Comments for en-gb 30 Tue 05 May 2015 04:01:15 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Screamingmuldoon I joined the blog on the back of the Kennel Club / RSPCA debacle. The KC has now imposed a code of ethics on all dog breed clubs - replacing the ones the clubs developed themselves over years of thoughtful work and due diligence. Another case of everybody having to carry the can for a couple of shysters. This is the way we live now. Thu 09 Oct 2008 16:32:01 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat "We Britons, we happy Britons, we band of brothers, for he that cleans his shed with me shall be my brother, be he ne-er so base, this day shall gentle his condition. And Eddie Mair on holiday now-a-bed, shall think himself accurs'd he was not here, and hold his manhood cheap, while any speaks that blogged with us upon Saint Crispin's Day!"(Two weeks early I'm afraid...) Thu 09 Oct 2008 14:38:38 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti SSC @ 17, I agree Give us a bit of respect and we Britons will work wonders.:-)How do other nations react to being called by their nicknames when the subject is a serious one? I mean, Yanks, Frogs, Nips...? Thu 09 Oct 2008 13:55:14 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Chris (16):I'm not wild about "Brits" I have to admit. "British" or "Britons", fine. "Brits" just sounds too perfunctory.But it's the "Us" that really gets up my nose."We Britons..." would work better I think. Thu 09 Oct 2008 12:49:25 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti SSC @ 15, is that because of the 'us' or because of the 'Brits', or both? Thu 09 Oct 2008 09:50:42 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Charlie (12):From the article:"US physician Dr Ronald Rau said in the 1940s high levels of radiation pointed to a ship landing there in the 1940s."High levels of radiation? In New Mexico? Near where the US tested the early atomic bombs? Surely not.And I have no reason to believe anything said by a person who starts a sentence with "Us Brits..." Wed 08 Oct 2008 19:49:57 GMT+1 Charlie My money's on the Professor... Wed 08 Oct 2008 18:55:21 GMT+1 RJMolesworth Charlie @ 2And, of course, we have our own set of detainees held without trial in Belmarsh and under house arrest. The Internal Security Act was something we invented many years ago and gave to the Malaysian government amongst others.Inflicting imprisonment without trial on foreigners is a great British tradition. Like being in the opium business, we can't quite let go of these old traditions even in the 21st Century. Wed 08 Oct 2008 18:44:55 GMT+1 Charlie Wonder why this has been released today..? Wed 08 Oct 2008 16:57:33 GMT+1 Thunderbird Sid (10) As I said, pathetic Wed 08 Oct 2008 15:44:48 GMT+1 Sid 9Well, it's broken, Thunderbird. And it hasn't been fixed yet. You don't really want them to tell you that every day, do you? Wed 08 Oct 2008 15:36:01 GMT+1 Thunderbird Rather than buried news, what about pathetic news?The Hadron Collider...... As soon as something a little more relevent come up, this silly, albeit massively expensive project is exposed as having absolutely no interest to anyone Wed 08 Oct 2008 15:32:59 GMT+1 justfloating (4) That prediction is along the lines that the World would only need 4 computers ever. I know people do not like change. It is strange we can not even predict a completely artificial concept, like our economy, or the weather next month, but we can try to predict the future of humanity.(I took that quote to mean we were perfect! However, I think he means we just walked down a dead end.) Wed 08 Oct 2008 14:56:01 GMT+1 Chris Ghoti Went to the local post office today and read things around me while waiting in the queue. (Yes, ok, I was bored!)A well-known brand of concentrated drink advertises itself as containing 'no artificial colourants or flavourings'. Sounds great, yes? Good and healthy?Except that two of its ingredients are 'aspartame' and 'saccherine'.So when did 'sweet' stop being a flavour?I noted with interest that an actual sweetie, also advertising itself as containing no artificial colourants or flavourings, cheerfully has 'sugar' at the top of the ingredients list, but neither aspartame nor saccherine in it.So why is it ok for a drink to be so misleading? Wed 08 Oct 2008 14:44:46 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Me (5):Sorry, I cut myself off there. I was going to add:What he seems to be saying is that if things stay as they are, then things will stay as they are. Um, thanks, Steve. Wed 08 Oct 2008 14:43:01 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat Charlie (4):This idea comes up every so often, and is shot down in flames every time. I'm surprised at someone of Steve Jones' eminence bringing this out.Creationists notwithstanding, we're the produce of millions of years' worth of evolution. The creatures we would call humans have been evolving for several hundred thousand years. A short comfortable spell of several decades is clearly not indicative of what may or may not happen in the next few hundred thousand years. We could easily be reduced to that half-million hunter-gatherers he talks about tomorrow (hopefully not all from Glasgow) and evolution would take hold of the species' destiny again. Wed 08 Oct 2008 14:40:33 GMT+1 Charlie Don't know that it's "Buried", but, now we know. Good to be alive, isn't it..?"At least in the developed world, humans are now as close to utopia as they are ever likely to be..." Wed 08 Oct 2008 14:30:30 GMT+1 The Stainless Steel Cat It's come to my attention that a much beloved children's TV star was today interned in a coffin in the shape of a triangle with a round section at one end....oh sorry, I though you were looking for "Burying Bod" news. Wed 08 Oct 2008 13:40:32 GMT+1 Charlie Well, I've not heard too much about the following in the news today. Can this sort of detention really have happened in a 21st C? What compensation for these people after 7 years in prison without trial and finally, no proven charges..? Well, these people were certainly 'Buried". "Democracy..?" What's that I wonder?"A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Bush administration to release 17 detainees at Guantánamo Bay by the end of the week, the first such ruling in nearly seven years of legal disputes over the administration’s detention policies...He indicated that he would release the men, members of the restive Uighur Muslim minority in western China, into the care of supporters in the United States, initially in the Washington area.“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina said.Saying the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat, he tersely rejected Bush administration claims that he lacked the power to order the men set free in the United States and government requests that he stay his order to permit an immediate appeal...The government recently conceded that it would no longer try to prove that the Uighurs were enemy combatants, the classification it uses to detain people at Guantánamo, where 255 men are now held..." Wed 08 Oct 2008 13:07:59 GMT+1 U11235707 Extra extra, read all about it:Man criticises feminism on BBC web site, and has his posts deleted.Why do men pay the BBC TV-licence? Wed 08 Oct 2008 12:59:07 GMT+1