Jump to content

jukel123

Members
  • Content count

    1,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,254 Excellent

About jukel123

  • Rank
    Extreme Hunter

Profile Information

  • Location
    Finding my coat.

Recent Profile Visitors

906 profile views
  1. jukel123

    Galgos vs our stock

    Is your galgo vocal during a course Sandymere?. What qualities do they possess which saluki hybrids don't have? What is their everyday temperament like? Any other info would be appreciated. Genuinely interested not being negative at all.
  2. jukel123

    My predicament advice please

    There's no dilemma here. Rehome. There's lots of psychological pressure with regard to dogs. 'A dog makes a happy home', the 'faithful lurcher providing food for the family', a 'dog' is for life etc. A family is for life ffs. If the dog is causing tension and stress then rehome pronto. You can buy another dog when your situation improves. You can't buy another family. Let's face it dogs in this country are put on pedestals. Everybody wants to rehome one from a rescue centre and 'virtue signal' whilst doing so. I've rehomed dogs, I've put some dogs down. So have lots of people on here. Its real life. Shit happens. Cry over the dog's photo and make a song and a dance about the situation if you want, but, ultimately smell the coffee and get rid.
  3. jukel123

    The oddest looking thing: new puppy

    Here's a clone: https://www.preloved.co.uk/adverts/show/118185828/lurcher-pups.html?link=%2Fsearch%3Fkeyword%3Dlurcher%2Bpups
  4. jukel123

    Guilty Of Sending An Offensive Message

    Geoff Hurst will be dragged before the courts and stripped of his knighthood along with all UK rappers and lyrics companies.
  5. Fair enough,BH. I genuinely thought I hadn't explained myself. Second retort is also fair. In any case I wasn't singling you out. Perhaps we can both be a little prickly. The whole thread has been highly charged emotionally.
  6. Born thank you for acknowledging that " I mean well". What was it Captain Mainwearing used to say somewhat witheringly......"You stupid Boy". In any case I think you've genuinely missed the point. " which is worse fiddling a white kid or a black kid?" you write. But the point I'm making, following the Solicitor General, is that sentences should be stiffer when a child is deliberately TARGETED because of their race or skin colour. People were horrified that Stephen Lawrence was targeted because of his black skin.Most of us are aghast that primarily Asian men should target girls because of their white skin. But, I hear you say, we already have laws which punish racist behaviour! But in this case the law needs refining and improving because this racist behaviour involves paedophilia,rape, cruelty, supplying drugs and alcohol to minors etc with a Racist Motive amongst others. Would you guys who do not support the new bill outlawing controlling behaviour support a new law intended to address Racially Aggravated Sexual/Child Abuse? I suspect the answer would be "yes". So why not the new law this thread is about? Final thought. If this were primarily a female forum, what percentage of contributors to this thread would be against the new law? And those for? What does that tell you? Something disturbing about men perhaps?
  7. Couldn't resist this point. I would also support a new law entitled: Racially Aggravated Sexual/Child Abuse. It's long overdue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40909065
  8. Not me, to quote a famous phrase, "I'm out". With Wilf here things could get very dark. Pun intended.
  9. Born we are so far apart there's no point in continuing the discussion. Governments exert control over their citizens in all sorts of sophisticated ways. They don't have to resort to brute force. You could have as many guns as you like but if they close down the internet or the banks or the food supply we will all be fecked within days. In any case to take the gun argument to its logical conclusion, we should all have nuclear missiles tucked away to save us from tyrannical governments. I just don't it get it ,presumably you don't understand my position either. Let's leave it there. Good night ..again.
  10. Orwell was referring to a normal individual's right to own a weapon. Not the drug crazed,the vioelent criminal or the child psycho with a grudge.
  11. Born your breathtaking arrogance knows no bounds! Firstly you quote Orwell to me. Believe me I am more familiar with Orwell's writings than you. Secondly, you threaten me with your alleged towering intellectual superiority with regard to gun laws.I remain unafraid. Good night.
  12. Born you appear to have aligned yourself with the alt right. I did not suggest you were that mad. However, let's run with that. You do have sympathy with the crazy Americans who defend their gun laws.Even though thousands of innocent yanks are killed and maimed annually for an ideal: the freedom to bear arms. I think the freedom to walk down the street and go to school without being shot is a far greater freedom. You say smokers are bullied by non smokers. I say shite, look at the nosedive heart attack rates have experienced since the new legislation. Look at the projected number of lives saved by people not being subjected to passive smoking at work. I've always lived by the maxim that you can do what you want in life as long as you don't hurt others. You seem to believe you can do what you want and f**k everybody else, that laws are something put in place to restrict your freedoms. But at the end of the day,logically,you are aligning yourself with the murderous gun man, the 'I don't give a f**k' smoker and the abusive controlling domestic abuser.
  13. The new law has brought the issue into the public domain and pushed the refresh button. I would be bluffing if I pretended to be familiar with 60 odd laws. Whatever the difference between this new law and the old laws are..I am all for it even if only one person benefits from it.
  14. I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I don't care if the 'alt right bleat' about individual freedom. Whether it's gun laws, tobacco laws, laws against hammering children and partners, health and safety at work, I'm all for those laws. ( Although not the hunting laws.) I live in the real world, and am not impressed by academic arguments criticising the "nanny state" . I'm all for free school meals, proper NHS provision, social housing, laws to protect against usurers and bad landlords, laws to protect children seeing porn or protecting them from junk food advertising.Any law in fact which improves people's daily existence and their futures. The function of the state is to nurture its citizens not make society a free- for- all for the rich and privileged.I guess that's where we differ BH. You constantly write about people taking responsibilities for their actions. When you are dirt poor, with the low self esteem which often comes with it, you are not capable of free will.You don't have choices, you get kicked in the teeth...constantly. To go back to the original point. How can a woman with children say, walk out of an abusive life. She may not have the f***ing bus fare!There may not be a refuge to go to. She may be so terrified of reprisals she is frozen to the spot. How can she take her kids out of school? Where are they going to sleep that night? Ffs individual freedom and choices are for the likes of you.Don't lecture people who have no choices from your lofty middle class perch.
  15. People moaned loud and hard about the smoking laws. It's been a fantastic piece of people friendly legislation. Same with laws preventing the smacking of children. There were always those who said "it's nothing to do with the state what I do to my children in my own home". But slowly behaviour has changed for the better. Laws should sometimes be welcomed, this new piece of legislation is a step in the right direction.
×