hjasga

Again, this is essentially a personal attack and entirely inappropriate.

You're missing the whole point of my comment. What now is council policy of primary education in island communities? Okay, I understand if one family has dug their heels in on this on the hope that the school does not close but the point is if the family had gone along with moving their bairns and the school was mothballed what then? If a family moves to Papa with school age bairns then the school has to open, so in theory, if Bressay had been moth-balled then the families who had removed their bairns "changed their minds" ( or another family moved into the isle) and wanted them taught in Bressay does that mean the school would have had to re-open? It makes no sense to me because there would then be no consistency in policy, if indeed the original SIC policy still stands. As for the person's name being removed because it was deemed 'personal criticism' or whatever I think it's a pity that Shetlink no longer permits people to voice their own personal opinions especially when I consider my comments to be very mild. I have had dealings with this person for 9 years and I know the way that they operate. I'm not sure I've "missed: anything from your post - I addressed the points I cared about one by one. For the mothballing argument - yes, if a family moved to Papa Stour and wanted their child(ren) educated there, the entire point of mothballing is that the council would look at possibly opening the school again. I'm not sure if there's any compulsion for that to happen, especially if it's only for an unfeasibly small number of pupils, but I think they'd certainly have to look at it. That there are in fact a fairly large number of children in Bressay makes that case more complicated, as I've already mentioned. I imagine if mothballing had been agreed upon any case to reopen the school would depend on demand on parents who had not already agreed to said mothballing. If you truly knew how said person "operates" I doubt you'd have spewed such nonsense about them simply doing their job within government legislation. You can give your views on the department without denigrating individuals.

Bressay is a peculiar case. The consultation is going ahead after extensive discussions with the parents there; the simple fact is that there are almost twenty children on Bressay who could attend that school, and four who currently choose to go there. In my mind, it'd be a lot fairer on the majority if the school was not there and they had proper school transport provided to send children to Bell's Brae. I'm not sure the personal mention of [MOD EDIT] is necessary, and it's also entirely unfounded. Mothballing was the preferred case of Children's Services but wasn't possible under government legislation. The "technical mumbo jumbo" is in fact perfectly simple: a school can only be mothballed if the school roll reaches zero, and the local authority is not allowed to place pressure on families to make that happen. From what I have heard, discussions took place with the two families still sending children to Bressay, and at least one of them was strongly opposed to moving.

This seems like nonsense, to me. If I had an autistic child I couldn't move to Oxna and then demand the council provided a school there for me. Children with complex additional support needs would typically attend Gressy Loan anyway. In cases so severe that boarding could not happen there would have to special arrangements regardless of which catchment area the pupil lived in.

What? How?

Have you seen Neil Oliver's A History of Scotland series? He unintentionally pointed out the absurdity of Up Helly Aa by pointing out the sheer terror that would have been felt by resident Shetlanders if the early Viking arrivals were anything like our celebrations. However - and I'm aware you're not entirely serious - indiscriminate slayings of the 1400s are not remotely comparable to the serious racism encountered by black people still living today.

I entirely agree, whilst I've already criticised Mr Sissay's approach to things, the reaction of some commenters has been horrible and really not shown the spirit we like to believe we have in these islands. Perhaps that all stems back to how polarising and divisive this issue is...

Sorry but, I have to disagree with your first two sentences. 1. A doll is a doll, is a doll. 2. I do not believe that they come from a 'racist' background. 3. What is so wrong with selling them to tourists if tourists, presumably, want to buy them? 4. Some might think that they (the dolls) might not be strictly PC but, who really cares. They are not 'illegal' and were, almost certainly, not intended to make any kind of racist(?) point. They were originally conceived as a scary character in a children's book, to my admittedly limited knowledge. Authors such as Enid Blyton wrote about them as vicious "creatures" who bit other children. That they grew in to a cultural symbol not intentionally linked to racist statement does not remove that background, and as much as I can sympathise with those who feel it is now irrelevant I find it at best naive to suggest that those who do find it offensive should just get over it. What is wrong with them being sold in shops, particularly those targeting tourists, is that there are sure to be a notably sized group who find them deeply offensive and for whom it is a negative mark on a hopefully enjoyable visit to Shetland. I'm not suggesting they be banned, nor suggesting I have any right to tell the shop owner what she can and cannot sell; I just personally find it distasteful and would commend her if she did choose to remove them.

I entirely understand why Mr Sissay found the dolls offensive. I agree with him that due to their racist background they should not really be on sale in a shop frequented by tourists. However I cannot condone the manner he has gone about airing his views, or the accusations he has made against the shop owner. I don't know the lady in question but nothing I've read of the story suggests any malice, nor would I attribute that to anybody without very significant reason to do so; even his own blog post has nothing in it to validate his claims that she is bitter/lost/angry/rebellious. I can imagine there's a slight naivete in placing happy memories above the concerns of people who find these deeply offensive, but that to me doesn't justify the aggressive response Mr Sissay has given. He'd have been far more productive to simply speak to her directly and let her know he found them distasteful. Instead he led her on to believe he loved them and simply further validated their sale. If we take another story making headlines at the moment, whilst I agree that the song "Blurred Lines" is misogynist and incredibly distasteful, I don't attribute that to radio DJs who chose to play it, or even to the majority of people who enjoy the song. I think a lot of people are happy to ignore that aspect on the fact they find the tune catchy, just as many are happy to ignore the racist background of these dolls on the basis they're happy reminders of childhood. EDIT: Reading that final sentence back to myself I realise it doesn't come across as I intended. I just mean to say that there are people who like the dolls truly just because of their own positive reasons. There is no hatred or attempt to project any feeling on others. I think it's a slight worry for things to be so internalised and would encourage them to consider what their actions really mean, but I do not agree with Mr Sissay's approach to the situation and think his accusatory manner and excessive judgement have caused a backward step.

Seriously you can't comprehend two christian homosexuals wanting to get married in a church. Is this a question? Because, if so, the answer is yes. I don't really understand homosexual people being Christians, given it's a religion that rejects their right to that choice. For me, that would be enough to reconsider my stance. By all means they can have that faith without argument from me, but it's really not a choice I can understand.

Difference being such objects couldn't consent, so you're trivialising things somewhat. They absolutely should be allowed, but why a same-sex couple would want to have their partnership recognised by the church - a body that considers their actions sinful - is completely beyond comprehension for me.

I was going to say OP's attitude towards immigrants would be out of place and relatively unwelcome in Shetland, but some comments are making me worry I may have been wrong. Goes against all the values I was brought up with as a Shetlander. I see one first generation immigrant on crofter's list, not "at least two". I know him, as well, and can say despite a few drink related problems he's definitely not freeloading.

I'm aware you probably didn't mean this as I'm reading it, but the slightly unsavoury way immigrants are being spoken about in this thread grates with me a bit. All the immigrant workers I've known in Shetland work as hard as anybody else and certainly aren't here for "an easy life".

Can anybody tell me if the scheme is still going ahead this year? With the council no longer hiring externally I'm not sure. There's no legal way to distinguish.

When? It's rare their advertising even addresses tangible product features so that seems a strange thing to say, to me.

Am I correct to read this as you being opposed to windfarms in Shetland but in favour of a nuclear plant? What argument can you have against the former that doesn't also apply to the latter? Thankfully you are incorrect, I'm neither for nor against the windfarms. IMO the reason why the majority of people are against the idea is too do with looks and the irrepaerable damage it will cost to the land and nature in the affected areas. That said surely a nuclear plant would in scale be much less detremental to the eye than x amount of turbines etc. ...........saying that too I also am aware of the pitfalls of nuclear energy but at the end of the day we need something to run the kettle and toaster! Do you have any bright ideas or is that it from you! (said with a smiley face)! I'm in full support of wind farms and, when technology makes it worthwhile, tidal power. Our wonderful Shetland weather is our best resource for the future and I think it's very short-termist to decry the changes wind farms bring to landscapes.

It was Danny Watt last I knew, but I'm not sure if he's moved into the new house he was building.

One upside of this is that if you found a lost iPhone you'd be able to find numbers to trace it back to its owner. Perhaps I don't see the issue because I've never set a PIN on my less-than-smart phone. If you're unfortunate/silly enough to lose your phone you should be getting it blocked before this becomes an issue. I don't own any Apple products but the anti-Apple brigade are just as bad as those who harp on about how great they are. That's not about you personally, I'll add. They're very good at what they do and if you're not interested in the more advanced functions of Windows/Linux their computers are first class.

Again, this is untrue to the point of being insulting.

Identities can develop over time. How is celebrating our Scottish heritage diluting Shetland's sovereignity any more than celebrating Viking roots? We've been a part of Scotland and the UK for several centuries now and it plays as important a part in our history as anything else. Do you think when Up Helly Aa started people were decrying it as ruining cultural heritage? They wouldn't have been doing anything different to what you are now.

Am I correct to read this as you being opposed to windfarms in Shetland but in favour of a nuclear plant? What argument can you have against the former that doesn't also apply to the latter?

Liberty also highlights this: *insert patronising ellipsis* The main issue seems to be with people a) using Olympic traffic for commercial gain and/or abusing the Olympic trademarks. I fully agree the wording is ambiguous, and could potentially be abused by police, but I really don't expect to be used to quash anti-Olympic sentiment.

As did the Mail in the article you linked. The lack of mention of it anywhere since made me slightly suspicious, so I looked up the act in question. The only laws seem to apply to illegal street trading and I see no mention of protests. Whether there are ways for the police to use street trading laws as loopholes is another story but it appears to be mountain from molehill stuff from the admittedly limited reading I've done. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/12/section/28

I'm sick of this God damn moaning all the time - can't we spread some positivity on Shetlink?

Bit late to reply to this so I'm unsure if you'll still see it, or be interested, but I'll answer anyway. The standard is fairly mixed - there are a few players who go every week as well as playing regularly online, and a couple of names regularly among the paying positions. However, there are also a few who are either quite new to the game or take it a lot less seriously. I'd say you're unlikely to win anything at first, but the group are welcoming of enthusiastic beginners and will generally offer you a lot of advice. At £10-30 a game you won't be chucking money away if you were to go along and improve your game, and there's always a chance you'll win something whatever your level. There are a few bigger tournaments they organise - it's usually a £50 buy in with no top ups or rebuys. I couldn't say when the next will be held.