.jpg.c34b7fcd9fb0e5d10cd8b5202da22d03.jpg)
Ken
-
Posts
994 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ken
-
-
6 hours ago, anotherbanana said:
Why start your day so early in the morning, I am sure wordle will wait?
Early! The day can't start early enough! Yes, wordle can wait, I can't!!!! Anyway the cats enjoy an early breakfast though they haven't yet mastered wordle ! No paper round though I'm usually returning from a run when many seem to be just getting out of bed with the day half gone! What a waste!
-
Not normally an 'addict' sort of person, other than exercise but 'Wordle' has grabbed me and I start my day (around 5.30 a.m) finding the hidden word. So far 100% and have been doing it for a couple of weeks. If you like sudoku or other puzzles then this is quite good. It gets the brain going but isn't particularly difficult, just puzzling !!
Easy to find, just type in wordle.
-
1 hour ago, alittlebitfrench said:
OK fair point.
Do you think that Macron and his government are discrminating against the British over this travel ban ?
I mean this is nothing to do with the virus. This is about politics and keeping the British out of France.
Remember 600,000 + French nationals living in the UK are free to travel back and forth to France. It is just the British ones they don't like.
How much shÏt should the British take before people start voting with their wallets ? Or is France 'worth' the discrimination ?
Imagine having a party and everyone can come except the British. Is that not discrmination ? Racism ?
Everyone can travel on this bus apart from the British. We have seen that before in history.
You know what I mean !
Incidently, there was a report the other day on French TV about ski resorts. The British represent 40-60 % of clientle in some of the larger resorts. Those who run the resorts, hotels and everything else can't understand why they have people from all over Europe but not the British. They see it as punnishment for Brexit as well. Also, they were saying that French and other nationalities simply go to ski and don't really spend money in the resort. The British do. It is a financial disaster for them. Many will go out of business.
I can't see many folks working in ski resorts voting Macron.
It's almost a schizophrenic situation regarding what's happening. Undoubtably Macron is doing his best to make Britain pay for Brexit but I doubt it is aimed at the British people, not in that personal way. It is political and the schizoid aspect comes into it in that it is the politicians playing their games whilst at the same time suggesting they are doing it for 'the people'! The politicians are on another plane to the rest of us but unfortunately we are the subject of their grandiose schemes. As you have said, the French are also suffering because of Macrons behaviour but it is for their 'benefit!!
I can't help but feel that Macrons time is running out. The rest of the E.U are not wholly supportive of France because of his behaviour and the French themselves can feel the 'pinch' regarding British spending power. The major problem is the coming election and the tactical voting that goes on. It could well see him elected again. If he is elected I foresee much more civil unrest here, if there is something the French do well (and they do many things well) it is street riots!!!
-
1
-
-
On 05/01/2022 at 18:59, Gluestick said:
Try suggesting that to his parents...
A strange thing to say! Do you know Macron's parents found his marriage to be offensive? She is an attractive woman and many will simply be jealous, an unenviable trait in people.
-
1 hour ago, anotherbanana said:
He is not the first President of France to use the word so why the fuss now.
I don't know of any other President who used that word but I do remember Sarkozy causing a storm by using 'racaille' The British press just, as with 'emmerder', plumped for the worst translation possible of course! Each word has several interpretations and Presidents should be aware that whatever they say it will be shown in the worst possible light by their enemies!
-
3 hours ago, Gluestick said:
Hopefully, the odious little creep will pee off himself, soon and take his grisly granny with him!
I have never understood why Mrs Macron should be insulted as she is. I find her an attractive woman. No doubt she is intelligent and as far as I'm aware hasn't done anything offensive. No doubt, first thing in the morning she may not look as attractive as she does in public but then again who does? Macron may be all that is said about him but why his wife?
-
Noisette; No need to apologise as your post isn't confusing at all. As usual you say things that simply haven't happened or existed. I have not used the term 'indignation' at all. Your 'comical' reaction is therefore rather strange. A vivid imagination perhaps! As for my 'dogmatic bulldozing' of others knowledge of a subject, more vague 'comedy' I'm afraid. More whimsical imaginings.
You don't have the time to waste with arguing on forums but do find the time to have a 'dig' so you say. That is quite apparent but equally you don't like it when your posts are corrected. It's easy to 'have a dig' isn't it? Not so nice when you are on the receiving end and your character is revealed for what it is, no matter how nicely it is tried to be wrapped up!!
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Noisette said:
??? Diplomatically?? Isn't it annoying when people aren't prepared to entertain any point of view but their own? ?
Yes it was diplomatically put. There is nothing at all wrong with having a point of view, as you have shown! Expressing it correctly is all important. I wonder why anyone would intimate it is wrong to do so?
-
Down here my French neighbours say the same thing. The don't like Macron, hate what happened regarding the flag but will still vote for him in the final round if MLP is there too. As diplomatically as I can I Point out that it is the tactical voting in the earlier rounds that leads to that situation so it is as much their fault as anyone's that they end up with a President they don't want or like!!! Absolute waste of time, they won't change.The same thing happens at the local elections when they vote for another neighbour because he is their friend!! What can you say? Without causing offence that is!!! I am, despite living here for 22 years, still a guest in France.
-
Should Boris Johnson have flown any flag other than the 'Union Jack' over the tomb of the unknown warrior in the U.K. there would have been absolute uproar and no doubt he would be looking for another job this very minute. The French are patriotic, their military suffered tremendously in both world wars and I was appalled when I saw on the news this morning that Macron had the E/U. flag flown above the French tomb. Whatever could have possessed the man to do such a thing?
I have read here that it has now been taken down, I hope that is the case. I consider it an insult to the dead of France that such a thing happened. Is the man so utterly arrogant that he doesn't consider what incredible offence it must have caused to the French people ?
-
1
-
-
NOISETTE: If you want 'comic' lets dissect your post! Fat, Obese and overweight are well defined. Do a little research and you will find the % of fat for male and female that is the considered norm. Above that norm you move into overweight, fat Then obese. Ethnicity-Genetics has no real relationship with being fat. Samoans are huge people , possibly genetically fat but still fat!!! Bone density, muscle mass have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with fat. Different material completely and subject to different parameters.
As for greed: We are taking about fat people!! Thin people are not fat, surely you have noticed? I don't know of anyone and I bet you don't either who knows of someone stick thin yet eats like an elephant on a daily basis.. We can all eat a huge meal or two from time to time without becoming obese! As for the nonsense of looking at food and getting fat, indeed it is nonsense.
You would say that the biggest factor is physical activity! Wrong again: Incidentally you can't switch on/ off your metabolism!! You probably mean a temporarily increased metabolism when taking exercise. Do some research and you will find out about things like calories in fat, protein and carbohydrate which predominately are used in exercise in varying proportions, fat being the last and slowest to be used!!!. To give you a taste, pun intended. To lose a pound of fat you would need to travel on foot without eating for a minimum of thirty miles. Do the research and you will find the value in calories in fat and the calories used in exercise; You will then see that exercise is a non starter. Being fat isn't genetic. It is eating too much!! Most cases of people arguing against the basic precept that eating is the sole reason for being fat and obesity are , I found in my career, fat people!!! No matter how many times you tell most fat people that being fat could well kill them they ignore it, it doesn't exist!! Instead they go off on ridiculous tangents to try and justify why they are fat, and it's never their fault!! Incidentally I don't believe in the 'French paradox' at all. The French population is increasingly becoming fat; It is a matter of record
-
2 hours ago, Gluestick said:
As always, Ken, you are endeavouring to conflate an argument.
Since US draftees had thorough medicals before serving; and since the average length of service, in theatre was 2 years, then logically, it must follow that any young fit person who ate increased levels of fat for two years would be suffering from advanced cardio-vascular disease?
Well, if all they ate was lard, then perhaps; although I would suggest it would tend to be thrown up and exit the other end too at a rate of knots!
However, what they did eat can be seen, here:
https://www.historynet.com/gourmet-grunts-1968-70.htm
Unless there was another cause.
Eating fat and being fat (i.e. obese) are two disparate issues.
However, the original point was surely this?
"No actual link to eating fat and heart attacks, sadly that misinformation should have been laid to rest and is from the good old US of A. It was referred to as the french paradox, how can they eat so much fat and cheese but have low incidence of heart disease. Or the shorter version, how America got it so wrong, down to a bloke called Ancel Keys. "
As a point of reference, early in my life I suffered an MI (Myocardial Infarction: a Coronary if you like).
I was extremely fortunate and received truly excellent early care and then treatment by probably the top Cardiologist in the UK at the time, at the top London hospital, London Chest.
My GP was a good friend and assisted me with research into,"WHY?".
I could tell you however no doubt I would be "Cherry Picking" again!
You of course, were not...
Interesting that this in depth clinical study mentions both Korean war and Vietnam war PM heart/vascular evaluations; but not fatty diets?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812791/
And as ever I'm being accused of something I'm not guilty of! The diet of the young men wasn't an issue when they were called up they were young, fit and 'healthy', except they weren't were they? The autopsies proved it! No conflation! Advanced heart disease was present in the bodies brought home. The only logical cause was their diet, before , and during their service. Of course eating fat and being fat are two different issues. Eating anything and being fat is also two different issues. The whole point. though is that being fat is bad and the only way to become fat is to eat too much. It is well established that fat people are more at risk in any health situation. With your heart attack, you don't say if you were fat. You don't say if being fat was a possible factor. I'm not cherry picking but stating the obvious.
-
13 hours ago, Gluestick said:
Years ago, the American Heart Association set up a long term study: they used only doctors and clinicians, as these would be more likely to stick to the programme.
The first group consumed a typical American high fat diet. The second, a very low fat "Healthy" diet.
At the end of the project, to the researchers' utter amazement, there was no real difference between the groups in terms of cardio-vascular incidence. However, the low fat "healthy" lot suffered a far higher than normal incidence of bowel cancer and associated diseases!
Unfortunately people cherry pick whatever statistic suits their point of view , or argument. There was also, without their relatives knowledge, autopsies carried out on the returning bodies of US servicemen killed in the Vietnam war, mainly 18 to mid 20s year old. Studies found that there was very high incidence of heart disease in these young men. conclusion: Their diet was largely fat based and given as the reason. Generally speaking there is ample evidence to suggest that the fatter you are the greater the risk from not only vascular disease but cancers and other problems. Because being fat is a 'taboo' subject it is rarely mentioned these days. It is quite clear that it isn't the type of food you eat but how much of it. Nutritionally a hamburger is perfect with regard protein, fat, minerals and vitamins but quite clearly eating several a day is not going to be a good idea! People are fat because they eat too much, and it is killing them! Will they do something about it? No! Mustn't upset anyone must we!!!! Heart disease in the U.SA. is rampant.In the U.K it is very bad and in Europe becoming a big problem. Still though, people mustn't be called fat or even have it pointed out! Instead governments and individuals dance around the subject blaming lack of exercise, poor diet etc. when it is essentially just plain greed! Just to add a last bit of controversy: Watching people queuing up at the food banks for free food brought an ironic smile, most were fat or at least overweight and still they want more!!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gluestick said:
Seems the odious little pigeon-chested creep, Macaroni is determined to finally destroy any remaining goodwill from the Entente Cordiale.
To be fair, although I also think he is odious!! The French government have said there isn't a problem!!
-
Well, whilst you lot were putting on weight and getting a hangover I was still mixing cement!! I have to admit though that I did take Christmas day off!
But it’s finished! Boxing day afternoon the last joint was cemented.
For those who like statistics: I started the work on the 20th August finished 26th of December. Apart from nearly three weeks of rain in November worked every day or part of a day.
Lifted approximately ten tons of gravel and trailered it to the tip.
Used a mini digger to loosen the gravel but had to load and unload the trailer by hand. It took 50 trips to the tip!
Laid 12 cubic meters of concrete (12 tons) reinforced with metal grillage over 104 square meters of driveway.
Laid 3.5 cubic meters of stone on the concrete (approx. 5 tons)
Used approximately 50-60 bags of cement (approx. 2 tons)
A third of a ton of sand for the joints, colour and ‘fixer’
A fractured hand (overuse of a spade!!) A few gallons of sweat and liberal use of expletives; but it’s done!
-
4 hours ago, Gluestick said:
"The original idea was conceived by Jean Monnet, a senior French civil servant and it was announced by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, in a declaration on 9 May 1950. The aim was to pool Franco-West German coal and steel production, because the two raw materials were the basis of the industry (including war industry) and power of the two countries. The proposed plan was that Franco-West German coal and steel production would be placed under a common High Authority within the framework of an organisation that would be open for participation to other European countries. The underlying political objective of the European Coal and Steel Community was to strengthen Franco-German cooperation and banish the possibility of war. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome
I'm sure you feel that your highlighted sentence qualifies as the objective of the EEC but I respectfully differ. 'An underlying political objective' isn't mentioned or anything like it in the Treaty of Rome. Neither was it mentioned in your post that Monnet and Schuman declared 'it was to banish war'!
-
Yes I did and I would have thought that, if correct, an increase of just over 2 thousand on the previous year, isn't a gigantic increase. The problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to suit any argument as I'm sure you know. Given that there were over 21 thousand the year before, according to the statistics, rather supports what I said about child cruelty has always been going on! Given that in some countries, the U.K. included I think! If you smack a child it can be deemed child cruelty, many people think differently but it is the law and would enter the statistics as an offence against a child. There are lies and there are statistics!
-
There were different views that's for sure.I don't see too many comments now defending social services. People who work in social services , are, in the main, the bottom of the 'food chain' 'Funny' degrees in all sorts of subjects and an even 'funnier' perception of the world and the dross that inhabit it. No doubt there are some who work well but by and large it is a dysfunctional organisation and always has been. The sad truth is that it will continue. These recent atrocities regarding children is nothing new. It has always gone on it's just at the moment it is the 'flavour of the month' for the press to get hold of.
-
17 hours ago, Gluestick said:
Now what I find so risible, Ken, is the whole concept behind the formation of the EEC - which was naturally ignored by fools such as Heath, of course! - was to end wars and problems between member states.
Of course, no politician actually bothered to read or task a highly paid civil servant with apposite skills to read and report on the Treaty of Rome, which was the founding document.
Now, if they had have actually taken the time and trouble, they would have recoiled in horror; as the Treaty laid out forward plans for EMU (Economic and Monetary Union: i.e. the Euro and one system of taxation common to all); plus the concept of a federal state, one system of law, and so on.
Heath, of course, lied and represented the EEC as a sort of trading agreement; neatly ignoring the singular fact that we already had one! It was called EFTA (The European Free Trade Agreement). So why did we need another?
In order to now limit legal immigration (essential to achieve) and Illegal Immigration, needs absolute agreement by both Brussels and member state politicians: as well as ensuring that there would be no breaches of the European Human Rights Laws. Plus, of course, shutting up the fools in the blighted UN! Oh, and the silly old duffer who presently serves as the Pope!
Expecting all such boxes to be ticked with the current gang of useless self-serving politicians who would be hard put to run a bath is impossible.
Which is why they waffle, pontificate and rabbit on about "Social Enrichment", the wonders of a multi-cultural society and etc. in the attempt of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.
I 'm not sure that the EEC was formed to stop wars! Certainly for more integration which I suppose would help in that direction but specifically to stop war. I don't agree. Commercialism was the main thrust of the Treaty of Rome and somehow this has morphed, over the years, as to become a treaty to stop war! That aside I agree with all your points about politicians and their 'waffle'. Perhaps we do need a Le Pen or Zemmour that have stated categorically that they would do something about it, but will they get their chance? I doubt it. Your points are valid but the electorate put the same old 'Wafflers' back in power so who really is at fault; them or us?
-
9 minutes ago, Gluestick said:
From my perspective, it is pretty clear our glorious leaders haven't a real clue about handling this pandemic.
Only a few days ago, one UK government spokesman stated that there were 250 cases of Omicron in the UK: shortly afterwards, this was corrected to ten!
This virus has created more supposed "Experts" than any other situation I can recall.
I think that xmas is wrecked for many anyway. I have just read that France is banning all non-essential to France from the U.K. Only French citizens and truck drivers are exempt. Merry Christmas!!
-
9 minutes ago, Gluestick said:
It seems pretty obvious, Ken, that all leading contenders set out to eat Le Pen's lunch, on immigration!
Politicians know full well, that flooding a nation state with incomers who refuse to integrate and demand the constant accommodation for their own cultural mores (Let alone their religious demands), has created/will create huge societal friction.
However, spouting on about it is easy in a political manifesto: actually doing something about it if and when elected are two hugely disparate matters!
At least Orban has actually taken positive steps; despite constant and increasing threats from Brussels.
Dare I say that we all want to end the illegal and mass immigration into Europe. I certainly do. Even those that aid the immigrants must surely want it to end. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that politicians say they will do something and never do! Just what is the answer, Another war because the situation becomes so chronic step forward a dictator who appeals the masses?
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Gluestick said:
About the only politician to have the guts and brains to speak out is Viktor Orban, the PM of Hungary.
How about Zemmour? Indeed most of the front runners are now talking about curbing immigration; including Macron. Germany, on the other hand; so I read this morning; is again encouraging immigration!!!
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Teapot1 said:
Ken, when you say the east and west are you leaving out the Vatican city where the age is 13! I leave others to debate the pedophile church of Catholicism.
East and West, a generality. There are countries in the West that allow under age (according to Europe) marriages and therefor sex. As I said earlier, what is considered normal in one country is considered abnormal in anther. The great danger is that we become sanctimonious and consider our laws and customs to be the only correct ones. The big problem comes when immigrants bring their customs to Europe, or indeed, when europeans go to other countries and lecture them on their customs!!
-
12 hours ago, Gluestick said:
"Denmark
The age of consent in the Kingdom of Denmark is 15 as specified by Section 222:[20]
§ 222. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 8 years, unless the situation is covered by § 216 paragraph 2. In determining the penalty, it shall be an aggravating circumstance if the perpetrator has gained intercourse by exploiting his physical or mental superiority.
Section 223, part 1, reads: "Any person who has sexual intercourse with any child under 18, who is said person's adopted child, stepchild or foster child, or who is entrusted to said person for education or upbringing, will be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four years", this includes teachers. Further, part 2 of § 223 establishes that the same punishment is applicable to any person found to have grossly exploited their age and experience based superiority over a person under the age of 18 to seduce said minor into intercourse."
Q.V. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EUR1824302020ENGLISH.pdf
Surely, Ken East and West have absolutely nothing to do with law? The next problem, to me, is that the ECHR have, once more, reached a decision which conflicts with the apparent body of law?
What's next? "Oh, Female Genital Mutilation is the normal thing in our country." Or,
"No it is normal in our country to smother malformed babies at birth, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, cannot tolerate imperfection."
I would agree that East and West have nothing to do with the law.That is, eastern law in the west and vice versa. The law in a sovereign country is what should count. (Don't mention the E.U.!!!) Denmark has enforced the law regarding the Minister but does it enforce the law regarding marriages to children, can it? Just how do you prove an adult has had sex with a child without imposing on their human rights!! I don't know of any prosecutions in Denmark, or anywhere else for that matter regarding illegal sex between a couple who are married but the bride is a child!!! I think the west has a very big table to sweep lots of things under!!! Immigration and the control of it is, in part, the answer. Men who are married to children can then be vetted and refused entry but immigration control is a very touchy subject isn't it? Europe is slowly awakening to the problems but it's probably too late without radical reform, step in the human rights mob!!
Wordle
in The Lighter Side
Posted
10.15!! The poor dog must be starving!!! No wonder he gets you up!