taking a pic of my kid outside a museum and there's a girl in the near background in a short skirt sitting down and there's a glimpse of knickers -- she complains that I was upskirting her and using kiddo as the excuse for the photo.  Have I upskirted (using the 'beneath' as 'looking up clothing whatever the orientation', which is what i'd suggest they meant)?  She calls the police, and, yes, I've got a picture of her knickers.  Do I then have to prove that I'm not intending to rub one off later?  What about if I put the picture up on Facebook and my mate down the road does actually rub one off?
    This isn't mucking about with telling people off for being a bit naughty -- this is intended to be law.  It is all very well to say 'it is designed for people with cameras in their shoes that are perving in the bus queue' -- but it doesn't limit itself to that and just looks clumsy.  I hadn't realised how badly it was worded before I saw the actual text.  
     
  13. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from whocares in Upskirting   
    We seem to be in the grips of a kind of mania that leaves people incapable of logical thought for anything, even peripherally, to do with [race, gender stuff, (other peoples') religion, etc].  The guy is part of a group that always votes down ill-thought-through and undebated proposals -- and, given the state of the proposed amendment I can see why.
  14. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Byron in Had the twats won the Brexit vote   
    Brexit, remain, no difference -- end result for most people is that life continues to be a bit crap, a bit okay, a bit nice.
    The big thing is whatever process you start you've got to finish the process.
  15. Upvote
    dgul reacted to whocares in Upskirting   
    I am not sure it should be illegal tho? Shdn't we be keeping the law book as simple as possible and use the police to make sure ppl behave better in general?
  16. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from whocares in Upskirting   
    We seem to be in the grips of a kind of mania that leaves people incapable of logical thought for anything, even peripherally, to do with [race, gender stuff, (other peoples') religion, etc].  The guy is part of a group that always votes down ill-thought-through and undebated proposals -- and, given the state of the proposed amendment I can see why.
  17. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Byron in Had the twats won the Brexit vote   
    Brexit, remain, no difference -- end result for most people is that life continues to be a bit crap, a bit okay, a bit nice.
    The big thing is whatever process you start you've got to finish the process.
  18. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Byron in Upskirting   
    Exactly.  Private members bill actually means -- MP trying to get new laws made by sneaking it in on a Friday afternoon when they can get a few mates in to vote it through.  Luckily there is a safety net, which this guy made use of -- it doesn't make it go away, just makes it more likely that there'll be at least a little discussion about what it means for normal people.
  19. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Van Lady in Avatars   
    I remember magic roundabout!  Of course, Dougall was a play on de Gaulle, so perhaps my avatar should be based on:

    But then, perhaps it already is the silhouette of Edward Woodward...
  20. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from One percent in Taxi crashes into world cup fans in moscow   
    They'd be more understanding if drunk.  Less so for other reasons.
  21. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from The Idiocrat in Upskirting   
    Nope -- there it would be absolutely fine to take photos, print them out and spunk over them.  Whether the person photographed wanted it, was distressed, whatever -- the proposed law only covered circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible.
  22. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Melchett in Upskirting   
    I don't think it should be illegal to point a camera up a woman's skirt.  It is too complex.  Again, you're thinking that the only behaviour where this happens is the perv.  What about if my 12 year old son starts taking pics for some strange dare?  What about accidental shots (where the victim is sitting)?  What about drunken larking about -- what is the definition of 'consent'?  It is far too loose a definition.
    What you want is a law that identifies all sorts of lewd and upsetting behaviours in the sex-space as a generic 'that's definitely pervy'.  Oh, we've got that already.
    Oh, and as for those people getting upset about it happening to them.  Well, I am sorry and I don't think it should be happening, but in the scale of 'harm done' it really does sit right at the bottom (ha!) of the scale.  You know, I'll let you in to a secret -- when a person walks down the road, or waits for a bus, or goes to the gym or works in the office or whatever, there's a fair chance that someone out there somewhere will be thinking naughty thoughts about that person.  They might have a little self-enjoyment later on, recalling the way breasts bounced, or the way lycra stretched over buttocks, or the crafty downblouse when picking up that paperclip, or the way that cock was was outlined when stretching to reach a high shelf, or the manly talk to the team, or the stern words with that late delivery driver who looked like they'd burst crying.  And it isn't just the fit ones -- out there somewhere are people that'll have the memory of wobbling thighs to give them a stiffie, or that huge beer-gut to give them a wide-on.   Note that these people doing the naughty thoughts aren't the sexual predators, or the ones that really should be on the sexual offenders list.  They're everyone (not all the time, but at least some of the time).  We don't talk about it, but we're a sexual beast, and we think about sex far more than 'not at all' -- and thinking about dirty stuff based on a glimpse of stranger-on-the-street is just as great a tittilation as thinking about sex with wife/husband.
    The only way we'll get around this is if we all walk around with massive binbags over us -- oh, that's out -- there's a fetish for that as well.
  23. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from gibbon in Upskirting   
    This is (was) a badly drafted law.  Wording is as follows:
    What does 'beneath clothing' mean?  What if the girl is sitting and the camera is looking forwards?  Do they mean 'beneath' as in 'between the clothing and the ground' or 'beneath' as in between clothing and skin?  Prove 'sexual gratification' -- oh, sure, it is easy when the guy is an unkempt middle aged man in a mac...  
    Beyond that, what happens if I accidentally capture such a picture.  'Oh, can't happen' -- say I'm taking a pic of my kid outside a museum and there's a girl in the near background in a short skirt sitting down and there's a glimpse of knickers -- she complains that I was upskirting her and using kiddo as the excuse for the photo.  Have I upskirted (using the 'beneath' as 'looking up clothing whatever the orientation', which is what i'd suggest they meant)?  She calls the police, and, yes, I've got a picture of her knickers.  Do I then have to prove that I'm not intending to rub one off later?  What about if I put the picture up on Facebook and my mate down the road does actually rub one off?
    This isn't mucking about with telling people off for being a bit naughty -- this is intended to be law.  It is all very well to say 'it is designed for people with cameras in their shoes that are perving in the bus queue' -- but it doesn't limit itself to that and just looks clumsy.  I hadn't realised how badly it was worded before I saw the actual text.  
     
  24. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Melchett in Upskirting   
    I don't think it should be illegal to point a camera up a woman's skirt.  It is too complex.  Again, you're thinking that the only behaviour where this happens is the perv.  What about if my 12 year old son starts taking pics for some strange dare?  What about accidental shots (where the victim is sitting)?  What about drunken larking about -- what is the definition of 'consent'?  It is far too loose a definition.
    What you want is a law that identifies all sorts of lewd and upsetting behaviours in the sex-space as a generic 'that's definitely pervy'.  Oh, we've got that already.
    Oh, and as for those people getting upset about it happening to them.  Well, I am sorry and I don't think it should be happening, but in the scale of 'harm done' it really does sit right at the bottom (ha!) of the scale.  You know, I'll let you in to a secret -- when a person walks down the road, or waits for a bus, or goes to the gym or works in the office or whatever, there's a fair chance that someone out there somewhere will be thinking naughty thoughts about that person.  They might have a little self-enjoyment later on, recalling the way breasts bounced, or the way lycra stretched over buttocks, or the crafty downblouse when picking up that paperclip, or the way that cock was was outlined when stretching to reach a high shelf, or the manly talk to the team, or the stern words with that late delivery driver who looked like they'd burst crying.  And it isn't just the fit ones -- out there somewhere are people that'll have the memory of wobbling thighs to give them a stiffie, or that huge beer-gut to give them a wide-on.   Note that these people doing the naughty thoughts aren't the sexual predators, or the ones that really should be on the sexual offenders list.  They're everyone (not all the time, but at least some of the time).  We don't talk about it, but we're a sexual beast, and we think about sex far more than 'not at all' -- and thinking about dirty stuff based on a glimpse of stranger-on-the-street is just as great a tittilation as thinking about sex with wife/husband.
    The only way we'll get around this is if we all walk around with massive binbags over us -- oh, that's out -- there's a fetish for that as well.
  25. Upvote
    dgul got a reaction from Melchett in Upskirting   
    I don't think it should be illegal to point a camera up a woman's skirt.  It is too complex.  Again, you're thinking that the only behaviour where this happens is the perv.  What about if my 12 year old son starts taking pics for some strange dare?  What about accidental shots (where the victim is sitting)?  What about drunken larking about -- what is the definition of 'consent'?  It is far too loose a definition.
    What you want is a law that identifies all sorts of lewd and upsetting behaviours in the sex-space as a generic 'that's definitely pervy'.  Oh, we've got that already.
    Oh, and as for those people getting upset about it happening to them.  Well, I am sorry and I don't think it should be happening, but in the scale of 'harm done' it really does sit right at the bottom (ha!) of the scale.  You know, I'll let you in to a secret -- when a person walks down the road, or waits for a bus, or goes to the gym or works in the office or whatever, there's a fair chance that someone out there somewhere will be thinking naughty thoughts about that person.  They might have a little self-enjoyment later on, recalling the way breasts bounced, or the way lycra stretched over buttocks, or the crafty downblouse when picking up that paperclip, or the way that cock was was outlined when stretching to reach a high shelf, or the manly talk to the team, or the stern words with that late delivery driver who looked like they'd burst crying.  And it isn't just the fit ones -- out there somewhere are people that'll have the memory of wobbling thighs to give them a stiffie, or that huge beer-gut to give them a wide-on.   Note that these people doing the naughty thoughts aren't the sexual predators, or the ones that really should be on the sexual offenders list.  They're everyone (not all the time, but at least some of the time).  We don't talk about it, but we're a sexual beast, and we think about sex far more than 'not at all' -- and thinking about dirty stuff based on a glimpse of stranger-on-the-street is just as great a tittilation as thinking about sex with wife/husband.
    The only way we'll get around this is if we all walk around with massive binbags over us -- oh, that's out -- there's a fetish for that as well.