Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

SWMBO and I went for a walk one night about 25-26 years ago, and we only got about 150 metres from home and we found a big fat wallet lying on the footpath. We picked it up and we were quite surprised to find something like $1300 in it!

However, along with the money was the blokes driver licence, credit cards, a payslip showing it was his pay for the fortnight, and the name of the business he worked for. It was a cabinet-making shop not far from my workshop.

 

So, the next morning, I dropped into the business, asked for the bloke, and when he appeared, I gave him his wallet. He wasn't particularly grateful, just said he'd dropped it whilst helping a mate shift furniture, said "thanks", and turned around, and went straight back to work! It was quite interesting that it appeared he'd written it off, and wasn't over the moon about it being returned. 

 

I lost my wallet the year before last, walking into a big local shopping centre (it seems I didn't insert it in my back pocket properly). It only had about $130 in it, but it contained a lot of important cards, including a couple of credit cards.

I got home and realised it was missing, so I went straight back to the shopping centre and went to the managers office to see if it had been handed in. I was fully expecting it was gone for good.

 

To my amazement, it had been handed in, and it was completely untouched! I got the name and number of the lady who handed it in - she was a young Asian lady - so I texted her and asked what kind of reward I could offer her. She said she wanted nothing, and was just glad I got it back.

 

So I got her address and sent her a big Lotto ticket (because I know Asians love gambling) - but unfortunately, the ticket won nothing for her! (I'd kept a copy and checked the numbers).

  • Like 1
Posted

Really! What sort of mongrels break into a murdered womans home and ransack it, then drive off in her car. I hope they are haunted for the rest of their lives.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted

There are separate prohibitions on denigrating shortness and blackness. Also on ordering people to do anything unless you are in the military. Best to stay at home.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

There are separate prohibitions on denigrating shortness and blackness

That's three things:

denigrate: 1520s, "to sully or stain" (the reputation, character, etc.), from Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare "to defame", formed from niger, the 'colour'.

shortness: Middle English shortnes, shortnesse, from Old English scortnes "want of length or height".

blackness: Old English blæc "absolutely dark, absorbing all light, of the color of soot or coal,"

 

Regarding the use of the word "Negro" in the United States, Professor Booker T. Washington, born a slave to become an American educator, author, and orator, and between 1890 and 1915, the primary leader in the African-American community, being politely interrogated ... as to whether negroes ought to be called 'negroes' or 'members of the colored race' has replied that it has long been his own practice to write and speak of members of his race as negroes, and when using the term 'negro' as a race designation to employ the capital 'N' [Harper's Weekly, June 2, 1906]

Posted

Coloured is the wrong word. Bananaboy Joice is coloured sometimes. Black is when no light is reflected Red is when red is reflected or allowed through a filter or refracted by  a prism. White is all the colours of the rainbow. Spin a disc of all the colours and it appears WHITE. Nev

  • Like 2
Posted

I think it's about time a law should be introduced about failed parenting. Parents should be able to be held to account for the teenage crimes, such as car theft, house breaking, assault, carrying a weapon. It's a parents responsibility to ensure their 13, 14, 15, 16 year old is not out terrorising the neighbourhood. And I hate this woke idea that the age of criminal responsibilty should be raised. Teach your kids right from wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, red750 said:

I hate this woke idea that the age of criminal responsibilty should be raised.

I think that when dealing with children you have to distinguish between criminal responsibility and social responsibility. Criminal responsibility sort of deals with the consequences of actions. At a young age a child's mind cannot see those consequences in the same light as an older teenager or young adult. However, from kindergarten children are supposed to be being instructed in social responsibility - the rules for orderly operation of the classroom, schoolyard and getting to and from school.

 

Given our current level of studies of how the mind develops in its understanding of what is expected of a person in a society, we really do need to abandon the Victorian (and probably Christian) idea of when a child has developed enough to understand the consequences of its actions. That age can probably be proven to be older than 10 years, and it also depends heavily on the social environment in which the child has been raised. After all, claiming that it takes a village to raise a child infers that the child takes on what is normal in that village. Therefore I agree with Red when he says

40 minutes ago, red750 said:

Parents should be able to be held to account for the teenage crimes

 

Posted

re Previous discussion. A report on TV today about school principals who have been having problems with misbehaviour from students, who have been abused by parents and have had to produce CCTV evidence that their 'little darlings' have been causing trouble.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...