Jerry_Atrick

Has anyone seen or heard from OT lately?

Was that the Dave Allen video?

Been a bit busy this weel, so catching up.. This is how I relax.. I need a life! With greatest respect, this is your taste. There are others (although for most of those pictures, I would say well in the minority) that may find that stuff attractive and decorative... Certainly the third photo was not offensve to me and didn't seem excessive. There is a girl who works at the local shop who has not quite as much metal in her face as the second photo. When I first saw her, I thought what a shame - she was otherwise attractive, but totally off-putting to me - not that what an almost 60 year old bloke thinks about athe attractiveness or otherwise of a early 20 year old girl makes a difference in the world - as if I am something the ladies throw their feet at - yeah, right.. But, I found myself talking to her for about 10 minutes - she was an absolute lovely young lady - well articulate, polite, considerate (no - she didn't ask if I needed a Zimmer frame) who had just finished a physics - yes physics degree. She removed all the armour when gooing for job interviews, but she wasn't having any luck. I suggested she keep an eye out for interns at banks because her maths would be in very good demand. She plitely said her morals wouldn't let her work for a bank... Her boyfriend rocked up and he had a face full ofg metal, too.. Works for a charity or something. I guess those into that stuff are attracted by others into that stuff. Also goes to show - you really can't judge a book by its cover.. By the time I had finished talking with her, I was thinking if I were 35 years younge I may well have compromised my tolerance for that stuff if I had met her.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly.. I was not thinking in the sense of a man has to be the sterotypical role of a man; and a woman has to be the stereotypical role of a woman.. I was more thinking in terms that certain people need a structured and well-defined set of rules - and in the absence of an agreed set - or more realistically - when first asserting themselves in a relationship - they fall back to the traditional roles and structures because that is the set of rlules which is known. Of course, today, the lines are blured compared to yesteryear, So,while you are comfortable with things being more fluid, I may not be (although I am). I would have loved to have taken the time to be the home father, but the diparity in earning power meant it was not really an option based on the lifestyle we wanted to live. To be brutally honest, I probably would have done a better job, and my partner would be much more confortable at work. So, even though we had a more or less traditional facade, we would have been happier if we reversed it - but that facade was not out of choice - with the exception of partner not working while the cherubs were young. The best role models are these people, but even these people are likely to have been inspired by role models at some stage of their lives. The trick is to act on what you want to do, but, apart from the very strong-willed, this will often require a supporting damily while one is at a younger age to encourage one to follow that path and ignore the nay-sayers. IMHO, parents should never be bay-sayers (well, except for illegal or highly immoral activities). A child being mentally and/por physcially abused on a sustained basis should never happen either, but it can have the same impact or workse as nay-saying parents.

Will defintiely have to catch up when I get to Aus; My 21 yr old son, who is coming with me loves fencing, but, alas, there are no competitive clubs here anymore.. Ironically, he was introduced to it through his provate school. He does foil (and purely foil). I think he likes the structure and the rules (right of way and the like). A couple of days ago, there was an opinion piece on The Age's website written by a barrister, where the headline was someting like "I don't care if we lose some liberties; It's got to stop". The teaser text under it was about the violent killing of women. I haven't yet read the article, but I tend to worry at these headlines as the political call is usually to deny the right of one side to be heard in search for the truth; and only to believe the stereotypicla victim, which results in miscarriages of justice. But, in todays website, there is this artivle: https://www.theage.com.au/national/a-woman-is-being-violently-killed-in-australia-every-four-days-this-year-20240424-p5fmcb.html. I have not yet read both articles - will do so on the weekend. But on the numbers, that is 92 violent female deaths perpetrated be men per year. One is way too many, but one of the iossues I have is the characterisation of men being naturally violent to women; Assume a different killer in each case, that is 92/11m adult males, which makes it 0.00084%. Of course, this is not the whole story, because rarely, if ever, is a violent (usually domestic violence) killing performed as a one off; there is often a long trail of abuse that leads to the killingl and there is obviously many instances of sustained and systematic dometic physical and mental abuse that does not lead to a killing. Absolutely correct. My brother is now a headmaster at a private school in Melbourne and my sister-in-law is a GP. The stories they have told me have physcially repulsed me and there seems to be no limits to the levels of depravtiy our fellow humans can sink to. In one case, the mother was holding down the daughter while the father was having his pleasure. In another case, a sibling was found to be having his pleasure on his youger brother and the parents protected the older sibling. My brother's observations of bullying kids is that it flows from the family; he suspended a kid for bullying and the father was down like a shot abusing and violently threatening my brother. On the one hand, bullying is shunned, but that show of masculine toxic aggression is revered as showing strength. The chains of abuse or abusive behaviour are passed from generation to generation. As I said, I have yet to read the barrister's opinion piece in The Age, but if by infringing on liberties, he means when there is a reasonable suspicion of domestic violence or abuse (regardless of the gender of the abuser and victim), then the law will requiree those who reasonably suspect it to report to the authorites and the autorities to take appropriate intervening action, I would personally applaud this. However, even this is not without huge risks. Firstly, how many government employees are satisfactory compensated to attract the best in social welfare, phyhology, and the myriad of other health and solcial type professionals required? What about the large scale failings of the executive public servants lateley ala Robodebt and Ex Servicepeople.. The of course, one's most formative years is in the 0 - 3 age group. So by the time things come to light, the nature of the intevention required is far greater than that. I don't know if this is entirely true, but for those "traditionalists" that are struggling, we should be careful not to label them, at least in a potentially disparaging way (and I am not saying this was disparaging - it is a general observation). There can be many reasons why a clear set or roles is preferred - both by men and women. One may be control of another person - keeping them barefoot and in the kitchen is a means to exert control over someone - regardless of who is doing it. The other reason may be a need for structure and in the absence of any other norms, the traditional roles are imputed. I am very uncomfortable in unstructured situations, for example (although I think I am happy to say our family is anything but traditional in its roles - despite me being the breadwinner; she very much wears the pants). Wearing the pants is another thing.. I have heard this said many times in disparaging ways, but frankly, I am happy with it.. Of course, major decisions are joint and we have had disagreements, etc. But when it comes to the dull every day things, I am relieved of not having to worry about it.

Generally speaking the consensus ad idum (consent to risk) rule applies to contact sports. However, there is precedent where Leigh Matthews was charged with GBH (I thought it was common assault) for breaking the jaw of a player: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/matthews-charge-still-mystery-20130729-2quxt.html Even on the ball, if it is clear that there was an intent to go outside the rules and hurt a player (and it has to be clear), I would support a legal consequence, even if it were a minor community correction order... I was coached to hurt the other players in close in plays (I am only 5'7"); but our tall timber were also coached on how to bang up the other players.. I was never comfortable with this sort of thing even as a nipper.

Bigger code of Rubt than here... Just a lot of pomp, mainly.

I know the topic has moved on, but on partner murder, I thought it would be interesting to try and find some facts: https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/domestic-homicide#data-tell-us In terms of how to fix it, there are probably so many factors, it's almost impossible, but my anecdotal observation is that Aussie men, on a whole, have a more aggressive stance than British/European and even Amercian men (note aggressive dispostion does not = violence), And I think it is a bit of a culture thing. For example, in the USA, the ultimate culture is that you can fix things through the barrell of a gun. Is it Switzerland that has a per captia number of guns per household > the USA, yet one of the lowerst murder rates in Europe, and certainly a tiny fractiion of the USA? One of the perpetrators of Aussie male's more aggressive disposition is, and I hate to say it, football (At least Aussie Rules). Go to Youtube and look at the opening moments of the 1989 AFL grand final, where a player (Brereton) is lined up by Yates, who broke Brereton's ribs; not a free kick, nothing. Many people (even my 20-something year old neives who weren't even born at the time) claim that was the greatest AFL (then, technically VFL) grand final of all time! It was a game where one set of players was systematically going after the opponents and not the ball, and retaliation ensued, which resulted in more retaliation. And of course, in the 70s and 80s, there were the enforcers whose job it was to KO the opponents star, and this was seen as a postivie of the game. These days, that sort of stuff has been all but rubbed out, but there is still scraps which go unchecked and considered a normal part of the game. It is strange the AFL are trying to crack down on all of the off field issues including violence, but santion it on field (admittedly to a lesser extent than the past). And our young, impressionable kids seeing their heroes do it, and they tend to immitate it, and as it has been going on for generations, it becomes a normalised part of society. I remember as a young lad being coached on how to hurt opponents when going for a mark and I have been KO'ed a couple of times on the field. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and aggression at the ball is fine, but while the AFL turn a blind eye to aggression at the poerson (without the ball), I think it perpetuates the culture. Yes, if you strike a player off the ball as Yates did, you will be rubbed out. but there is still the tussling and pyushing off the ball, that only results in a consequence if the othger player falls (without diving). So, if unnecessary aggression is seen as getting an advantage on the field, it must be the way to get results off the field, right? That of course, is not the only thing that has to be addressed - @Marty_d's post summed it up well, I think...

When we were doing up our place in London, we were approached by some TV show, but politely declined. It wasn't grand designs - what we were doing would not have made that grade. We have a couple of friends who are local real estate agents and one a buyers' agent, so we will simply spread the word through them. Anyone who is actively buying will register with the agents, anyway. Yeah, if it goes onto escape to the Country, it may entice someone not thinking about moving to look at it, but to be honest, I think it is a long shot and they would likely be tyre kickers. I was thhinking about including it in a raffle, but it can be too risky.. With the house comes a fully self-contained 2br cottage, a coachouse (with vehicle nspection pit), a share of the local community pub, and for a little more, as many of the garden implements as they want.

I could be wrong, but I thought Brietling donated watches to the Red Arrows pilots as a bit of marketing. However, according to this site, a Red Arrows pilot is donating his Brietling for an auction for Aerobility, which is a charity set up to get disabled people flying to PPL standard (the CAA and their medics are very supportive of this): https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2020/11/airshow-news-red-arrows-and-breitling-fly-in-to-support-the-aerobility-grand-auction/ As a side note, Aerobility is based at Blackbushe, which is where I had my YB20 Shareoplane.. and some bastards broke into the Aerobility Warriors and nicked the avionics. Counts, minus the "u" comes into mind.

Jeepers.. May need some help from Wolfie to comprehend all that... But I get it.. and it is why suddenly things like moving back to Aus are accelerating... Mind you, depending on the virgins, I may take a little longer than a couple of weeks to get bored.. 72 of them. eh? One a day makes it a touch over 10 weeks, and assuming they take my fancy.. well, you ge the picture.. But, they may wear me out and get bored of me long beeofre the 11th week. Time is free, yet it is the most valuable resource we have. Use it wisely... Is what I tgell my kids.

https://youtube.com/shorts/ehWz7u_EHoY?si=xx5oBsDPh2-JbJd5

I would guess so.. Plumbers took a bit longer than they expcted to do the pipework, but they are done. I was relegated to the AirBnB on Tuesday. so packed up my workstation and motored it to the cottage (a whole 20 or so metres down the driveway... And set it up on the kitchn table. I have for monitors on a single monitor stand. Went to work Wednesday and Thursday this week (normally Tuesday and Wednesday).. Friday morning, I thought the plumbers had finished, so retrieved my git. There are three steps down from the kitchen to the libing room and front door of the cottage (no hall). I thought I had stepped down them, but missed by one. I went A over T hilding the monitor stand with 4 monitors, and with about 25kgs, managed to save all but one. So a new monitor was ordered - second hand of course.. Managed to find the same as one of the ones I have, so that was good. Skip arrived yesterday (Friday) and the first thing to be thrown into it is the old monitor. On Monday, confirm when the builders are putting in a new steel, and then will commence the demoliaton of the kitchen and the partition walls, as well as killing the circuits to the oven, etc. Things are moving and they are going to get mightly quick.

Certainly not a listed (or in Aus, Heritage listed) building. Way too much bureaucracy to deal with. Also, wouldn't mind it when I don't have so much else on teh go, as I don't mind doing some of the work myself. But, I would like the next place to not have anything but the carpets replaced and a lick of paint.

They seem to be as bad in Aus as they are here, then. Quite frankly, when compared to the old fish and chip shop burgers, they don't even look appetising. Have stopped buying them a short time ago (on the way home from work in London), and just last week stopped buying KFC, which over here has never been quiote as good as in Aus, that is how bad it is here. Last week, I stopped at the motorway services on the M3 for dinner, and as the Waitrose there had just closed, as did the other independent outlets, decided to get a burger from KFC. Well, the chicken would have not even made the grade as leather soles for a shoe... and it literally had a slive of lettuse and bathed in mayonnaise. Never again will I eat KFC, either. I have to admit, in her first draft of her first essay for law, I had to get her to tone it down a bit and explain that the TV serials are not the place to learn the conduct of the legal profession (she is also doing English Literature). But that bit of prose she did was purely tongue in cheek.. you know.. .we're British - pip pip; tally-ho, and the like.