In article <scaheo$42e$3@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/2021 21:04, Bob Latham wrote:
> > It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
> > whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites only.

> And Labour have segregated meetings where the women have to sit apart.

Can you give a reference for that? I ceased bothering with the LP many
decades ago. But I can't recall any such meetings when I was a member.

I think there were meetings where the *women* decided they wanted them to
be for the women. Just like there was a 'youth' section provision. Is that
what you mean? If so, I think other parties tended to do much the same.

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

On 10/07/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> 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?
>

I'm not clear why a club that campaigns for a change in the definition
of murder would be unlawful.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/07/2021 10:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Can you give a reference for that? I ceased bothering with the LP many
> decades ago. But I can't recall any such meetings when I was a member.

There have been many reports of Labour party meetings in predominently
Asian immigrant areas having the women segregated from the men. Some of
these meeting have been attended by senior members of the party who
might have been expected to leave on seeing the segregation but did not.

In article <5949c510a0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

It appears that such clubs may exist in East London.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <5949c4939enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Nice try to wriggle out of your self defined predicament by blaming
me but no cigar. I'm not triggered or hypersensitive and you have no
evidence to suggest I'm either.

I'm just amazed, amazed thst anyone can be so woke, PC and protective
of certain groups that when talking of the abuse of females in the UK
your singled out example is christianity.

Child grooming, forced marriages, FGM and honour killings pale into
insignificance for you compared with what the catholics did and women
denied becoming bishops.

I'm so glad I don't have to dance around the truth for the sake of my
ideology.

Bob.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:09:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/07/2021 10:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Can you give a reference for that? I ceased bothering with the LP many
>> decades ago. But I can't recall any such meetings when I was a member.
>
>There have been many reports of Labour party meetings in predominently
>Asian immigrant areas having the women segregated from the men. Some of
>these meeting have been attended by senior members of the party who
>might have been expected to leave on seeing the segregation but did not.
>
A Google search doesn't support your 'many'. Google results would
indicate the word 'few' would be a better adjective. Segregation seems
to have occurred in rallies / meetings in Asian immigrant areas, as
you said, but I can find no report later than 9 MAR 2016 - two
reports, one bbc.com the other The Gruniad.

--
brightside S9

On 10/07/2021 06:21, Tweed 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.
>
Ha! Can you image what would happen if a white man tried to join? For a
start he'd get the sack on some ridiculous woke charge.

Bill

On 10/07/2021 09:58, MrSpud_gd5bbdh@8cw6.org wrote:

>> 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.

I've had every sort of scopy, including the one up my end. I've also had
a prostate biopsy.

>
>> 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.

That comment will have most of the newsgroup howling with mirth!

I'm a known member of the extreme right anti-woke belligerent old
bastard bring back national service and the whipping of rapists faction.

The thing you might not understand is that I don't form my beliefs by
looking to see what the herd believes; I make my own mind up about
things. One thing my long life has taught me is that prejudice against
people for their sexual preferences is just plain stupid.

You are a silly person.

Bill

On 10/07/2021 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> 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
>

My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the community
have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR

Bill

On 10/07/2021 14:24, Indy Jess John wrote:
> 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
>

Capitalism will provide any service if there's a market.

Bill

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:50:59 +0100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

>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!

Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
seventeen is a prime number come from? Where did the value of pi or
the square root of two come from? None of these things "came from"
anywhere, they simply are what they are because they couldn't be
anything else. Nobody created them, in the usual sense of deciding how
they should be, because nobody could have created them differently.
The same argument must apply to all properties of numbers, thereby
effectively the entire structure of mathematics. Some numerical
properties, perhaps all of them, determine some of the ways, perhaps
all of the ways, in which physical matter can behave. You only need to
find one thing in the whole of existence that could not have been
created - and as it turns out there are lots of them - and the concept
of an omnipotent entity that created everything falls apart.

Rod.

On 11/07/2021 14:13, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> There have been many reports of Labour party meetings in predominently
>> Asian immigrant areas having the women segregated from the men. Some of
>> these meeting have been attended by senior members of the party who
>> might have been expected to leave on seeing the segregation but did not.
>>
> A Google search doesn't support your 'many'. Google results would
> indicate the word 'few' would be a better adjective. Segregation seems
> to have occurred in rallies / meetings in Asian immigrant areas, as
> you said, but I can find no report later than 9 MAR 2016 - two
> reports, one bbc.com the other The Gruniad.

It's a classic case of politically motivated under-reporting.

Bill

In article <il0p1nFj4q7U1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2021 14:13, BrightsideS9 wrote:

> >> There have been many reports of Labour party meetings in
> >> predominently Asian immigrant areas having the women segregated
> >> from the men. Some of these meeting have been attended by
> >> senior members of the party who might have been expected to
> >> leave on seeing the segregation but did not.
> >>
> > A Google search doesn't support your 'many'. Google results would
> > indicate the word 'few' would be a better adjective. Segregation
> > seems to have occurred in rallies / meetings in Asian immigrant
> > areas, as you said, but I can find no report later than 9 MAR
> > 2016 - two reports, one bbc.com the other The Gruniad.

> It's a classic case of politically motivated under-reporting.

Indeed and we know Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. are all controlled
by democrat voting lefties who love to censor what's there for people
to read. They even chopped the President of the USA. Neutral they are
not.

Bob.

On 11/07/2021 18:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
> seventeen is a prime number come from?

2+2=4 and 17 being a prime number are true because we have used Radix 10.
2+2=10 if you use Radix 3. 17 isn't a prime number if you use Radix 8.

We use 10 because the human hand has 10 fingers.

It is no use trying to argue mathematics proves anything beyond the
problem that is being solved without considering how and why mathematics
evolved.

Jim

"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:il0nitFitkoU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/07/2021 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the community
> have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR

I have bought a copy, arrived this week.

James

On 11/07/2021 20:56, James Heaton wrote:

>> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the
>> community have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR
>
> I have bought a copy, arrived this week.
>
> James

Excellent! Let me know what you make of it!

Bill

In article <m8vjegdkga7scb8rrhh1dgfbjshjq61uk7@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

How about: "The Universe *IS* God!" then? :-)

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 <sccc1f$dga$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Your outline of his conclusion is correct. But I don't recall it being
based on: " 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.."

Can you reference where you got that?

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 <84lf6dna0i.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <richmond@criptext.com>
wrote:

> 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?

You need to be careful with your definition of "symultaenous" here. But the
advantage of GE is that from one frame of reference you can know what will
be observed/observable from another.

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:09:16 +0100
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

Geometry isn't as constant as you seem to believe especially when curved
space comes into the picture.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:42:27 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
>seventeen is a prime number come from? Where did the value of pi or
>the square root of two come from? None of these things "came from"
>anywhere, they simply are what they are because they couldn't be
>anything else.

How do you know? We might not be able to conceive of such a thing but it
doesn't make it impossible. There seems to be an assumption that mathematics
is somehow fundamental but I think Godel proved that might not be the case.

>all of the ways, in which physical matter can behave. You only need to
>find one thing in the whole of existence that could not have been
>created - and as it turns out there are lots of them - and the concept
>of an omnipotent entity that created everything falls apart.

I don't believe in a creator, but if we were in a perfect simulation there is
absolutely no way we'd know about it nor when we were being observed by its
creators.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:22:24 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>On 11/07/2021 18:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Where did the fact that 2+2=4 come from? Where did the fact that
>> seventeen is a prime number come from?
>
>2+2=4 and 17 being a prime number are true because we have used Radix 10.
>2+2=10 if you use Radix 3. 17 isn't a prime number if you use Radix 8.
>
>We use 10 because the human hand has 10 fingers.
>
>It is no use trying to argue mathematics proves anything beyond the
>problem that is being solved without considering how and why mathematics
>evolved.
>
>Jim

Seventeen is a prime number because (discounting the usual couple of
trivial cases) you can't share out seventeen objects into equal
portions with no leftovers. That's what being a prime number means. A
child could easily verify this with actual physical objects (coins,
buttons, sweets, whatever) without doing any mathematics at all, so
the notation you use to describe the situation cannot have anything to
do with it.

Similarly, if you have two objects and then acquire another two
objects, then you will have four. The situation will be the same
regardless of what verbal or numerical language you use.

The circumference of planet Zog on the other side of the universe
divided by its diameter will be the same value as any equivalent
measurement of any circle anywhere in existence, regardless of the
number system in which you express it, or the number of fingers the
inhabitants of planet Zog may have.

If the Zoggians ever try to communicate with us, their signal will
radiate at equal speed in all directions so the wavefront will form an
expanding sphere, and the energy it contains will spread out and
weaken as the inverse of the square of its distance because that's an
unavoidable property of the geometry of a sphere. You couldn't create
a three dimensional universe in which it was not so.

Notation is irrelevant. Mathematical notation is just a language like
any other. You can't change a findamental truth about numbers
themselves just by using different mumbo-jumbo to describe it.

Rod.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 23:12:15 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On 11/07/2021 20:56, James Heaton wrote:
>
>>> My recent book is partly concerned with the way pillars of the
>>> community have in the past been wilfully blind to child sexual abuse.
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0968MTDXR
>>
>> I have bought a copy, arrived this week.
>>
>> James
>
>Excellent! Let me know what you make of it!
>
>Bill

I bought a copy too. It arrived in about ten seconds.

Rod.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:56:02 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>The circumference of planet Zog on the other side of the universe
>divided by its diameter will be the same value as any equivalent
>measurement of any circle anywhere in existence, regardless of the

C/D != pi for a circle drawn on a sphere the same as the angles of a triangle
on a sphere do not add up to 180 degrees . Similarly it won't hold for a 3D
sphere warped in the 4th dimension.

On 10/07/2021 15:49, Indy Jess John wrote:

> 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.

I'm pretty sure that the cannon ball/feather example can be explained by
Newton's physics.

--
Max Demian