BStoFYI

Sarcasm or genuine opinion? If sarcasm not sure cause that doesn't come across as easily online as it would in the "real world".

This 1 million times, English is amazing as is Paddy Bonner (phew spelt it right...). Murder Mcleod No So much, he's like "er commons must play for Celtic cause erm I don't like Johansens hair"

Drongan is lovely. Kids are very safe playing at night there as absolutely no teenagers with knifes exist and their are no drug addicts at all in the town.

Any one else think the reaction of Americans originally cheering when her conviction was quashed and now crying when its reinstated are down right creepy. They will demand Brits and Europeans go over there for the trivialist of victimless crimes (Like Hacker Gary McKinnon looking for aliens) but when one of their citzens murders someone, sorry can't/won't extradite them here, not only that but she's treated like some sort of hero. Yet if she had murdered someone in her own country she would probably be rightly villified and wrongly fried in an "eye for an eye" justice and if she had been say an occupy wall street communitarian prostestor or a home schooling conservative person who objected to abortion only when someone who wanted to have kids decided to abort because the kid they saw was "not perfect enough" as oppose to someone who just didn't want to have kids full stop well shed be in jail also wrongly, yet because she happened to murder someone in the "right" location she's a hero? What an utterly bizare, mixed up world, and more so country america is. Also the fact she is a "young women" being mentioned is quite odious, part of gender equality is abandonment of patriarchal protection of women. to instead say that their actions good or bad are judged on equal basis with a mans, a meritocracy , but certain kinds of feminists have a different agenda than mere equality, I'd say sweedish feminsim is a good example of a generally more "equality" based type of feminism but even that has its hick ups like the proposed tax on ALL men because a tiny minority of men happen to rape women, this was a bizzare actual law proposed which would be akin to having a tax on women because some women happen to make false allegations of sexual assault which waste police time so therefore ALL women should have to pay an actual extra tax (And im sure there are some cooky mens rights groups who propose the male version of "some are more equal than others" ideology) thankfully that tax was defeated, and sweden is quite a good example of where the "right" kind of feminism often wins instead of the silly "slut walk" kind or the opposite side of the coin " man tax" feminism (one claims that its somehow empowering for a women to get trashed and sleep with a lot of folks and die on their own vomite due to alcohol poisoning, as long as the women can demand sex of the man instead of the man ever ask the women if she consents to having sex with him, the other basically goes full retard in the other direction saying that a women should never have sex with any man because men are unnecessary for women to be happy, and are not required for sexual pleasure either, toys or other women or abstinence are far more preferable). In Sweden the kind of feminism that is winning is more like the original equality based rationalist Emily Pankhurst type than the hethero described weird parallel and opposite "spin off" feminists. The term has almost become meaningless now because their now at least 3 main types which i have described, and they agree with each other on nearly absolutely nothing. Unlike socialists who broadly agree on some extent of wealth redistribution whilst they are free to disagree on any other issue or conservatives who broadly agree on less regulation and most of them beleive in a mixed economy but again they are free to disagree on any other issue, the only thing feminsts agree on is "helping the rights of women" but they totally have no common agreement on whats good for a women and what their rights should be (as mentioned one camp wants them to be able to never marry but have sex with as many men as they want but it should always be them telling the man never something engaged in as equals with their partner, the other camp suggests a combination of sex toys/abstinance/lesbianism as they see any interaction with men as oppressive and part of the "false" belief that any women can ever be happier by having a male partner. These camps are defining the rights of women in nearly opposite ways and then u have the thridwayist ones who run the show in sweeden who ackowledge that women need emotional relationships and they actually mandate men to stay with their partners and not have casual sex because its violating a womens right to happiness (a far more logical assessment of reality if ultimately reached through slightly wrong headed reasoning). Summoning that up in terms of rights: group a say a women has the right to have sex with as many men as they like as long as they are dominant partner, group b says a women has a right to never need to depend on a man for sex or love and that they should abandon men as it is their right to stand on their own two feet, group c says a women has a right to commited loving relationship with a man who is never allowed to have just flings with women's (which ultimatley goes completely against a, where men willing to be in subversive flings is absolutely required), all his encounters must be ones he tries to make into meaningful relationships) with such irreconcilable differences in what they class as rights there is no actual meaning to the word "feminist".