On 06/07/2021 19:56, charles wrote:
> Dependa on when. Throughout the 405 era, sound to Fort William went down a
> PO line from Rosemarkie

TV sound from Rosemarkie to Fort William never went by PO line, RBR into
SHF Link.

The Band II services initially by RBR + reversible PO line, then I think
the PO section digital like all PO lines.

On 09/07/2021 14:02, MrSpud_5zl3p92@ee4zo.net wrote:

>
> I'm not religious at all, but if the owner of a private B&B doesn't want
> to rent to gay couples because blunty they don't want to have to wash shit off
> the sheets the next morning then they should be entitled to refuse them.

I can't see any reason why bed hygiene should be any less careful for
homosexuals than for anyone else. Maybe you know things I don't. Or
maybe you're just making something up to support your ridiculous
prejudices.

Bill

On 09/07/2021 20:26, Tweed wrote:

> So should a private members’ club be allowed to forbid, for example, non
> white people?
>

That must be OK because there's the Metropolitan Black Police Association.

Bill

williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 09/07/2021 20:26, Tweed wrote:
>
>> So should a private members’ club be allowed to forbid, for example, non
>> white people?
>>
>
> That must be OK because there's the Metropolitan Black Police Association.
>
> Bill
>

Depends if it actually forbids white people from joining. There’s a big
difference between an organisation that is *for* a certain group of people
and one that is *restricted* to that group.

On 10/07/2021 04:24, williamwright wrote:
> That must be OK because there's the Metropolitan Black Police Association.

But is there a Metropolitan Police White Association?

On 10/07/2021 06:21, Tweed wrote:
> Depends if it actually forbids white people from joining. There’s a big
> difference between an organisation that is*for* a certain group of people
> and one that is*restricted* to that group.

I think if you started a xxxxxx White xxxxxxx Association, even if you
said that people of any colour could join, there would be claims that
the name deterred anyone else from joining.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 21:16:39 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>I read a few years ago of a job in a company which was advertised, received
>a number of applicants and then was withdrawn without even interviewing
>anyone because none of the applicants was female or non-white, despite the
>fact that some of the people who applied may have been perfectly suited for
>the job.

If the company survives on income from satisfied customers then in the
long term its success will depend on the ability of its employees to
do the work, so natural selection will prevail, and serve them right.

Rod.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/07/2021 04:24, williamwright wrote:
>> That must be OK because there's the Metropolitan Black Police Association.
>
> But is there a Metropolitan Police White Association?
>
>
>

The Masons?

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 05:21:46 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2021 20:26, Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> So should a private members’ club be allowed to forbid, for example, non
>>> white people?
>>>
>>
>> That must be OK because there's the Metropolitan Black Police Association.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>Depends if it actually forbids white people from joining. There’s a big
>difference between an organisation that is *for* a certain group of people
>and one that is *restricted* to that group.

MPBA Membership constitution says:-

3.1 Full membership is open to all serving police officers, special
constables and police staff directly employed by the MPS, MOPAC or
retired or former members who are of African, African-Caribbean, or
Asian origin.

and:-

3.11 ‘Associate’ membership is open to all serving police officers,
special constables, support staff directly employed by a Police
Service, Constabulary or The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime
within the UK and support staff employed by an outsourced contractor
(or contractor) whose main role is the support of the Metropolitan
Police Service and they agree with the ethos of the association.
Membership fees for 'Associate' of the MetBPA will be set at 50% less
than the rate for full membership

and:-

3.12 Associate members will not have voting rights, but may attend
annual general and extra-ordinary general meetings only. Breaches of
the code of conduct are applicable.

3.12 appears to be restrictive, but IANAL

--
brightside S9

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 19:35:18 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 09/07/2021 14:02, MrSpud_5zl3p92@ee4zo.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:26:01 +0100
>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "It's the law of the land" *always* wins over "it's against my religion",
>>> IMHO. Hence people who run B&Bs being prosecuted for discrimination if they
>>> refuse to rent rooms to a gay/lesbian couple. I work on the principle that
>>
>> I'm not religious at all, but if the owner of a private B&B doesn't want
>> to rent to gay couples because blunty they don't want to have to wash shit
>off
>> the sheets the next morning then they should be entitled to refuse them.
>
>Blunty????????

Bluntly.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 04:19:30 +0100
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>On 09/07/2021 14:02, MrSpud_5zl3p92@ee4zo.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not religious at all, but if the owner of a private B&B doesn't want
>> to rent to gay couples because blunty they don't want to have to wash shit
>off
>> the sheets the next morning then they should be entitled to refuse them.
>
>I can't see any reason why bed hygiene should be any less careful for
>homosexuals than for anyone else. Maybe you know things I don't. Or

Clearly you've never had an endoscopy.

>maybe you're just making something up to support your ridiculous
>prejudices.

Or alternatively you don't want reality to get in the way of your right on
political persuations.

On 10/07/2021 09:47, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> MPBA Membership constitution says:-
>
> 3.1 Full membership is open to all serving police officers, special
> constables and police staff directly employed by the MPS, MOPAC or
> retired or former members who are of African, African-Caribbean, or
> Asian origin.

So, as current scientific thinking is that the origins of we all
lie in the Rift Valley in Ethiopia, that must mean that all
plods are welcome!

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 10:47:49 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 10/07/2021 09:47, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> MPBA Membership constitution says:-
>>
>> 3.1 Full membership is open to all serving police officers, special
>> constables and police staff directly employed by the MPS, MOPAC or
>> retired or former members who are of African, African-Caribbean, or
>> Asian origin.
>
>So, as current scientific thinking is that the origins of we all
>lie in the Rift Valley in Ethiopia, that must mean that all
>plods are welcome!

As had been said my many, can you imagine the uproar if someone started
a white association in the police only allowing people with ancestral roots
in europe? Seems discrimination is very much a one way street.

On 09/07/2021 13:26, NY wrote:

> I work on the principle that
> if something is not illegal, preventing that legal "thing" happening for
> specious religious or animal rights reasons should be illegal. Every is
> entitled to hold their own views, but not to foist them on other people.
>
Good luck with convincing the Moslems who hounded a teacher ot of his
job, just because the teacher illustrated a lesson with the cartoon that
led to murder in France.

I agree with you, by the way, but until the police arrest people who
create problems for people who are operating within the law, I can't see
it carrying much weight.

Jim

On 10/07/2021 09:58, MrSpud_gd5bbdh@8cw6.org wrote:
> Clearly you've never had an endoscopy.
>
I have, but not in a B&B.

Jim

On 09/07/2021 16:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> the crazy notion of a
> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
> physics but for some reason never breaks them

Odd logic there.

If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
universe functions would have been created at the same time.

Also, the laws evolve. Newton described gravity as the mutual attraction
of two bodies according to their masses. Einstein realised that the
"law" that had served for such a long time could not explain how a
cannon ball and a feather (which have significantly different masses)
reach the ground at the same time if there s no air to be moved out of
the way and came to the conclusion that falling objects stay still while
the universe moves around them. So what we regard as laws are really
only best guesses until we find something better. Newtons Law then
becomes just a very accurate rule of thumb.

Thus the entity doesn't transcend the laws, it just uses a reality the
human race hasn't discovered yet.

Jim

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 14:23:11 +0100
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>On 09/07/2021 13:26, NY wrote:
>
>> I work on the principle that
>> if something is not illegal, preventing that legal "thing" happening for
>> specious religious or animal rights reasons should be illegal. Every is
>> entitled to hold their own views, but not to foist them on other people.
>>
>Good luck with convincing the Moslems who hounded a teacher ot of his
>job, just because the teacher illustrated a lesson with the cartoon that
>led to murder in France.
>
>I agree with you, by the way, but until the police arrest people who
>create problems for people who are operating within the law, I can't see
>it carrying much weight.

If it had been a right wing group harrassing an ethnic the police would have
been all over them like a rash and they'd have been in the nick the next
day, but the spineless cunts won't go near a group that can cry "Waaaacisst!".
Hence the appalling child sex scandal in rotherham.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>Thus the entity doesn't transcend the laws, it just uses a reality the
>human race hasn't discovered yet.

If something has the power to create a universe from scratch it also has to
power to alter the laws of physics or simply bypass them as and when it sees
fit or even just halt its simulation/universe , change something, then restart
it and nothing inside would be any the wiser as to what actually happened.

On 10/07/2021 09:47, BrightsideS9 wrote:

> 3.1 Full membership is open to all serving police officers, special
> constables and police staff directly employed by the MPS, MOPAC or
> retired or former members who are of African, African-Caribbean, or
> Asian origin.

>
> 3.12 appears to be restrictive, but IANAL
>
3.1 is carefully ambiguous. Is it just retired or former members who
need to meet the ethnic criteria, or is it all present and past members?

I don't believe this is an accidental ambiguity.

Jim

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>> the crazy notion of a
>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>
>Odd logic there.
>
>If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>universe functions would have been created at the same time.

It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
properties of numbers, on which the behaviour of physical reality
depends. If there were a creator, it would have had to work within a
universe in which it did not get to make all the rules, so not really
omnipotent after all.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> the crazy notion of a
> >> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
> >> physics but for some reason never breaks them
> >
> >Odd logic there.
> >
> >If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
> >universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>
> It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
> created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
> could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
> properties of numbers, on which the behaviour of physical reality
> depends. If there were a creator, it would have had to work within a
> universe in which it did not get to make all the rules, so not really
> omnipotent after all.
>
So where did it all come from then? :-)

The big bang theory is just another name for the same thing!

--
Chris Green
·

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:49:18 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> the crazy notion of a
>>> supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
>>> physics but for some reason never breaks them
>>
>>Odd logic there.
>>
>>If the entity created the universe, then the laws that describe how the
>>universe functions would have been created at the same time.
>
> It's a crazy notion because if you claim there is an entity that
> created everything, the logic effectively contradicts itself. Nobody
> could have created the rules of mathematics and geometry, or the
> properties of numbers, on which the behaviour of physical reality
> depends. If there were a creator, it would have had to work within a
> universe in which it did not get to make all the rules, so not really
> omnipotent after all.
>

What if the reality created is a subjective reality, not an objective
reality? as seems to be indicated by Eintstein where he says the same two
events can appear both similtaneous from one point of view and not
simultanous from another?

The King James Bible doesn't mention the word "universe".

In article <5949479256bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
> > general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.

> With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
> "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.

That "whoosh" you heard was a joke flying past you. :-) Apologies for
triggering one of your obsessions.

However given your hyper-sensitivity I can point out that the bad treatment
of women goes far wider.

e.g. I'd make parallel comments about - for example - the disgraceful way
women are often treated in Islamic countries - that our Government and big
companies tend to 'play nicely' with because we want their oil. Although
in terms of (nominal) religious 'book' terms that's a bit different in
terms of details. We sell them Arms for oil, regardless.

They may have a better defined main 'book' but then use a load of other
documents that have much the same effect as ye olde Testament(s), etc. i.e.
allows them to pick and choose and 'interpret' as suits them what is
allegded to be 'right'. Then use that - and power - (mis)treat others as
they see fit, and to 'justify' those in power.

And of course bad treatement of women isn't solely down to 'religion'. The
obvious current UK examples are the appalling behaviour of pretty much
our entire legal system and its *systematic* failures to deal properly
with rape reports/cases. In effect the victim gets treated as a liar or
disreputable and can't get justice.

I'd have thought such things would be in the "bleedn' obvious" class by
now so wouldn't need to be mentioned, but apparently you require a list
before anyone dare raise a specific example like the bad behaviour
of, say, the Catholic Church which, again, has systematically behaved
disgracefully towards women - and also often children. Magdelane
Laundries, predatory Priests, etc, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sc9f3o$8qk$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/2021 11:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> > With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
> > "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.
> >
> > Wow.

> I was thinking similarly.

> At least we do not ban them from taking part in services or segregate
> them (even the Labour party allow that at their meeting) and we
> certainly have stopped killing them unlike more Medieval cults.

You missed out the bits about how various acitivites by priests has been
covered up. Ireland. Catholic Church, etc. Much of it quite recent, and
often covered up by others in the churches for years afterwards. Examples
and evidence continues to emerge from behind 'walls of silence'. The
CoE also has form in this area.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5949753ce0charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> There are, in both Scotland & England, female Bishops. But the law
> should not concern tself with private members' clubs.

So if a club decides murder is OK, we should allow it?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html