London's New Year Fireworks

[Cursitor Doom]

Gentlemen,

I have a few younger relatives who went into central London for the usual festivities (very brave of 'em not wearing stab vests I thought). Anyway, they said fireworks (which I haven't seen myself as yet) were great, but the whole experience was marred by the blaring, shitty music interspersed with Left-wing Globalist propaganda. I'm just wondering HTF that wanker Khan can get away with a stunt like that. I mean - a fireworks display FFS. Seems there's nothing that cunt can't politicise these days. :-(

-CD

[Jeff Layman]

Is there a world shortage of barium and copper for pyrotechnics? Although the fireworks (and drones) were very impressive, the colours seemed to be limited to red, white, yellow, silver, and gold. No green or blue. Watching the short excerpts on the news of the displays of a few of the other capitals, they also seemed to have little - if any - green or blue.

[charles]

what about air pollution?

[Bob Eager]

I saw quite a lot of green, and remarked upon it!

[Rod Speed]

Jeff Layman [e-mail] wrote

Nope.

[Andrew]

often wonder how many people end up in A&E with debris in their eyes after a display like this.

[Andy Bennett]

Roll on fully electric fireworks

[charles]

like exploding electrolytics?

[NY]

I read that as "same sex during your NY celebrations" and thought you were implying dogging. ;-)

That shows that Christian etc definitions are out of date and therefore irrelevant (in that respect) to modern life. Religions need to define some standards (theft, murder etc are crimes) and to lead the secular laws in that respect, but in other respects such as the equality between males and females, including in the religion's own hierarchy, and the attitude to same-sex relationships, they need to follow current secular attitudes and not try to play King Canute.

I'm not sure what the exact legal distinctions are between civil partnership (which allowed same sex earlier) and marriage (which became legal more recently).

I'm not gay, but I've long thought that it is iniquitous only to allow/accept opposite-sex marriage and not to make the legal status identical for male-male and female-female marriage. If a definition only includes opposite-sex, then it needs to be widened to include same-sex, by simple change of wording. Why should a man who happens to love a man or a woman who happens to love a woman be treated any differently to a man who loves a woman?

I can much more readily accept same-sex relationships than I can accept a person who "identifies" as neither male nor female or who identifies as the opposite gender: to me (with my 60-year-old attitudes and upbringing) you are the gender that is defined by your "bits" and your biology (presence/absence of Y chromosome), and that is non-negotiable and not for adjustment based on what you "feel like". I accept that I am *way* behind the times! When my generation and maybe the next generation dies out, attitudes may have changed - whether for the better or not is for debate (*). But humans should only be allowed to identify as other humans - people who are identify as trees or cats are beyond ridicule.

(*) But if it makes people who want to identify as opposite or neutral gender feel more included, then I suppose it has got to be a good thing, as long as it is not abused (previously-male athletes who want to compete in female sports teams).

[AnthonyL]

It was not me who wrote the last two sentences.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nope. It was me.

Marriage is the 'union of man and women, for the production of children'...according to traditional theological doctrine.

Nothing wrong with a couple of gay people living together, but marriage of the traditional churchly sort, it ain't.

I went to my first gay 'marriage' in 1973.

It's hardly novel, what is, is getting tax breaks for it.

[Max Demian]

No, they'll be let off at a secret location and we'll be told to watch them on TV, like they did for the millennium and the solar eclipse the year before.

Next (safely) stage: flotation tanks and the Matrix.

[Tim Streater]

For the eclipse I went to France, as it was pretty obvious that (a) that part of Cornwall would be packed out to beat hell and (b) accommodation would be impossible.

Although it rained, nephew and I spotted a patch of blue sky in the distance so we raced off hell for leather and reached it just in time.

[Rod Speed]

NY [e-mail] wrote

That is just your sewer of a 'mind' :-(

Its much more complicated than that in reality.

The whole point of religion is to get people to do what they would not otherwise do by telling the most stupid that if they don't do what some fool who claimed to be just telling them what some god or other requires them to do they will end up in deep shit when they die etc.

Because that was one of the thing that particular religion always proclaimed was unacceptible.

[AnthonyL]

[Tim Lamb]

In message [e-mail]>, AnthonyL [e-mail] writes

Marriage would seem to be a step forward from *strongest wins* rules.

On religion, would any of the World's peoples be in existence with or without some many flavoured super being.

On a personal note, my mother fully believed she was going to meet her father, dead 30 years earlier!

[Rod Speed]

AnthonyL [e-mail] wrote

Doesnt explain why almost all religions have lists of things must and must not do. And he said more about religion than just that.

No such animal.

Which is another way of saying what I said.

That is just silly with much of the old testament.

They had plenty of prescriptions of what you can and can not do.

Some did make sense, plenty more make no sense at all, most obviously with the silly line about not ever mentioning someone who has died.

Not clear what you mean by that.

[Rod Speed]

I must have had a stroke. I have no idea what that means either.

Or that either.

Yeah, that is certain a crutch for many religious 'minds'