scoots

We've been losing more & more channels off our Sky+HD box with a "no signal being received 28" message on them all. More lost every day! Called Sky 6 times about it. First two times, both the planks I talked to assured me they would arrange an engineer but as it turns out, neither even made notes of my calls!! Eventually I have been told the soonest they can attend us the 24th of January. Aaaarrrggh! It's definitely the box as we payed Springbank to check and they just checked the dish alignment for 60 seconds or so and said its fine. Sky really do have you over a barrel up here. If BT Vision wasn't so rubbish, I'd move to them instead!

Just wondering what others thought of the "Morse" prequel aired last night? Personally, I thought it was excellent. A fitting tribute to one of the greatest character actors of the 20th Century. There were echoes throughout of his Morse, and the young actor playing him was quite superb. Captured his traits, quirks and mannerisms without shoving them in your face and making it an impersonation. The programme on John Thaw also reminded me of what a massive and diverse volume of work he had. So many characters, all unique and well portrayed, rather than (sorry, Sir David) portraying the same two or three characters again and again under different names!! The epilogue, where he looked in the rear view mirror and "saw" himself as Thaw raised goosebumps for me. I'd very much like to see more, so long as it's of a similar quality. But what do others think?

He and his daddy were great men. Ask their populace and you will find that every major piece of literature or research/discovery/scientific theory EVER written were written by the two of them! Possibly the most successful "brainwashers" of all time(other than the Church) but it will be interesting to see what happens next with Junior Jnr. At least he's not "wonewy" anymore, toasting his tootsies with Auld Nick and his heroes (Hitler, Stalin et al)!

SP, a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old will NOT go on the Register, by law. Has to be above a certain age, I believe, with a specified gap in ages or previous offences of same nature. But I TOTALLY agree with you about the broad range of offences that can put you on the Sex Offender Register. Not every offender is a paedophile. It's a label that's too easily and very often wrongly applied.

you can walk away from words? Really? What if, as a small child you are told that if you tell he will kill your parents? Or that you will go in to care and never see your family again? This is just two examples of the sort of grooming offenders use with their child victims. The majority of victims are not beaten into doing what their abuser wants, they are groomed into it, manipulated and twisted so they believe what they are told and DO as they are told. There is a system in place. By and large it works. There are offenders up here, some well-known. They appear to be accepted by all others. I don't know about the whole "vigilante" aspect up here, but South? Yup, definitely a bad idea, IMO. Innocent folk would suffer, wrongly identified by "the mob", the media and the usual twisted whispers. If you are entering a relationship and fear there is sonething wrong with your partner to be, you've surely already answered your question as to whether you want them moving in with you and your bairns. But if you need to, you can have them checked by Social work or the police, I believe. Might be wrong.

SP, I KNEW joining Anonymous would come in handy! Hacking the mods to edit you was a doddle! (kiiiiiiiddiiiiiiiing!! )

And if you're complaining about CCTV, what about mobile phones? Seems to me you can't spit or blow your nose without some eejit videoing you & putting it on YouTube!! What about those invasions of privacy? Every person with a camera phone is a walking CCTV these days. I blame Harry Hill meself!!

If there's a network of cameras covering an area and a crime is committed within that area, seems highly likely to me they wouldn't just look at image from one camera & write it off as crap or unusable without checking them all. You know like in a route taken to & from? You see it used in major crime docs on telly all the time. Circumstantial, yeah, but it's another piece of evidence all the same. Enough circumstantial & you have a case. Or - as in at least one case I know of South - it can clear a suspect. Handy for all sides, that. Especially when it's a serious crime. I remember a lad I know getting nicked outside a club after a fight (South) while three others legged it or were sent on their way. a quick check of CCTV showed he was the VICTIM and had done nowt, but it also id'd his attackers & they were nicked on the CCTV alone (he was that drunk he couldn't remember who had scarred him for life). If that was me, I'd be damn grateful for the cameras. What's the old Judge Dredd line? "Only the guilty have anything to fear"? Hmmmm? Daegerty, tell that to victims of crime... like the riots this year? Most convictions came from CCTV footage and, of course, the subject of my next post...

Para Handy, cops have nothing to do with court results or who's let off with lesser charges, so far as I know. This is a common mistake made by folk with the blame game. Dunno about your other points either. Seems to me you can't blame cops here now for "problems" caused by others in the past. I believe in taking folk as I find them...

GR, That makes absolute sense to me now, as I was unaware of any schism or difference in the "dialect" (beyond the notoriously difficult Whalsay tongue ). I'm more than willing to stand corrected, as a 'fan' or keen student/practitioner of language. I speak several, mainly self-taught through immersive practice, but I will never, EVER embarrass myself (or others) by attempting Shaetlan. I find it (mostly) quite cringeworthy when others do so, and have more respect for language/dialect/people than that. I know some who do so out of habit or nature having spent more of their lives here than their points of origin, but thats not for me (aside from anything, I am a very proud Gael - although I love these isles)!

Scorrie, A wonderful account, which illustrates what the day is all about. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

Don't go calling it the "Great War", whatever you do! Someone might seize upon the adjective and misinterpret it as meaning you think it was a super smashing lovely conflict, as opposed to the largest ever war of its kind, at that time. All these years, I've been thinking the "Great Wall of China" refers to its size and scale... turns out it's down to the smashing brickwork and pointing!!

I have no answer to the suggestion that the government, through military leaders, will order British soldiers to die. If you are a frontline soldier, engaging in actions against a hostile enemy force, there is a possibility of your dying. This is understood by soldiers, or so I would think. Your further suggestion that the government would order them to commit immoral/illegal acts is equally unanswerable by me, ax I suspect you have already made up your mind - subjectively - and have no intention of changing it, regardless of what I or anyone else says. I've stated MY reasons for remembering, and I do not wait once a year to do so.

They died in service to their country, having taken an oath to so serve abd defend. Fred bloody West hung himself after being caught for the abduction, sexual molestation/abuse and murder of several young girls, rather than face a lifetime of being looked after, rent-free, for the rest of his life. If you can't spot the difference, I can't do it for you. As to the politicos getting involved, I'd damn well hope they would, as it's then who send these servicemen & women to these far-flung countries, to serve and - in the cases we are seeking to honour & remember - die there. In service. Not abducting, raping & murdering. That defines the difference for me.

Is that not about everyone - including those in whatever uniforms - recognising the loss of their friends/family/comrades, rather than a celebration of war? I see it as a way of paying tribute to those who have lost their lives, on our behalf as part of our armed forces, in whatever conflict, regardless of your beliefs on wars, etc. it's not about the conflict they died in, its about the fact that they DID die. The loss of those lives, that's something I can honestly say I consider on a regular basis. But personally I also DO pay tribute to those who dies in WWII, and DO celebrate their part in that conflict, which WAS just and righteous. It's terrible that all those souls - including more than a few of my own relatives, as it will be for a lot of folk - were lost, but died for a purpose, an ideal, which was realised and did come about when the Axis powers were defeated. THAT is worth remembering, every time you raise your voice in protest or grumble about modern society/politicians/add whinge point here... you CAN protest and you CAN grumble, but it's because all those men and women died for us to do so. It takes a special kind of twisted soul, IMO, to find fault or a reason to deny any of that, and to dishonour those who died and continue to die so that others might live.

I prefer this... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect A far better explanation, I feel. I still don't see that even your point of reference, US, justifies a dialect as a language, as opposed to a subordinate offshoot. I remember a study carried out regarding the origins of the Black Isle dialect, by linguists. They found that it was an aggregation of English, Gaelic, Norse, Scots and even Rom, I believe (though there may have been other influences, those are the ones that I recall). Even the renowned Cromarty Fisherfolk dialect was seen as just that, a dialect, as opposed to a separate language of its own. I believe Norn would certainly have qualified as such, but not Shaetlan. "It is to be distinguished from the present day 'dialect', termed by linguists Shetlandic." I digress...

True, IMO. I always believed - and still do - that we are remembering those of our nation (and, usually, the area we live in) who gave their lives in a fight against tyranny, despotism, and those who pursue their relentless ideology through terrorism and murder. I will not consider, for one second, those who fought against - and killed - those to whom we pay our respects.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always thought the Shetland dialect, or Shaetlan, is just that - a dialect, and not a language? It does, after all, share words with Scots and Doric, doesn't it? Or am I completely wrong? If it is a dialect, I can't see how English would then be a "second language". A Gaelic speaker, or Welsh, or even Rom, might be able to make the claim, but it seems a stretch to apply in this instance. (eventide, does this mean you're more a Shetlander than the "Vikings" round these parts? )

^^ ... Ouch!

Maybe we should just keep the memory of those who died for us (the wars against tyranny) and who died for government/business (the "war on terror") in our hearts and minds all year round, then there should not be such an issue, surely? And, for the record, nothing will stop me buying and wearing a red poppy, in remembrance of my friends and relatives, no matter what war or conflict they lost their lives in. It's not there to glorify their deaths, or promote further conflict. It's there to provide support and assistance to the ex-servicemen and their families, in lieu of (be ashamed!) government provided assistance. I have stood in those fields, accompanying my father and grandfather, visiting the grave of my grandfather's father. Anyone who has been there cannot help but be affected by the sense of loss. That's what I remember, and what I honour. Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.

Honestly, they'll give anyone a taxi licence these days! (Should that no be "anywhen", Pick? )

Like many others, I'd go for Derek Bulter's firm any day of the week. We needed some work done two or three years ago and got quotes from four Shetland firms. Derek was the last to come along and asked me to show him the work needed. When I showed him the last two windows I thought needed replaced, he looked at me like I had two heads. He laughed and said they would be good for another ten or twenty years. He then checked them and told me all they needed was the correct fittings and hinges, as the wrong ones had been used. All other three firms had opened and checked the windows and told me they needed replaced entirely, and costed for this in their significant estimates. I told him he'd done himself out of money the rest obviously wanted and he said he could never work like that and never had. This honesty alone made him prime favourite for the work, which he came along after and checked on, to make sure we were satisfied with it. When they put in the fittings on the windows, he threw that in for free! He's a topping bloke and his lads all do great work, fastidious, precise and they tidy up after themselves like you wouldn't believe!

On the Benedictine mission, read the section "The Irish Church"... http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/ulfmoller.pdf It's self-explanatory. I never said Crossan and Bagatti said Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. You seem to be misreading my posts. Probably easily done amidst all my polemic. I said they talk of there being evidence of a good deal earlier habitation, then a founding as a modern settlement (a refounding) during the Hasmonean era, in the 2nd Century A.D.. None that they found, or has been found, from the time of Jesus. On Patrick. He arrived in Ireland around 420 A.D. According to my Jesuit chum - it's his area of specialty, not mine - Christianity was first established, or centred, in Britain, in Ireland. He maintained that he had seen or read copies of the records from the first Council of Nicea, along with several other Councils of the time. This was his particular area of interest (the Heresies, with the Arian Heresy top of the list). For Athanasius (a secretary or scribe at the meeting) to record that there were reps there from Britain (my priestly friend assured me the records said so, I remember this quite clearly, although again, I have never seen these), meant almost certainly these were of the Celtic Church, pre-dating Patrick by 50 odd years. Arius was not the first to preach his stance in Jesus, he merely brought it all to a head, leading Constantine to call the Council in the first place, in the hope if healing the significant schism between Roman and Eastern Christianity. Arius and many of his fellows (there were a lot of names recorded on the opposing side to the Romans) were of the Alexandrian Church. They (the Alexandrians) were what later became the Coptics. The Coptics heavily influenced the early Celtic Christian Church, by way of the settlement on Lerins, among others. My memories here are, on examination, I must admit, faulty. Lerins was established after Nicea. However my friend was quite adamant (again, this I do remember clearly) that the early Celtic Church was of Coptic descent. Does all that make sense? The Coptic theology, like that of their Roman Catholic cousins, evolved steadily throughout the first centuries of the respective branches of the church, as is evidenced by the number of councils called to establish points and refute others. It is from Athanasius, primarily, that the Nicene creed and Trinitarian (drat that spell-checker! It had "Trinidadian"!) Christianity originated. My friend had it (I confess that I don't know from where) that Athanasius was a convert to the Roman theology from the Eastern, and was particularly rabid in his hatred of the Eastern traditions, and of Arianism in particular. Strangely, in his later years, Constantine changed his mind on Athanasius & co, allowing Arius and his fellows to return from the exile imposed after Nicea. Constantine ordered the Christian authorities to receive Arius, against their wishes. Athanasius had been kicked into touch, exiled himself at this point, for disagreeing with the emperor. Constantine the Great...? On Paul, I would just like to point out one thing. There are writings detailing Paul coming to verbal blows with Peter in Antioch, regarding the latter's treatment of Gentiles. I find it strange that the follower of Jesus, the "rock upon whom this church is built" should feel so markedly different from Paul on this point, basically refusing to even acknowledge the gentile in question, much to Paul's ire. Yet, when Paul took him to task for this, Peter effectively "bitch-slapped" Paul, and Paul's own disciple sided with Peter. As a consequence of this, Paul left Antioch and never returned. So, we have the follower of Jesus, the man who lived with him, ate and drank with him, listened to him speak and was taught by him. Then we have the man who never saw him, never heard him, never had any contact, at least until after Jesus' death, when Paul claims that (while en route to pick up a consignment of imprisoned followers of Jesus for his Roman masters - he once held the coats, while another follower was stoned to death, such was his way) Jesus appeared to him, blinded him and called him to preach of him and his works. Who to believe, and why so radically different? Paul used his Roman citizenship to stave off the "death sentence" imposed on him in Rome. He used this to preach to many high ranking Romans. When converting any populace, it is often beneficial to catch the leadership first... If he did jot establish the ties between the Christian church and the Romans - and I believe he did - certainly his immediate followers and successors had no qualms about tying their church to the empire. Surely you don't dispute that? I will try and keep answering your posts. However there are very significant events taking place in my immediate family at present - hence the lateness of this post. They must come first, so if I do not reply for some time, it's not that I'm hiding, or flummoxed, merely that I don't have much time to spend here, nor m likely to for several weeks, at least, or until the problem facing us is fully identified and - hopefully - resolved or dealt with. Thanks fir the discussion, I am enjoying it immensely. I hope I'm not wasting the skin on your fingertips too much. As to not stating your own beliefs, based on something I said earlier, that is quite a weak argument, I believe, and at odds with your strong rebuttals and dissections of my own. If you just don't want to say, then say that.

DePooperit If I may ask, while I'm wading through your replies, what are your beliefs? Do you follow the teachings of the New Testament, acknowlege the legitimacy of Paul as founder of Christianity, and can you direct me to any accredited, documented sources to corroborate his account of events, or for the Bible being an untainted direct source of information for events during the life of the (alleged) man called Jesus, and the (alleged) message he had to pass on?

I see. (Should that not be "a proposition"? What of all those not bracketed so?)