Jill Franks/Simon Brown

[amn]

I don't actually know who Morrissey is (other, apparently, than one of those odd people who think they only need one name), and I stopped reading the papers because they made me want to slit my wrists, so I can't comment on this specifically. What I would say, though, is that people have opinions of both extremes on every issue, and whether they're considered to be extremist, intolerant lunatics or rational, tolerant sane people will depend entirely on the personal views of the person reading what they say. Because I think someone is the former doesn't actually make them so, and vice versa, it's just personal opinion, and everyone I think is a nutter will be taken seriously by someone else. Whatever this Morrissey was talking about, there'll be people who agree with him. There was never a truer saying than "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". For this reason, if you really care about something I think you have to speak and act on your principles without giving a damn what people think and in the full expectation that some people will think you're an extremist and some people won't, whatever it is that you care about and whatever your view on it is.

Isn't this the logic the two men who murdered that poor soldier in London used in court to say that what they did was ok because it was what they believed in?

 

[Autumn]

It's my belief that principles are never unaffordable, it's just whether or not you're prepared to pay what may be a high price for them.

It would be nice if this were true. Jamie Oliver (who can well afford to stick to whatever principles he has) was trying to persuade people to buy free range eggs instead of the cheaper battery eggs and succeeded with everyone except a young single mum who said she couldn't afford to pay any more. Having been in that situation myself, I have every sympathy with her. I'm now enjoying the luxury of farm-fresh eggs - and to someone who's been in that situation, believe me it is a luxury. Yes, some will say that she could cut down on other things, but sometimes (and I've always watched my pennies, making do and wasting nothing), it just isn't possible. But it's always easy to be judgmental.

Most supermarkets now days have free range eggs at similar price/ same price to the battery caged eggs, yes they may not be as nice as farm fresh eggs but I always buy them rather than the frim caged hens.

 

[Mazza]

Most supermarkets now days have free range eggs at similar price/ same price to the battery caged eggs, yes they may not be as nice as farm fresh eggs but I always buy them rather than the frim caged hens.

I think some places like Waitrose ONLY sell free range now. Likewise Waitrose only sell fair trade bananas.

 

[Scout]

Morrissey is a singer who was lead singer in the Smiths in the 1980's, famous for always being miserable. In the paper yesterday he likened eating meat to paedophilia.

Oh, ok, I haven't heard of the Smiths either, but I've always been into classical and not pop, and was in my thirties in the 80s, so wouldn't have a clue who anyone in pop was.

In the paper yesterday he likened eating meat to paedophilia.

So he's vegetarian or vegan then, presumably. Well eating meat and paedophilia both involve horrendous abuse on small creatures unable to protect themselves from man's cruelty, I suppose that's the comparison he was making. Sounds like a bid for publicity to me - either for his cause or for himself. He'll make some people think about meat eating by saying things like that, and by making an inflammatory statement he gets people talking about himself again. All publicity is good publicity in some people's eyes.

I respect the views of others and free choice. I am irritated when some are very judgemental and critical of those who may not agree with them or be able-for whatever reason-to live their lives in the same way. I have some really strong opinions on certain matters but it is best to keep them to myself sometimes. I respect the choices of others as long as their choices don't affect me, and my family.

I'm afraid I must undoubtedly irritate you then, because I don't respect the views of anyone who supports cruelty - towards animals or humans - and I will do everything I can to prevent them having the choice to commit such cruelty. I am 100% judgemental and critical of those people and will never apologise for that. The human animal is the cruellest, most vicious animal on this earth, and I believe that keeping my opinions to myself allows the cruelty to continue unabated. It is always possible to live your life without perpetuating cruelty, being cruel is a choice, and I believe we have to speak out against it whether it affects us personally or not. I couldn't bear, on my deathbed, to think that I'd been here all this time and made no difference at all, had contributed nothing to making this god-awful world a better place. Sometimes that means you irritate people, sometimes it means they dislike you, and sometimes it means they hate you. As I have no respect at all for such people I couldn't care less what they think. No right-thinking person will dislike you for trying to stop cruelty. I totally believe the truth of the quote that is usually attributed to Edmund Burke (although it's likely he never said it): "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

 

[Scout]

Isn't this the logic the two men who murdered that poor soldier in London used in court to say that what they did was ok because it was what they believed in?

Absolutely, and that's my point. There will be thousands, probably millions of people around the world who agree with those two men. To us they're terrorists, to those other people they're freedom fighters. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on any particular thing, there will be people who agree and people who disagree depending on perspective. We believe those two men were 100% wrong, but millions believe they were 100% right. The difference in the case of those of us trying to defend animals against cruelty is that we're trying to stop the cruelty and death, while those two men were deliberately causing it.

 

[Scout]

Very eloquently put WG. I couldn't agree more. Live and let live, unless it affects you and yours directly - this is also how I survive this crazy world!

So as long as it's other people's kids being abused and not yours or your family's, there's no need to do anything about it, you just live and let live, allowing the perpetrators to continue?

 

[Scout]

It's my belief that principles are never unaffordable, it's just whether or not you're prepared to pay what may be a high price for them.

It would be nice if this were true. Jamie Oliver (who can well afford to stick to whatever principles he has) was trying to persuade people to buy free range eggs instead of the cheaper battery eggs and succeeded with everyone except a young single mum who said she couldn't afford to pay any more. Having been in that situation myself, I have every sympathy with her. I'm now enjoying the luxury of farm-fresh eggs - and to someone who's been in that situation, believe me it is a luxury. Yes, some will say that she could cut down on other things, but sometimes (and I've always watched my pennies, making do and wasting nothing), it just isn't possible. But it's always easy to be judgmental.

When I said "high price" I wasn't talking literally, in terms of money, I meant that sometimes we have to give up something that we would really like to stand by our principles. In the case you quote, though, the answer to me is quite simple - if you can't afford to buy a particular cruelty-free food then you live without that food. In this country it's perfectly possible for any family to live without eating eggs (not that free-range eggs are cruelty-free, but that's another story).

 

[Weathergirl]

So as long as it's other people's kids being abused and not yours or your family's, there's no need to do anything about it, you just live and let live, allowing the perpetrators to continue?

I actually spend my working life "doing something about it". I don't think you have any right whatsoever to say such things when you know nothing whatsoever about me or my family, or my beliefs. You seem to have forgotten that this is a shopping telly forum. Some people don't agree with you. Some people do. I have not confirmed either way what my personal views on this topic are, as I think there are other places to discuss this. You, however seem like a dog with a bone, unpicking posts in quite an aggressive way.

I can't be bothered with this any more.

 

[amn]

Absolutely, and that's my point. There will be thousands, probably millions of people around the world who agree with those two men. To us they're terrorists, to those other people they're freedom fighters. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on any particular thing, there will be people who agree and people who disagree depending on perspective. We believe those two men were 100% wrong, but millions believe they were 100% right. The difference in the case of those of us trying to defend animals against cruelty is that we're trying to stop the cruelty and death, while those two men were deliberately causing it.

But what you said was that it's ok to do whatever you need to do to achieve what you think is right. Using that justification can't apply to one set of circumstances and not another, just because it fits in with your specific beliefs.

In your previous post you said that if you believe in something you should 'speak and act on your principles without giving a damn what other people think'. Those murderers stated, as I understand it, they were doing what they did to somehow avenge what was being done to people in another country, I.e. avenging something they thought was wrong - acting on their principles in their, albeit twisted, minds.

So does that mean that speaking and acting on your principles without giving a damn what other people think is only the way to go sometimes and not others?

The point I'm making is that I don't see you can make a statement along the lines of its ok to do and say exactly what you like as long as it's what you believe in.

 

[amn]

For the record I also think this thread has gone waaaay off beam now and I think it would be better closed.

 

[Scout]

I actually spend my working life "doing something about it". I don't think you have any right whatsoever to say such things when you know nothing whatsoever about me or my family, or my beliefs. You seem to have forgotten that this is a shopping telly forum. Some people don't agree with you. Some people do. I have not confirmed either way what my personal views on this topic are, as I think there are other places to discuss this. You, however seem like a dog with a bone, unpicking posts in quite an aggressive way.

If you look again you'll see that my comment was not addressed to you WG. I remember you said something in the past about your work which led me to believe that you "do something about it", which is precisely why my comment wasn't addressed to you. It wasn't questioning you, your family or your beliefs. Someone else made a blanket statement and I was simply asking them how that can possibly be applied to certain situations.

Yes, this is a shopping telly forum, but many, many times threads go off into other areas and this one shifted when somebody else questioned JR's principles in being vegetarian and presenting Basso shows. I didn't take the thread into this area, but if someone else does I believe I have every right to voice my view. I enjoy debate on any topic, I find it stimulating to analyse and discuss different issues with intelligent people. I've had a possibly the worst week of my life both physically and emotionally, and I have really been enjoying just being able to sit still and engage in this mental exercise of a jolly good discussion. In this case the issue is one I care deeply about, so I guess it's only natural that I post passionately, and I've seen other people post equally passionately about things I care nothing about. I would be far less passionate on other issues.

 

[Scout]

For the record I also think this thread has gone waaaay off beam now and I think it would be better closed.

Why is a thread better closed just because the subject being discussed is serious and people have widely differing opinions? Are we not all grown ups here able to have a mature discussion? Every time a thread gets closed here the forum's reputation suffers elsewhere as a place where people are censored if they don't hold the majority view. It contributes to the bullying reputation this forum has - is that what most members want?

 

[Scout]

But what you said was that it's ok to do whatever you need to do to achieve what you think is right. Using that justification can't apply to one set of circumstances and not another, just because it fits in with your specific beliefs.

In your previous post you said that if you believe in something you should 'speak and act on your principles without giving a damn what other people think'. Those murderers stated, as I understand it, they were doing what they did to somehow avenge what was being done to people in another country, I.e. avenging something they thought was wrong - acting on their principles in their, albeit twisted, minds.

So does that mean that speaking and acting on your principles without giving a damn what other people think is only the way to go sometimes and not others?

The point I'm making is that I don't see you can make a statement along the lines of its ok to do and say exactly what you like as long as it's what you believe in.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everyone thinks they're right. We all think our beliefs and actions are the correct ones. The problem, of course is that some of those beliefs and actions are massively destructive. It's also a problem if nobody acts on anything because the evil in this world will run riot. So my opinion is that all we can do is act on what we believe and that those of us trying to stop the destruction can outnumber those trying to perpetrate it. I cannot see that it's an option to do nothing.

 

[amn]

Why is a thread better closed just because the subject being discussed is serious and people have widely differing opinions? Are we not all grown ups here able to have a mature discussion? Every time a thread gets closed here the forum's reputation suffers elsewhere as a place where people are censored if they don't hold the majority view. It contributes to the bullying reputation this forum has - is that what most members want?

Absolutely the contrary. The only time the forum has any controversy is when threads like this deviate wildly from the actual point of the forum, and that point is not to debate the rights or wrongs of moral beliefs, social activists or terrorist extremists, it's meant to be about light hearted banter about light hearted subjects, like whether we think qvc fashion is crap or a TSV is worth buying. If you really want to debate the heavy stuff I don't think this is the place to do it.
I don't see that is censorship, I see it as keeping the site about what it is meant to be about.

 

[Scout]

Absolutely the contrary. The only time the forum has any controversy is when threads like this deviate wildly from the actual point of the forum, and that point is not to debate the rights or wrongs of moral beliefs, social activists or terrorist extremists, it's meant to be about light hearted banter about light hearted subjects, like whether we think qvc fashion is crap or a TSV is worth buying. If you really want to debate the heavy stuff I don't think this is the place to do it.
I don't see that is censorship, I see it as keeping the site about what it is meant to be about.

There's nothing wrong with controversy, you're going to get controversy wherever more than two people gather. This forum won't come crumbling down because the odd thread deviates to a serious topic. Those that don't want to engage in it can ignore it. Doubtless this thread will now get closed as they always do when somebody asks for it, and the reputation of the forum will suffer a little bit more. I think that's very sad.

 

[Weathergirl]

That's ok Scout thanks for clarifying.
I too enjoy debate. But I also like a bit if light hearted banter and I too have had a difficult few days.

I don't agree that this forum has a bad reputation, though a year or so ago I would have agreed with you but I think the culprits left, or returned under new names but are largely behaving themselves now!


So...about Jill Franks and alcohol...

 

[Autumn]

That's ok Scout thanks for clarifying.
I too enjoy debate. But I also like a bit if light hearted banter and I too have had a difficult few days.

I don't agree that this forum has a bad reputation, though a year or so ago I would have agreed with you but I think the culprits left, or returned under new names but are largely behaving themselves now!


So...about Jill Franks and alcohol...

Or starting yet ANOTHER new forum :mysmilie_59:

I like Jill Franks ..........Just saying

 

[thatu]

In the case you quote, though, the answer to me is quite simple - if you can't afford to buy a particular cruelty-free food then you live without that food. In this country it's perfectly possible for any family to live without eating eggs (not that free-range eggs are cruelty-free, but that's another story).

Just to clear things up - I suspect we're talking about different generations here. When I brought up my children, eggs were an essential and affordable way of giving my kids protein, much cheaper than meat. Nobody spoke about battery hens - they probably weren't farmed as intensively then but I have every sympathy with young families who do struggle to feed their bairns and I, too, would feed them battery eggs if it's all I could afford. Sorry, PC brigade, but that's the way it is. Call me cruel/inconsistent or whatever, but I'd put my children first before any animal. No amount of argument will convince me otherwise but you're welcome to vent your feelings on me. I have broad shoulders and I probably speak for the majority.

End of edit. Back to the thread.

Jill Franks is welcome to use or not use alcohol in any way she pleases, just so long as she doesn't shove her morality down my throat at every given opportunity. (Pun not intended though I like the effect!)

 

[Loveinamist]

Just a thought, wonder if Occupational Health workplace restrictions apply to Shopping TV presenters. I couldn't be a presenter. Aloe Vera sensitivity, no slavering on Liz Earle for me. Essential oils, no Decleor for me. Lanolin and others, no makeup brands for me. Migraines, no YK jar sniffing for me. Osteoarthritis in neck and compressed discs, no Pilates scissors for me. Many food allergies, no kitchen shows for me. Christmas tat it is then!

 

[Weathergirl]

Just a thought, wonder if Occupational Health workplace restrictions apply to Shopping TV presenters. I couldn't be a presenter. Aloe Vera sensitivity, no slavering on Liz Earle for me. Essential oils, no Decleor for me. Lanolin and others, no makeup brands for me. Migraines, no YK jar sniffing for me. Osteoarthritis in neck and compressed discs, no Pilates scissors for me. Many food allergies, no kitchen shows for me. Christmas tat it is then!

Easiyo!!!?? Maybe kipling....?