Yeah agree with all of that. I personally think people into child porn have a mental illness, it can't be cured. But the fact he worked so long at the school is shocking and if you scroll down the comments you can see plenty of ex students saying they said years ago something wasn't right with him and nothing was ever looked into. The thing is with people like that, we don't know what else he has done.
Kevin Pietersen has joined the TMS team for the Cricket World Cup. Graeme Swann is also part of the team. Uh oh........
So many players emerging with this more percussive style, and able to swap hands, so to speak. It can be very alluring. I've got a couple of the late Michael Hedges albums, and I've got one by Andy Mckee, and both of those guys sound good because they don't allow the technique to overwhelm a tune. I would say the same with Michael Dawes, so cheers, I'll listen in a bit more to him. When I mention someone who overwhelms a tune with flashing technique and showboating, check out Tommy Emmanual. I find him pretty much un-listenable because I'm always waiting for him to screw up a song by overdoing it. Really nice bloke too, apparently, so it would come to tell him that less, is more. Mick Dawes appears to get it just right. I'll find by listening to other tracks. Cheers.
A referee who officiated at the ACON has been banned for 6 months for poor performance. What the actual ****? Has Al taken over as head of the CAF? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31125655
Is this not kind of the right thing to do? We all want Ref's to be respected but that respect is earned and when there is a case of incorrect decisions and poor performance then shouldn't ref's be punished. Having said that a long ban like this is counterintuitive.
So we just put out the new Fable track, Silence Myself. Very different, kinda got a bit of a Radiohead thing going on - see what you think -
Found it eventually! That's hauntingly beautiful and shows a completely different side to her than anything we've heard so far. I loved it.
I agree referee's should be banned but 6 months is ludicrous. A footballer would need to do something really bad to be banned for that long.
Thanks Chilcs! Yes takes forever to load on to this screen! It's definitely a different, softer side, for sure. The next one is going to be a big anthemic banger though, I warn you!
A mother of six with an IQ of 70 should be sterilised for her own safety, the Court of Protection has ruled. The Court heard that a further pregnancy would be a "significantly life-threatening event" for both the mother and child. Mr Justice Cobb said the woman had the "same human rights" as everyone else and this was not a case of "eugenics". He has authorised health and council services to intervene and perform the sterilisation. The name of the woman has not been released, to protect the identify of her children. The Court of Protection, which rules in cases when people are unable to make decisions for themselves, heard the woman has no contact with any of her six children. All are being raised by carers. The 36-year-old's history was described as "extraordinary, tragic, and complex". Two of the children were born at home in conditions described as "unhygienic and overrun by pets". There is evidence that barbecue tongs were used as forceps, although this was denied. In another birth, the woman - known only as DD - contested there was no father and the pregnancy resulted from a "tablet from a health food shop". Safety Mr Cobb's judgement said: "The ethical, legal and medical issues arising here are self-evidently of the utmost gravity, engaging, and profoundly impacting upon DD's personal autonomy, privacy, bodily integrity, and reproductive rights." It said there were considerable concerns about the woman's safety. Doctors said the wall of her uterus was "tissue-paper thin" and likely to rupture in childbirth, leading to almost certain death of the infant. Mr Cobb insisted: "Those who lack capacity have the same human rights as everyone else. "This case is not about eugenics, this outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event." He has authorised a sterilisation operation, but there will be no notice given to the woman or her long-term partner, who also has learning disabilities. Rebecca Schiller, the co-chairwoman of the human rights in childbirth charity Birthrights, said: "Taking away a person's ability to have a child is truly draconian. "It may be justified in extreme circumstances, but immense care must be taken to safeguard the rights of people with mental health conditions." http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31128969 So what do you guys (and girls) think of this? Right decision or not?
Always a difficult situation when a person is incapable of understanding what is in their best interests or doing anything about it if they did. I know of one case where a severely mentally disabled girl was repeatedly taken advantage of by men and had several disabled children, but at that time, an action such as this wouldn't even be considered. Ethics are great if you don't have to live with the consequences. Should never be routine and should only be performed after detailed consideration, but in some circumstances may be the right answer.
The first time I gave serious plain thought about couples having children, was when I first thought about going to Uni to do an environmental degree. I realised that if you do any more than replace yourself, that is, have more than two children, you are being irresponsible with yourself and the world around you [apologies to those with large families - I'm the youngest of six children]. This has been my modern world view, aside from 3rd world cultures where having large families may still be necessary under certain real-world circumstances. In the 3rd world I would encourage two replacement offspring only, as the culture changes. So, you probably get my thoughts on the subject. They are irrespective of whether a mother has an IQ of 70 or not. People may say that I am against choice. Not at all. You can either make the honest, responsible, sensible, and above all informed choice, or the other one. And you can be as romantic and goo-goo about it as you like. So those who lack for brightness, rather than education or intelligence, are no more harm than anyone else. The dangerous ones are the people who just love having babies. Having the financial ability to bring up more than two kids doesn't cut it either. The planet would just like less of us please, not ones in better clothes, as a preference. I would encourage two, as a maximum, because inevitably there will be those with none, one, or more than two. When the world gets to an average of two or less, then we can breathe a bit easier.
