Davie P

If you want to really make a difference, lobby governments to legislate against so much crap being produced.
 
Everything these days is in disposable and non-compostable wrappings. Takeaways used to come in paper, lollys used to be on paper or wooden sticks, drinks came in glass bottles, meat, cheese and bread in greased paper or paper bags, clothes were cotton or wool, footwear and upholstery were leather etc.....If any of it got strewn around the countryside, it didn't really matter it either decomposed to make soil, or just lay there and did nothing any harm. Now its wall to wall plastic, which even when it 'bio-degrades' its only breaking down in to microscopic particles, which are steadly amassing to create a plastic sludge that's as toxic if not moreso than crude oil. Of course its suffocating the planet - stop making it, stop making the products that are the worst ofenders, and the whole 'recycling' debate is largely null, void and un-necessary. Its not rocket science.

If there are managers who are surplus to requirements then yes, cut them.
 
But just cutting management positions and expecting 'the workers' to take on the management responsibilities isn't fair or a good long-term solution.

Imagine you're organising a stag do. You're the best man and you're all flying to Amsterdam. The groom is a pretty popular guy, but he's only wanting 22 pals to come away with him (for whatever reason). One of the boys drops out so your wife suggests one of her female pals that would like to come along. Does saying 'no' to that idea make you a backward, sexist, misogynistic dinosaur?
 
You can attach all the tradition and gravitas you want to Up Helly Aa, but for most of us it's a p1ss-up comparable to the scenario above, where the best craic is on the bus where you spend most of the night singing, drinking, making crude jokes and talking sh1te. While I know for a fact that there are many women that excel in this pursuit as much as men, I suspect most of us would rather just keep it as it is.  
 
To conflate the dynamics of this boozy party with the Equal Pay for Women issue, or even the vile treatment of women by abusive, powerful men from Westminister to Hollywood is disingenuous and ridiculous. In doing so we cast both male and female participants in this fantastic festival as complicit villains or meek, subservient spectators of sex discrimination.

There are more men wanting to go out in squads than there are places. There are more lasses wanting to go to halls than there are tickets. A few shrill letters to the Shetland times have not diminished their enthusiasm for the festival. Be 'offended' all you want, but come next Tuesday men and women will be dancing the night away and not giving a flying... torch.

^ AFAIK thats pretty much a matter between the person wanting to join, the existing members of the squad they want to join, and the leader of that squad. The UHA Committee, last I was aware anyway, has minimal interference in individual squad affairs, beyond the general 'don't disrupt the event and/or bring it in to disrepute' type of stuff, and the residency qualifications that were/are for anybody taking part in the event, when it became necessary to cap total numbers back in the 70's.
 
In its basest terms, as I understand it. The event is one person's private party (the Jarl), who is joined by other private partys (the other squads), in an all night merry go round of visiting yet more private partys (the venues).
 
Its all harking back to its roots of small groups of people with a common interest (neighbours, workmates etc) informally getting together to visit dwellings throughout the town where the housholder was holding open house, and carrying brands or dragging burning barrels to provide light for themselves, with the same rules applying now as then.
 
If you weren't part of whatever 'clique' that formed those informal groupings back at it start, you'd not been invited to join them, you'd either have had to find a 'clique' in to which you were accepted, or be left on the outside. In today's incarnation, folk generally join squads which aready have relatives, workmates, neighbours etc in them, who smooth the path as and when space exists.
 
Its not a public event, its not advertised, spectators are not invited. Its a collection of private events which come together for a short period of their durations for a single private event held in public, and pedestrians have been allowed to spectate if they wish, simply due to the fact there's no legitimate reason to prohibit them from the public pavements concerned. The venues, with the exception of the Town Hall aren't public events, they're by invitation only of the hostess(ess), just the same as their namesakes of the open houses back in the day.

The speed calming measures will no doubt hasten the apocalypse, the semi-circular road markings outside the Thule are in-fact the Gates to Hades and the Roads Department are the agents of Lucifer himself who financed this ludicrous safety initiative through mortgaging the souls of our children.

We must not yield to the SIC's forces of evil.

The speed calming measures will no doubt hasten the apocalypse, the semi-circular road markings outside the Thule are in-fact the Gates to Hades and the Roads Department are the agents of Lucifer himself who financed this ludicrous safety initiative through mortgaging the souls of our children.

We must not yield to the SIC's forces of evil.

To the contrary. the post office drivers i have spoken to recently are thinking it is great. they can now reverse into the post office without the fear of being rear ended.

I was turned away in a supermarket whilst buying alcohol in my late 30s and didn't have ID (and I also had bit of a beard!), and was once refused on a flight for having no photographic ID. I couldn't very well complain as it was the policy. Them's the breaks! If I'd had ID then it wouldn't have been an issue.
 
If I did feel aggrieved by the decisions then a formal complaint would be a more constructive way forward rather than going to the media. Once it has 'gone viral' then I don't suppose the organisation has much choice apart from sticking to the letter of their policies and backing their employee's judgement call.
 
On balance, I'd rather that establishments selling age restricted 'goods and services' were quite strict with their ID requirements and risk the odd incident such as this rather than operate a more lax policy and risk underagers accessing unsuitable 'goods and services'. I'd image there would be a hell of a stooshie if parents found out their kids were routinely getting in to unsuitable films or if Mareel was to lose it's film license (if such a thing exists!)  due to underagers getting in!

I think it's actually the cinema licence that is legally enforceable based upon the film classification.  So if a cinema states it is going to show films with a recommended age classification of 18 and over, then the cinema licence conditions expects age checks to be undertaken.

It would be a lot easier if we were all bar coded on the forehead.
 
A quick scan and you're in or out. 

With a beard like that he should be allowed to watch Trainspotting regardless of his age. 

Is this even news? "A man doesn't get into cinema but gets a pint"??
 
Sub headline "Two different members of staff in different parts of a building had different opinions on how old a customer looked, and the customer didn't have the proof of age that customers are recommended to take with them"
 
I expect that the exact same situation happens in cinemas and all kinds of licensed premises on a daily basis.

Two different people's opinion in two different areas of the building. 
 
.It's a judgement call at the end of the day by the person who is looking at the bod in front of them. Once ID has been asked for then you have to follow the guidelines. End of.

A quote from the article in the Shetland Times:
 
 
"Steven was with Joanne and her brothers Marc Sherwood, 34, and Sean Nicol, 22. They had even told Sean to take ID because he looks young."
 
And now he's complaining because he couldn't ID himself? 

Not on the 'net as far as I know but, you could contact him (John Shaw) on facebook

I think you'll find that vegans choose not to eat much more than just meat. They won't eat cheese sandwiches either
 
There's actually quite a few alcoholic drinks that contain animal products - https://www.vegsoc.org/alcohol

You'll be an Edinburgh man then!

Not-so-much the morning after
 
Best fun of the year though! And that goes for all the UHAs across Shetland

Just because the event gets some public funding doesn't mean the squad gets travel and accommodation paid. As far as I'm aware, the squad members usually pay to travel to events. It's an expensive business being in the Jarl Squad!
 
Perhaps you should ask the committee if you want to know the specifics of particular trips - http://www.uphellyaa.org/contact
 
There are 100s of visitors to Shetland each year for UHA which is great for the economy in a usually slow time of year (try booking accommodation for visitors. You need to book months in advance) and the global coverage Shetland gets from UHA can only be a good thing.

Just because the event gets some public funding doesn't mean the squad gets travel and accommodation paid. As far as I'm aware, the squad members usually pay to travel to events. It's an expensive business being in the Jarl Squad!
 
Perhaps you should ask the committee if you want to know the specifics of particular trips - http://www.uphellyaa.org/contact
 
There are 100s of visitors to Shetland each year for UHA which is great for the economy in a usually slow time of year (try booking accommodation for visitors. You need to book months in advance) and the global coverage Shetland gets from UHA can only be a good thing.

Hi,
 
Just wanted to say good luck with the new venture, just what Shetland has been waiting for.
Excellent idea for locals and people on holiday with children etc all year round.
My own personal view, don't make it too small trying to cram everything in. Perhaps allow for possible extensions in size of the play area  for the future. Knowing how expensive play equipment is, it could then develop.
There is Clickimin  soft area for smaller toddlers and babies perhaps leaving more scope of older children having somewhere to play as Clickimin is not for over 5's and limited.
 
Whatever you decide I sure it will be a great and long awaited asset to Shetland.
 

Certainly more than 0.145% of the population, particularly if you're going to make claims like "the questionnaire had proven there was wide spread public mistrust". At best you could say there was some evidence of a trend, but the research methodologies being employed by Mr Hamilton (and the Shetland Times) are so full holes you could drive a bus through them.
 
I'd be interested to read Mr Hamilton's "Action Research... statement of research validity" (anybody know where it's available?) as it "does not intend to measure the status quo, but aims instead to change it." It is perhaps no surprise that his findings show a trend toward changing the status quo, as that is exactly what he set out to do.
 
It seems to me that an individual, with a well known agenda, approaching individuals on the street to ask their opinion is troublesome in terms of validity, and the fact that the Shetland Times have chosen to frame their online poll in an article that validates his 'findings' and is dedicated to his point of view (apart from 2 sentences from Keith Massey) is also dubious.
 
If the Shetland Times were to put forward the pros and cons of each of their poll options then that would go some way to making the poll fair and equitable. However, the fact that they have provided no context apart from Mr Hamilton's opinion would seem to represent a bias on the part of the Shetland Times.
 
Furthermore, the wording of the Shetland Time's poll options is very poor. Some options begin with verbs such as "keep" and "have" and some don't, one option uses "composed entirely" and another uses "comprising entirely". It doesn't add up to anything approaching robust research.
 
I'm all for research on the subject but it gets my goat when individuals, action groups and the media use 'research' that doesn't tick the most basic of boxes and extrapolate the flawed findings to bolster pre-formed opinions.

In my experience of campaigns like this on the street, people who don't agree with the banners on display will just walk on by, so this really just seems like a poll of 28 supporters who took the time to stop. And to be honest, 28 is not a lot for a days work.

The poll was worse than ones we used to do at school. Would be better if the Shetland Times or a group without a vested interest in the result did one. I don't disagree with the polls out comes just the methodology and someone doing it who is keen for a certain result.

Lack of supply drives prices up. But the only ones that can free up land in Lerwick are the biggies that have been busy buying up the town - SIC, SCT, Harbour Trust, etc. Perhaps an unhealthy mix of public money ownership exists here compared to other towns, I'm not sure.
 
Social housing is subsided housing and the working person in the middle is subsiding it, as well as propping up business and the economy. But this same group can't get access to the quality of housing in the desirable areas they're subsidising in Lerwick, and it's an injustice.
 
At the end of the day a capitalist society needs good quality private housing in good areas to drive and encourage economic growth, otherwise we might as well all join the housing list (which is probably happening).