Off Topic Other Stuff (anything you want to share)
- Thread starter Plymborn
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That's £40m per YEAR plym not for the whole contract. Poor lad has to do advertising to make up his wages as well.
Why did you write it like "husband" ? he married him so he is his husband, although I think it goes down as a civil partnership, officially. Who cares about science, if they are good parents then let them have a baby together.
1.....The article I read stated that his partner was the "husband".
2.....They are officially married...Tom Daly being a Plymouth lad we would notice such an event being mentioned.
3.....I care about science.....I have yet to read about a man conceiving and having a baby.....I think it would have been noticed by the 6 O'clock news.
4.....This baby has a mother.... and babies need to be nurtured by their mother.
5.....Saffy.....you might have picked up by now that I don't quite agree on this style of life... and certainly not a baby being denied the love of a mother and living only in a male environment....just my view.
2.....They are officially married...Tom Daly being a Plymouth lad we would notice such an event being mentioned.
3.....I care about science.....I have yet to read about a man conceiving and having a baby.....I think it would have been noticed by the 6 O'clock news.
4.....This baby has a mother.... and babies need to be nurtured by their mother.
5.....Saffy.....you might have picked up by now that I don't quite agree on this style of life... and certainly not a baby being denied the love of a mother and living only in a male environment....just my view.
Plym we have to live with the way of life.. its for real.. Not long ago they would lock up gays,, now they are getting married.
I dont think many of the older generation agree, but the world is changing and that is now a way of life.. We cant change it and he is not the first man/man couple to bring up a child.. Elton has done it also..
This subject doesn't have anything to do with the older generation Joe. The simple fact is that two men cannot "have a baby". It takes an egg and a sperm to make that and you get one of each from two different sexes not one. What happened was one of them provided the sperm bit and a woman provided the egg. Whichever one didn't do the sperm bit then adopted the child when it was born. It cannot biologically happen any other way.
What gets me annoyed these days is the need the gay community have to advertise their sexuality. It seems sometimes that they feel a need to do all of their contact publicly in the street as a challenge to the world not to complain. It's a sort of look at me I'm gay thing so what are you going to do about it and if you say anything I'll scream from the rooftops. I'm not gay but I have never felt the need to go around telling people all the time and proving it in public. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine by me as is the case with hetrosexuals. What I don't want to see is people making an exhibition of themselves whatever their preference in front of an audience.
What gets me annoyed these days is the need the gay community have to advertise their sexuality. It seems sometimes that they feel a need to do all of their contact publicly in the street as a challenge to the world not to complain. It's a sort of look at me I'm gay thing so what are you going to do about it and if you say anything I'll scream from the rooftops. I'm not gay but I have never felt the need to go around telling people all the time and proving it in public. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine by me as is the case with hetrosexuals. What I don't want to see is people making an exhibition of themselves whatever their preference in front of an audience.
Sods law rules here this morning....yesterday I decided that today (Thurs) I would run the mower over the lawns to chop down the ever growing weeds and smarten the grass a little....just in time for Fridays council garden collection.
IT'S BLEEGING RAINING....I should have kept quiet so the powers that be didn't know my intentions.
Last time I cut the grass was the beginning of June....nine weeks ago.
IT'S BLEEGING RAINING....I should have kept quiet so the powers that be didn't know my intentions.
Last time I cut the grass was the beginning of June....nine weeks ago.
It rained on my garden today. The first "shower" probable dropped a dozen blobs of water on it. The paving slabs around hardly got damp. The second lasted a couple of minutes and looked promising. Nah, it stopped again and the ground was dry in a minute. The third was a positive downpour in comparison. At least 10 minutes of almost steady rain. It took the paving slabs all of 20 minutes to dry that time. That was it. I would cut the grass but it would take me too long to find any. Strangely though, nothing I want to grow is growing. The weeds are having a field day and they somehow manage it no matter how hot or dry it is and look as green as green can be, I was thinking of digging up all the plants and shrubs and just growing weeds which appears infinately easier in the long run.
I have been reading about the Ben Stokes thing today and the ECB's statement of there are things to consider. The beeb go on about the image of the sport and the fact that the prosecution tried to brand him as a bully and a violent man. I have to ask what is there to consider? A Jury of 12 people unanimously found him not guilt of the charge he was up for and his case was therefore dismissed. The Jury found the evidence of the prosecution to be wrong. If the ECB now try to carry out another trial of their own then it is surely double jeopardy. If he had no case to answer in a Court of Law then that is enough. If they do conduct a hearing and find any other verdict on him then they are throwing everything in the face of our legal system. It is so terribly British to have another trial . I can't think of any other Country that would go through that but us.
.....
.
Absolutely right Sensible... and the 2 gay men have now come out and thanked Stokes for defending them. Why weren't they called as witnesses?
Even today on the Sky sports news channel there was a journo doing his best to muddy the waters in this case. He took great pains to explain that the not guilty thing was as good as nailed on because of the nature of the charge and what the Judge directed the Jury to do to reach a verdict. He was basically saying it would have been hard or damn near impossible to reach any other verdict. The implication was there was a case to answer even if it wasn't Affray.
I also note the Beeb statement about not pursuing the appeal against them being found guilty about the Cliff Richards episode. They aren't going to appeal BUT.............(wasn't there always going to be one), they still believe they were right to do what they did and it is the Court who is preventing freedom of the Press or media. New for the Beeb. You bleddy lost and rightly so. If you can't see that what you did that day was way over the top and wrong then I serious wonder at the leadership and news chief. If you had appealed it is my belief you would have lost. That would not have cost you personally a penny. The people to pay the bill would be the public who provide the Corporation's income.
There are now calls to keep the media out of reporting on cases to come and not reporting anything until after the event if a guilty verdict is reached. Absolutely one hundred and ten percent the right way to go. It should be an automatic right to not be tried by news reporting in advance of a case.
I also note the Beeb statement about not pursuing the appeal against them being found guilty about the Cliff Richards episode. They aren't going to appeal BUT.............(wasn't there always going to be one), they still believe they were right to do what they did and it is the Court who is preventing freedom of the Press or media. New for the Beeb. You bleddy lost and rightly so. If you can't see that what you did that day was way over the top and wrong then I serious wonder at the leadership and news chief. If you had appealed it is my belief you would have lost. That would not have cost you personally a penny. The people to pay the bill would be the public who provide the Corporation's income.
There are now calls to keep the media out of reporting on cases to come and not reporting anything until after the event if a guilty verdict is reached. Absolutely one hundred and ten percent the right way to go. It should be an automatic right to not be tried by news reporting in advance of a case.
Agreed also Sensible. I don't see any public interest argument unless there's a threat to public safety or an element of corruption or conspiracy which might lead to a case not coming to court when it should.
Twice in one week. Greg Wylde next.
Sent from my mobile phone - E&OE