English Gays Offended by Scots Presbs.
Maria
British gay couple offended by double bed ban
LONDON (AFP) - It was a true clash of cultures. Stephen Nock, a gay
man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a
double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his
long-term partner.
But Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the
Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit
remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the couple
a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe,
"but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he wrote
in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday. Angry at the
response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted. "Bigot?
No. Respect for other guests," came the reply. "Homophobic? No, I have
no hatred or fear of poofs, etc -- I just do not approve of unnatural
acts being performed in my home." Nock in return asked the Scottish
tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended
accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had
"depressed" him, the report said. The tourism board asked the guest
house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people
coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,"
Forrest was quoted as saying.
Ted
Maria
Aramis Gunton
<frust...@ntlworld.com> writes
>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
>
>British gay couple offended by double bed ban
>
>LONDON (AFP) - It was a true clash of cultures. Stephen Nock, a gay man
>from London,
"Gay Nock Upset By Rough Jock Shock"
Well done that man!!!!
--
Aramis Gunton
adolf churchill
adolf churchill
The Rifleman
BfB
"Ted" <T...@tednet.com> wrote in message
news:cbu4vm$koq$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com
frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
>
>British gay couple offended by double bed ban
>
It's his roof !
It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
(The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
Maybe the guesthouse owner doesn't allow dogs on his premises either,
should I therefore ask that the tourism board to remove him from
the list of recommended accommodation on its website ?
Or just take my business elsewhere to where it is welcome ?
-- Josiah J Jenkins
Lesley Robertson
<josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:0vj5e019iqds3db0g...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:19:51 GMT, I read these words from
> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
>
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
> >
> >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> >
> It's his roof !
> It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
> Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
> (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
>
won't have as much fun as they would with a double....
Lesley Robertson
josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com
Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> :
"What the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over" ?
-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.dsl.pipex.com/
H. Wake
The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
Also good business to respect the wishes of the majority of his
guests. It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain. Not gay
at all. And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
complaint.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>> >> "depressed" him, the report said. The tourism board asked the guest
>> >> house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
>> >> saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people
>> >> coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,"
>> >> Forrest was quoted as saying.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Hate Crime?
>>
>> LOL
>
>The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
Agreed
>Also good business to respect the wishes of the majority of his
>guests.
Agreed
>It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain.
Offensive to whom?
>Not gay at all.
Que?
>And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
>complaint.
Offensive to whom?
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
Wotan
The guest house owner is a bloody national hero.
Both in Scotland and England !
Let's see what the filthy Blairite Marxist dirt in the
Scottish Tourist Board have to say further on the
matter.
Wotan
It is not a crime to hate foulness, perversion and
vileness.
It IS a crime not to hate and seek to destroy by every
means the evil that is the Scottish solicitor Blair and
his morally derelict Marxist subversive filth.
Once he is removed from office there must be a national
campaign to expunge his corrution and pollution from
every corner of British life.
Guig
> It is not a crime to hate foulness, perversion and
> vileness.
So, it wouldn't be a crime to hate you and your BNP/Combat 18/NF pals then?
> It IS a crime not to hate and seek to destroy by every
> means the evil that is the Scottish solicitor Blair and
> his morally derelict Marxist subversive filth.
No it is not a crime. Only in your strange little world maybe.
> Once he is removed from office there must be a national
> campaign to expunge his corrution and pollution from
> every corner of British life.
You really are out of your skull aren't you?
--
Guig
Oh for the wings of any bird, other than a battery hen.
Cory Bhreckan
Starting with cranks. Pack your bags.
The Rifleman
>
> Starting with cranks. Pack your bags.
If we started with the cranks, nutters, boozed up sots, scroungers, dole
wallers etc the scots would all have to go home.
FransHals
> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
>
> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
> >
> >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> >
> It's his roof !
> It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
Maybe only in Scotland. England is not a free country - it is run by
left wing Stalinist called teh Lib/Lab/Cons.
> Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
> (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
>
> Maybe the guesthouse owner doesn't allow dogs on his premises either,
> should I therefore ask that the tourism board to remove him from
> the list of recommended accommodation on its website ?
Dogs don't spread diseases or viruses.
> -- Josiah J Jenkins
Madra Dubh
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:cbum19$m3e$1...@news.tudelft.nl...
The British set great store by appearances.
John Mullen
news:cbv2as$quk$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > Starting with cranks. Pack your bags.
>
> If we started with the cranks, nutters, boozed up sots, scroungers, dole
> wallers etc the scots would all have to go home.
>
Er.. I'm already at home. Where would I go?
John
BOEDICIA
>From: frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria)
>Date: 6/30/04 3:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40e29255...@News.Individual.NET>
The former Bishop of Edinburgh is going to be very upset over this. Not only
did he say - 'There are more gays in Scotland than any other country in the
world" but he then went on to invite "all the gays in England to move to
Scotland where they will be welcomed with open arms".
Open arms maybe, but not double beds.
BfB
BfB
"H. Wake" <hw...@freeispshares.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2a0b4c4.04063...@posting.google.com...
If he's licensed by the government, eventually the militant homosexual
movement will have him out of business,
BfB
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:108861830...@nnrp-t71-02.news.uk.clara.net...
and the London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard will be flooded........
BfB
"FransHals" <frans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b942ce7.04063...@posting.google.com...
Nick Cooper
wrote:
You really haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about,
have you?
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Lost in France (& Belgium) - Two weeks in Normandy, the Somme &
Flanders; Simon the Cat of 'HMS Amethyst':
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Well they can't say they weren't warned - the B&B website clearly states
that Tom Forrest;
"will ensure that your stay is filled with traditional Scottish
Hospitality".
A W-S
Michilín
Maybe, maybe not.
Please remember that northern Scotland is essentially a foreign
country in terms of social mores, compared to England. Most Highland
people are fairly easy-going, but being gay in such a macho and in
many areas, religiously hardline society as the Highlands is not a
matter for public acclamation, but often carries a social stigma.
Many Highlanders take everything they read in their Bibles as gospel,
to coin a phrase; thus the reason why so few pigs are seen in the
western Highlands which is much more religious than the eastern
Highlands - the Bible forbids them.
The Bible is lucidly clear on the subject of being gay and
religiously-inclined Highland people naturally conduct themselves
according to whatever their God and local minister tell them.
It's like asking, "Would you rent a room to a rapist?" Depends on your
personal feelings about rapists, right? When asked, "Would you rent a
room to a gay couple?" I suspect that many British people, and not
just Highlanders might feel moved to refuse.
Let me note that I am neutral on the subject of gays. There have been
gay people in my life as friends, one a close friend of my wife and
myself, with whom we remained close through his battle with AIDS to
his eventual death, but I don't regard the lifestyle as one I would
prefer to monogamous marriage.
I am a supporter of gay marriage as to refuse a loyal; and loving
couple the right to make their union and feelings a matter of official
public record is childish, immature and persecution by those who enjoy
making the lives of others less fortunate than themselves a misery.
But until there is universal agreement on whether gay marriage should
be a universal right ot not, I fear gays will continue to be
discriminated against.
One of our daughters was gay and we stood foursquare beside her
through her growing up, but after she left home, of course she met
discrimination, but reacted as most gays do, with singular courage and
wry humour.
I mention these matters simply to underline that while I understand
the Highland guesthouse owner's attitude (I come from the Highlands
myself) I do not necessarily support his views, although I do support
his right to make his own choice of religion and beliefs; possibly
more so than he might support mine as a committed atheist.
But that's what democracy is allegedly about and like Christianity,
the sooner it's put into practice, the more pleased I'll be.
Michilín
Michilín
wrote:
>Here's what happened in Arkansas.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/29otf
>
>MacHamish Mór
It's amazing how all American jokes involve faeces in some form,. Very
German. As for Arkansas, isn't that Dixie's answer to Zimbabwe?
Michilín
Michilín
Congratulations! You used every letter except j, q, x and y.
Think how proud your social worker is going to be!
Michilín
Michilín
Well, don't fiddle faddle around, give us more details!
Michilín
Michilín
wrote:
>Either way, he's going to have to deal with some messy sheets.
>
>MacHamish Mór
How very American/gauche...
Michilín
Adam Whyte-Settlar
H. Wake
> On 30 Jun 2004 09:13:13 -0700, hw...@freeispshares.co.uk (H. Wake)
> wrote:
>
> >> >> "depressed" him, the report said. The tourism board asked the guest
> >> >> house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
> >> >> saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people
> >> >> coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,"
> >> >> Forrest was quoted as saying.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Hate Crime?
> >>
> >> LOL
> >
> >The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
>
> Agreed
>
> >Also good business to respect the wishes of the majority of his
> >guests.
>
> Agreed
>
> >It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain.
>
> Offensive to whom?
The guest house owner, and probably a lot of other people including
me.
>
> >Not gay at all.
>
> Que?
Being a whining sneak is hardly gay.
> >And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
> >complaint.
>
> Offensive to whom?
Me and probably a lot of other people and certainly offensive to the
guest house owner because the tourist board is attacking his
livelihood.
John Mullen
Why does it offend you what other people do in privacy?
John
JohnJ
>> Offensive to whom?
>
>The guest house owner, and probably a lot of other people including
>me.
Why is it offensive to complain about something you're not happy
about?
>> >And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
>> >complaint.
>>
>> Offensive to whom?
>
>Me and probably a lot of other people and certainly offensive to the
>guest house owner because the tourist board is attacking his
>livelihood.
He's attacking his own livelihood by practising discrimination.
JJ
Leighton Jones
> man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a
> double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his
> long-term partner.
> But Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the
> Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit
> remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the couple
> a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe,
> "but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he wrote
> in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday. Angry at the
> response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted. "Bigot?
> No. Respect for other guests," came the reply. "Homophobic? No, I have
> no hatred or fear of poofs, etc -- I just do not approve of unnatural
> acts being performed in my home." Nock in return asked the Scottish
> tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended
> accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had
> house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
> saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people
> coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,"
> Forrest was quoted as saying.
>
Why didn't Stephen Nock, just respect the views and beliefs of Tom Forrest?
Find some other accommodation where they would be welcome.
There probably are "gay friendly" Guest houses out there, there's probably a
list?
Stephen Nock says he was "depressed".
Can you imagine how "depressed" the guest house owner would have been,
letting something that he obviously doesn't agree with go on under his roof.
( Yep, his roof ).
It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
If a gay hotelier banned "Straights", who would make the complaint?
No, Stephen Nock needs to appreciate that being gay is what he is. Some
people don't like / understand what he is, and don't want anything to do
with him.
He needs to give other people the respect that he is looking for himself.
I bet there are things he doesn't like?
Cheers LJ.
JohnJ
>It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
>pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
He wouldn't be allowed to ban blacks or Asians, though, so why allow
him to ban gay couples?
As things stand though, he's free to ban gays, but has to accept the
consequences.
>Stephen Nock needs to appreciate that being gay is what he is. Some
>people don't like / understand what he is, and don't want anything to do
>with him.
It's rather odd though that the B&B man would have allowed the gay
couple to stay in a twin room but not a double. Does he really think
that would have stopped them from having sex if that's what they
wanted to do??!!
JJ
Leighton Jones
"JohnJ" <jj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1p7e0dnmcndtgkrb...@4ax.com...
> "Leighton Jones" <leigh...@virgin.net> WROTE:
>
> >It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
> >pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
>
> He wouldn't be allowed to ban blacks or Asians, though, so why allow
> him to ban gay couples?
Does that mean that if Stephen Nock had been Black or Asian, he couldn't
have been banned?
Does that mean that if you want to stop a black or Asian coming into your
guest house, you just have to have a suspision that they are gay?
The man didn't like the thought of Gay sex going on in his guest house.
Now I can respect that. It's a shame Stephen Nock couldn't.
Many moons ago, my girl friend and myself were refused a double room at a
guest house. The lady didn't believe in premarital sex. Had to respect her
wishes, didn't report her to the Local tourist board. Just "got on with
life", and found another guest house.
We don't have the right to force our way of life onto others, especially not
in thier Own Homes!
>
> As things stand though, he's free to ban gays, but has to accept the
> consequences.
>
> >Stephen Nock needs to appreciate that being gay is what he is. Some
> >people don't like / understand what he is, and don't want anything to do
> >with him.
>
> It's rather odd though that the B&B man would have allowed the gay
> couple to stay in a twin room but not a double. Does he really think
> that would have stopped them from having sex if that's what they
> wanted to do??!!
>
The guy had already made his thoughts known, the offer of twin beds was a
"Get out clause". Buy that time, no way were the two gays going to stay
there.
Cheers LJ.
Leighton Jones
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:51:46 -0400, "BfB" <_@-._> wrote:
>
> >
> >"H. Wake" <hw...@freeispshares.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:a2a0b4c4.04063...@posting.google.com...
> >> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) wrote in message
> >news:<40e297fe...@News.Individual.NET>...
> >> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:34:30 +0000 (UTC), "Ted" <T...@tednet.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >"Maria" <frust...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:40e29255...@News.Individual.NET...
> >> > >> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
> >> > >>
> >>
> >> The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
> >> Also good business to respect the wishes of the majority of his
> >> guests. It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain. Not gay
> >> at all. And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
> >> complaint.
> >
> >If he's licensed by the government, eventually the militant homosexual
> >movement will have him out of business,
> >
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Please remember that northern Scotland is essentially a foreign
> country in terms of social mores, compared to England. Most Highland
> people are fairly easy-going, but being gay in such a macho and in
> many areas, religiously hardline society as the Highlands is not a
> matter for public acclamation, but often carries a social stigma.
>
> Many Highlanders take everything they read in their Bibles as gospel,
> to coin a phrase; thus the reason why so few pigs are seen in the
> western Highlands which is much more religious than the eastern
> Highlands - the Bible forbids them.
They don't have pigs on the Western Highlands?
Honestly I'm amazed.
Is it to do with the Bible or the weather.
Do they eat pork, ham bacon etc?
>
> The Bible is lucidly clear on the subject of being gay and
> religiously-inclined Highland people naturally conduct themselves
> according to whatever their God and local minister tell them.
>
> It's like asking, "Would you rent a room to a rapist?" Depends on your
> personal feelings about rapists, right?
Depends if you knew he was a rapist?
>When asked, "Would you rent a
> room to a gay couple?"
Would you rent a room to two guys asking for twin beds? Answer probably yes.
Would you rent to two Gays? How would you know they are Gay.
Answer, because they asked for a double bed.
Could have kept "thier heads down" and had no trouble.
Instead had to make a point of it, and the S*** flies?
>I suspect that many British people, and not
> just Highlanders might feel moved to refuse.
>
> Let me note that I am neutral on the subject of gays. There have been
> gay people in my life as friends, one a close friend of my wife and
> myself, with whom we remained close through his battle with AIDS to
> his eventual death, but I don't regard the lifestyle as one I would
> prefer to monogamous marriage.
>
> I am a supporter of gay marriage
Why call it a marriage, Marriage in the dictionary requires people of two
sexes to be in union.
Homosexuals want some thing to celibrate thier union.
Let's call it what it is, A Contract of Homosexual Union, got a certain ring
to it hasn't it.
> as to refuse a loyal; and loving
> couple the right to make their union and feelings a matter of official
> public record is childish, immature and persecution by those who enjoy
> making the lives of others less fortunate than themselves a misery.
Are you saying that Guys are *less fortunate* than others. Now that is
descrimination.
>
> But until there is universal agreement on whether gay marriage should
> be a universal right ot not, I fear gays will continue to be
> discriminated against.
By people who think they are *less fortunate*?
>
> One of our daughters was gay and we stood foursquare beside her
> through her growing up, but after she left home, of course she met
> discrimination, but reacted as most gays do, with singular courage and
> wry humour.
We would stand by our offspring, whatever?
>
> I mention these matters simply to underline that while I understand
> the Highland guesthouse owner's attitude (I come from the Highlands
> myself) I do not necessarily support his views, although I do support
> his right to make his own choice of religion and beliefs; possibly
> more so than he might support mine as a committed atheist.
Commited athiest who believes in Marriage, Thank God I'm an Athiest ;-)
>
> But that's what democracy is allegedly about and like Christianity,
> the sooner it's put into practice, the more pleased I'll be.
>
And me.
Cheers LJ.
Aramis Gunton
<jj_...@hotmail.com> writes
>>It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
>>pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
>
>He wouldn't be allowed to ban blacks or Asians, though, so why allow
>him to ban gay couples?
He should be allow to discriminate against whom he pleases. He owns the
material possessions that he leases therefore he should be permitted to
be selective in their usage.
Using the law to stymie freedom of choice appears very illiberal to me.
If he was reluctant to allow me refuge due to my skin colour or
nationality I would say "Fuck You" and seek another premises.
If others in the vicinity responded similarly I would pretty quickly
formulate the opinion that I am not welcome and therefore would seek an
alternative area for my kip.
Why would I wish to associate with people who were antagonistic to my
presence?
However why should anyone be forced by threat of prosecution to harbour
my sorry bag of bones?
There is a potential domino effect here that if initially tipped would
involve the unravelling of many a restrictive practise.
The dangers of freedom.
--
Aramis Gunton
Leighton Jones
"Maria" <frust...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:40e29255...@News.Individual.NET...
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
>
>
> LONDON (AFP) - It was a true clash of cultures. Stephen Nock, a gay
> man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a
> double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his
> long-term partner.
Says more about the moral code in London than it about moral code in Western
Isles, don't you think.
Southern Shandy Drinking Poofters, that's what I say ;-)
Cheers LJ.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Leighton Jones" <leigh...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:28TEc.53$xd6.31@newsfe3-gui...
>.
> >
> The guy had already made his thoughts known, the offer of twin beds was a
> "Get out clause". Buy that time, no way were the two gays going to stay
> there.
> Cheers LJ.
>
beds.
A W-S
Leighton Jones
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IsTEc.5690$NA1.5...@news02.tsnz.net...
But by this time he was trying to "Cover his arse" with the tourist board.
Don't think he'd ever have had "bent" blokes staying together at his guest
house knowingly.
Cheers LJ.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"H. Wake" <hw...@freeispshares.co.uk> wrote in message .
> > Offensive to whom?
>
> The guest house owner, and probably a lot of other people including
> me.
Just curious - do you think you would be so offended if *you* just happened
to be gay?
I mean, it's not as though they have a choice in the matter.
A W-S
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>> >It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain.
>>
>> Offensive to whom?
>
>The guest house owner, and probably a lot of other people including
>me.
I'm over it already
>> >Not gay at all.
>>
>> Que?
>
>Being a whining sneak is hardly gay.
Silly
>> >And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
>> >complaint.
>>
>> Offensive to whom?
>
>Me and probably a lot of other people and certainly offensive to the
>guest house owner because the tourist board is attacking his
>livelihood.
Or it's investigating a complaint...
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
H. Wake
What is offensive was his hoity-toity attitude that his wishes trump
the Scotsman's wishes and the tourist board's assumption that they can
bully him.
Leighton Jones
> news:a2a0b4c4.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote in message
> news:<8ss5e0904p8qj8kf8...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 30 Jun 2004 09:13:13 -0700, hw...@freeispshares.co.uk (H. Wake)
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
> Why does it offend you what other people do in privacy?
>
> John
>
Just because something is done in privacy, doesn't mean you shouldn't find
it offensive.
Is murder offensive if it's done behind closed doors, child abuse,
paedophilia, rape. All offensive, I'd have thought and all done in Privacy.
We all have our views on what is or isn't offensive, unfortunately we're not
allowed to express them, without upsetting some one or other.
How many of us would want two homosexual males to share a bed in our house?
That's an answer we shouldn't be afraid of answering.
Not saying that Homosexuals are wrong, just saying that we should have the
choice of wither we accept it or not.
Cheers LJ.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
A W-S
FransHals
> On 30 Jun 2004 12:17:51 -0700, frans...@hotmail.com (FransHals)
> wrote:
>
> >josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com wrote in message news:<0vj5e019iqds3db0g...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:19:51 GMT, I read these words from
> >> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
> >>
> >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
> >> >
> >> >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> >> >
> >> It's his roof !
> >> It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
> >
> >Maybe only in Scotland. England is not a free country - it is run by
> >left wing Stalinist called teh Lib/Lab/Cons.
> >
> >> Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
> >> (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
> >>
> >> Maybe the guesthouse owner doesn't allow dogs on his premises either,
> >> should I therefore ask that the tourism board to remove him from
> >> the list of recommended accommodation on its website ?
> >
> >Dogs don't spread diseases or viruses.
>
> You really haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about,
> have you?
> --
> Nick Cooper
Yes I do but you don't Nick. Are you a friend of Ron Davies and the
Clapham Common Gang aka Friends of Dorothy?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<leigh...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> But Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the
>> Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit
>> remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the couple
>> a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe,
>> "but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he wrote
>> in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday. Angry at the
>> response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted. "Bigot?
>> No. Respect for other guests," came the reply. "Homophobic? No, I have
>> no hatred or fear of poofs, etc -- I just do not approve of unnatural
>> acts being performed in my home." Nock in return asked the Scottish
>> tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended
>> accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had
>> "depressed" him, the report said. The tourism board asked the guest
>> house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
>> saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent people
>> coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,"
>> Forrest was quoted as saying.
>Can you imagine how "depressed" the guest house owner would have been,
>letting something that he obviously doesn't agree with go on under his roof.
>( Yep, his roof ).
Agreed. And he's entitled to make the rules under his own roof
>It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
>pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
Banning gays is illegal
>If a gay hotelier banned "Straights", who would make the complaint?
Any straight person that cared
Robert Peffers
There is so much guff surrounding all these discussions involving homosexual
people that the real debate is lost before it begins. Please can we, for
once, debate this in an adult and sane manner?
Let us just, for once, face the true facts.
First let me say I am not a homosexual but that I am not, either against
those who are.
So here is a few ideas from that point of view.
The people who are homosexual bring much of the problems upon themselves.
The hold those, "Proud to be gay", marches and demos, why are they marching?
Why are they proud of being gay? Why are they using the word
Why the demo in the first place and why, "GAY", in the second place? Do
non-homosexuals hold marches and demos proclaiming, "Proud to not using the
description of themselves as homosexual -why gay"?
Look at it this way. What the non-homosexual does in privacy is the
non-homosexuals business and the non-homosexuals partners business and it is
only their business and no one else's business. The homosexual person's
doings with a partner in privacy is also only their business so why march
down the street telling the World about it? When you shove your private
business up other people's noses in this manner you are making it the
public's business and placing it in the public domain. Don't thus blame the
public if they take an interest in your private business.
Now, regarding that little word, "GAY". The very fact that the homosexual
people themselves cannot acknowledge that they are homosexual must indicate
they feel there is something very wrong about themselves. Otherwise why not
just proclaim Homosexual Pride - why hijack the perfectly innocent word gay?
Just what is wrong with homosexual? It was not the non-homosexuals that
adopted the word to describe homosexuals it was the homosexuals who did so.
So, for the overwhelming numbers of people in the World, they couldn't care
less what the homosexual does in privacy any more than they care what the
non-homosexuals are up to in privacy but the homosexual people will persist
in shoving their private doings up our noses. Really we don't want to know.
As to those Highland Presbyterian morals just remember this - the
Presbyterians are equally against two non-married people sharing a double
bed and would probably take the exact same view. It is not their fault that
homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Their views must also be respected
and, as far as they go, such transgressions must not be allowed for who
knows where such things could lead Why next thing you know it could lead to
dancing.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:- b...@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).
---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004
Robert Peffers
No one else has any choice in the matter either but only the homosexuals
seem to have a driving need to shove their sexuality up everyone else's
nose. Do any other orientations march around the streets with placards
proclaiming pride in their orientation? Furthermore are they attempting to
imply, by calling themselves gay, that the others are miserable with their
orientation? Just for the record I am proud to be non-homosexual, I am not
miserable about my own orientation either. In fact, given the opportunity to
practice that orientation, I'm as pleased as a dog with two - Err! ---
Tails.
Robert Peffers
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:eil6e011kmntqs0qe...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:51:46 -0400, "BfB" <_@-._> wrote:
>
> >
> >> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) wrote in message
> >news:<40e297fe...@News.Individual.NET>...
> >> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:34:30 +0000 (UTC), "Ted" <T...@tednet.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >news:40e29255...@News.Individual.NET...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> >> > >>
gay
> >> > >> man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a
> >> > >> double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his
> >> > >> long-term partner.
the
> >> > >> Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit
> >> > >> remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the
couple
> >> > >> a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of
> >Kinlochewe,
> >> > >> "but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he
wrote
> >> > >> in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday. Angry at the
> >> > >> response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted.
> >"Bigot?
> >> > >> No. Respect for other guests," came the reply. "Homophobic? No, I
> >have
> >> > >> no hatred or fear of poofs, etc -- I just do not approve of
unnatural
> >> > >> acts being performed in my home." Nock in return asked the
Scottish
> >> > >> tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended
> >> > >> accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had
guest
> >> > >> house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down,
> >> > >> saying he ran a "respectable" establishment. "I have had bent
people
> >> > >> coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our
> >wishes,"
> >> > >> Forrest was quoted as saying.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > > Hate Crime?
> >> >
> >> > LOL
> >>
> >> The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
> >> at all. And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
> >> complaint.
> >
> >If he's licensed by the government, eventually the militant homosexual
> >movement will have him out of business,
>
<Places tongue firmly in his cheek>
Where do these Yanks get off?
First we have that President Bushy telling we Europeans who we should let in
as member states and when we should let them in. Now we have another Yank
attempting to tell a nice Highland Chentelman who he can allow to fornicate
in his spare room.
<removes tongue from cheek>
Leighton Jones
<libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h238e0l3feb04e6bf...@4ax.com...
And that's it, isn't?
Any straight person who gave a damn. Any sane straight person being banned
for not being gay, would laugh it off, make a good story at the bar and all
that?
Mr Nock, just needed to get on with his life, and find alternative
accommodation, as any normal person would do.
But no, he rings his hands together, screams " The Whole World is Against
me", and reports some one for standing up for what he believes.
Cheers LJ
Robert Peffers
"The Rifleman" <st...@nospamdaily3747.btnet.com> wrote in message
news:cbv2as$quk$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > Starting with cranks. Pack your bags.
>
> If we started with the cranks, nutters, boozed up sots, scroungers, dole
> wallers etc the scots would all have to go home.
>
>
As it happens we are starting with the bigots and racists. Get your coat -
NOW!
Robert Peffers
"FransHals" <frans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b942ce7.04063...@posting.google.com...
> josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com wrote in message
news:<0vj5e019iqds3db0g...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:19:51 GMT, I read these words from
> > frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
> >
> > >
> > >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> > >
> > It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
>
> Maybe only in Scotland. England is not a free country - it is run by
> left wing Stalinist called teh Lib/Lab/Cons.
>
> > Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
> > (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
> >
> > Maybe the guesthouse owner doesn't allow dogs on his premises either,
> > should I therefore ask that the tourism board to remove him from
> > the list of recommended accommodation on its website ?
>
> Dogs don't spread diseases or viruses.
>
>
Frae Auld bob Peffers:
Just tell that to our local park keeper and see his reaction? Furthermore
there are various diseases that dogs, particularly poorly cared for pets,
can and do spread to humans, (and I am a dog loving person - I'm not blind
though).
Look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_doctor/dog_diseases.shtml
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:- b...@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).
Robert Peffers
Well it certainly looks like he doesn't like Highlanders who object to
homosexuals sharing a bed under their roof.
Robert Peffers
You are a bit out of date. The anti-discrimination laws are phasing in
several things every year. This year it finally brought discrimination on
the grounds of disability unto force. Basically it is an offence to
discriminate against anyone on any grounds but what it also does is have a
limit on the size and type of business the law will deal with. I suspect a
family run guest house or B&B type establishment is exempt from most of the
laws.
Robert Peffers
Before everyone goes off at half cock: The anti-discrimination laws are not
what everyone seems to think they are. Much of the legislation only applies
to workplace and education. In regard to service providers there are size
guidelines and small business is exempt from much of the law. e.g. All large
supermarket chains will have to provide good access but a small one-person
office upstairs in a listed building will not be expected to provide a lift.
Thus it only makes sense that B&Bs are not subject to these laws.
Paul Hyett
>| >
>| Hate Crime?
>
>It is not a crime to hate foulness, perversion and
>vileness.
>
>It IS a crime not to hate and seek to destroy by every
>means the evil that is the Scottish solicitor Blair and
>his morally derelict Marxist subversive filth.
>
>Once he is removed from office there must be a national
>campaign to expunge his corrution and pollution from
>every corner of British life.
>
I see your rhetoric has reached new heights (or depths) - hard to say
which. :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
It was a bit of an over-reaction, I agree
MacRobert
<b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
Well said, Robert. On this we agree very well.
Stephen
JohnJ
>There is so much guff surrounding all these discussions involving homosexual
>people that the real debate is lost before it begins. Please can we, for
>once, debate this in an adult and sane manner?
Sure, let's try!
>So here is a few ideas from that point of view.
>The people who are homosexual bring much of the problems upon themselves.
Great, let's blame the victim! Actually, any problems are mainly
caused by society refusing to accept gay people as equal citizens.
>The hold those, "Proud to be gay", marches and demos, why are they marching?
To show that they're part of a supportive community, and to protest
against the remaining forms of anti-gay discrimination.
>Why are they proud of being gay?
It's actually just a way of emphasising that they're not ashamed of
being gay, which is what society used to expect them to be, and which
some people apparently still expect!
>Do non-homosexuals hold marches and demos
Not to proclaim their sexuality, no, because heterosexuals were never
an oppressed minority. But other minorities do hold marches and demos,
so there's nothing odd about gays doing the same.
>The homosexual person's
>doings with a partner in privacy is also only their business so why march
>down the street telling the World about it?
They don't in general "tell the world" about what they do in private.
By going on a march, they simply state that they are gay, which is not
the same thing.
>Now, regarding that little word, "GAY". The very fact that the homosexual
>people themselves cannot acknowledge that they are homosexual must indicate
>they feel there is something very wrong about themselves. Otherwise why not
>just proclaim Homosexual Pride - why hijack the perfectly innocent word gay?
>Just what is wrong with homosexual?
What's wrong with the word "gay"? "Homosexual" is too long and too
clinical, and it puts too much emphasis on the "sex" part of being
gay.
>So, for the overwhelming numbers of people in the World, they couldn't care
>less what the homosexual does in privacy any more than they care what the
>non-homosexuals are up to in privacy but the homosexual people will persist
>in shoving their private doings up our noses.
A common misconception - see above.
JJ
JohnJ
>>Mr Nock, just needed to get on with his life, and find alternative
>>accommodation, as any normal person would do.
>>But no, he rings his hands together, screams " The Whole World is Against
>>me", and reports some one for standing up for what he believes.
>
>It was a bit of an over-reaction, I agree
It's a bit of an over-reaction is to claim that someone is screaming
"The Whole World is Against me" when he isn't doing any such thing. Mr
Nock merely complained that *one* person was against him, which seems
perfectly reasonable. In making that complaint Mr Nock is standing up
for what *he* believes.
JJ
Rick
>
> Their views must also be respected
> and, as far as they go, such transgressions must not be allowed for who
> knows where such things could lead Why next thing you know it could lead to
> dancing.
> --
>
> Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
> Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
>
Dancing? Heaven Forfend!!
TaDA!! I got to use 'heaven forfend' ! Cool.
There is my quota for the year done then.
What next? ;-)
Leighton Jones
Oh come on, he could have just found some where else to stay. Would he have
prefered it if the booking had been taken, and the owner had been making
awkward coments for the whole of his stay.
Many moons ago, my ( then ) girlfriend and myself were refused a double room
at a guest house, because the lady in charge didn't like pre-marital sex,
she said she had children living at home you see.
Didn't complain to the Tourist Board, found some where to stay arround the
corner, and got on with life.
The *one* person that you say Mr Nock thought was against him, happened to
own the Guest House, his house. The guest house owner stayed true to his
belief, as he was entitled to do, in his own home.
Now we have the "revenge": Following clips cut from BBC scotland
"A Highland guest house owner who refused a gay couple a double room because
of their "perversion" has been stripped of his recommended status."
"Gay groups, who were contacted by Mr Nock, have bombarded the guest house
owner with e-mails complaining about his views."
"Gay groups have called for a change in the law to outlaw such
discrimination."
Seems to have disturbed a nest of hornets?
With the point of changing the law.
Why would any one want to stay in a guest house where they know they aren't
wanted, I'd be affraid to eat anything, for a start.
Cheers LJ.
Jim Stewart
"Michilín" <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:40e39610.16844340@news...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:25:29 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
> <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> ><josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >news:0vj5e019iqds3db0g...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:19:51 GMT, I read these words from
> >> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> >> >
> >> It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
> >> (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
> >>
> >won't have as much fun as they would with a double....
> >Lesley Robertson
>
> Well, don't fiddle faddle around, give us more details!
>
>
> Michilín
I think I could do without that. In fact, I have seen more than I need to.
Jim Stewart
Jim Stewart
> news:a2a0b4c4.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote in message
> news:<8ss5e0904p8qj8kf8...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 30 Jun 2004 09:13:13 -0700, hw...@freeispshares.co.uk (H. Wake)
> > > wrote:
>
> Why does it offend you what other people do in privacy?
>
> John
>
How can it be in private if I know about it? I don't go bragging or
complaining about the details of my life, I don't try to show the world that
I
can look like a different race or act so that code words and phrases show
me to be different than any random 'straight' person. I have the choice if
I did not want to express my sexuality. It is called celibacy. (I don't know
much
about it since I cant spell it).
I don't care what one does in private if it involves only consenting adults.
That
means only those adults know about it.
Finally what does the bed have to do with anything. I would suspect that
where
one sleeps and where one engages in amorism do not have to be the same.
Jim Stewart
Robert Peffers
> "Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> WROTE:
>
> >There is so much guff surrounding all these discussions involving
homosexual
> >people that the real debate is lost before it begins. Please can we, for
> >once, debate this in an adult and sane manner?
>
> Sure, let's try!
>
> >So here is a few ideas from that point of view.
> >The people who are homosexual bring much of the problems upon themselves.
>
> Great, let's blame the victim! Actually, any problems are mainly
> caused by society refusing to accept gay people as equal citizens.
So you see the homosexual as a victim do you? The facts are that the
homosexual is attempting to force his views upon another person's strong
religious beliefs that include the fact that the Highlander is the owner of
a guest house that is also his, and his families, home.
I see the Highlander as the prime victim of the homosexual and his cohorts
who are, without doubt victimising the Highlander.
Everyone has the right to invite or not invite outsiders into their home.
>
> >The hold those, "Proud to be gay", marches and demos, why are they
marching?
>
> To show that they're part of a supportive community, and to protest
> against the remaining forms of anti-gay discrimination.
So their gay rights are to take precedence over the Highlander's rights of
rejecting whomever he pleses from entering his home. Next thing you will be
telling me I have allow any homesexual from from my home under my nose just
because he or she is a homesexual. No one, not even homosexuals, have the
right to demand entry into another person's home against there will. There
is no discrimination there. It is a right we all have. If I don't like folks
with big feet and I refuse them entry into my home I am well within my
rights.
>
> >Why are they proud of being gay?
>
> It's actually just a way of emphasising that they're not ashamed of
> being gay, which is what society used to expect them to be, and which
> some people apparently still expect!
So why are they not marching under a banner that says I'm not ashamed to be
homosexual. Are they frightened of calling themselves homosexuals? Most
folks couldn't care less what they are anyway.
>
> >Do non-homosexuals hold marches and demos
>
> Not to proclaim their sexuality, no, because heterosexuals were never
> an oppressed minority. But other minorities do hold marches and demos,
> so there's nothing odd about gays doing the same.
Please do not call them gays. They are homosexuals. Why do they need to call
themselves gay?
Furthermore the others who are marching for there rights really need to do
so for they have not yet won their rights. Homosexuals have won their rights
sonow they have no more need to demonstrate their need for equality but they
continue and what they are demonstrating is nothing more than the difference
they were complaining got them discriminated agaist in the first place. Now
I may be wrong but it seem to me that the homosexual members of our society
form a large part of the entertainment industry. They seem to have a
psycological need to demand public attention.
>
> >The homosexual person's
> >doings with a partner in privacy is also only their business so why march
> >down the street telling the World about it?
>
> They don't in general "tell the world" about what they do in private.
> By going on a march, they simply state that they are gay, which is not
> the same thing.
Oh yes it is! There you go again, aare you ashamed to call them homosexuals?
Just what is wrong with using the right term? It is this demonstrating that
they are homosexuals we are talking about. What is this compulsion to scream
it from the housetops. Are the non-homosexuals shouting about being
non-homosexual?
>
> >Now, regarding that little word, "GAY". The very fact that the homosexual
> >people themselves cannot acknowledge that they are homosexual must
indicate
> >they feel there is something very wrong about themselves. Otherwise why
not
> >just proclaim Homosexual Pride - why hijack the perfectly innocent word
gay?
> >Just what is wrong with homosexual?
>
> What's wrong with the word "gay"? "Homosexual" is too long and too
> clinical, and it puts too much emphasis on the "sex" part of being
> gay.
Being gay is actually being light hearted or happy. The word was hijacked by
homosexuals to describe themselves for no better reason than an admission by
them that they are NOT PROUD to be homosexual. It was homosexuals that
rejected the term homosexual not we others. Most of us couldn't care less
anyway.
>
> >So, for the overwhelming numbers of people in the World, they couldn't
care
> >less what the homosexual does in privacy any more than they care what the
> >non-homosexuals are up to in privacy but the homosexual people will
persist
> >in shoving their private doings up our noses.
>
> A common misconception - see above.
>
> JJ
See what above? I am not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do. I
am not telling homosexuals they cannot be homosexuals. I am only telling
them to act like the people they wish equality with and that is, by the
large, to keep their private doings private. O.K. so their are
exhibitionists of every orientation but these are every bit as much a pain
as those homosexuals who seem to have a psychological need to be the centre
of everyone's attention. Let me ask you this - have I asked you what your
orientation is? If not why do you think I have not done so? I will answer
that for you. I could not care less. I do not wish to know. That goes for
you being homosexual, not being homosexual, transvestite, cross-dresser of
even into bestiality. If the animal is a consenting adult then best of luck
to you both. I just don't care if you would just kindly keep it to yourself.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:- b...@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).
---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 28/06/2004
Madra Dubh
Michilín
<leigh...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>"Michilín" <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:40e38620.12764123@news...
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:51:46 -0400, "BfB" <_@-._> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"H. Wake" <hw...@freeispshares.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:a2a0b4c4.04063...@posting.google.com...
>> >> frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) wrote in message
>> >news:<40e297fe...@News.Individual.NET>...
>> >> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:34:30 +0000 (UTC), "Ted" <T...@tednet.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >"Maria" <frust...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> >> > >news:40e29255...@News.Individual.NET...
>> >> > >> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
>> >> > >>
><Snip>
>> >>
>> >> The guest house is the owner's home. He can make what rules he likes.
>> >> Also good business to respect the wishes of the majority of his
>> >> guests. It was extremely offensive of the poof to complain. Not gay
>> >> at all. And extremely offensive for the tourism board to support the
>> >> complaint.
>> >
>> >If he's licensed by the government, eventually the militant homosexual
>> >movement will have him out of business,
>> >
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> Please remember that northern Scotland is essentially a foreign
>> country in terms of social mores, compared to England. Most Highland
>> people are fairly easy-going, but being gay in such a macho and in
>> many areas, religiously hardline society as the Highlands is not a
>> matter for public acclamation, but often carries a social stigma.
>>
>> Many Highlanders take everything they read in their Bibles as gospel,
>> to coin a phrase; thus the reason why so few pigs are seen in the
>> western Highlands which is much more religious than the eastern
>> Highlands - the Bible forbids them.
>
>They don't have pigs on the Western Highlands?
>Honestly I'm amazed.
>Is it to do with the Bible or the weather.
The Bible. That was already made clear. Do try to pay attention!
>Do they eat pork, ham bacon etc?
>
>
>>
>> The Bible is lucidly clear on the subject of being gay and
>> religiously-inclined Highland people naturally conduct themselves
>> according to whatever their God and local minister tell them.
>>
>> It's like asking, "Would you rent a room to a rapist?" Depends on your
>> personal feelings about rapists, right?
>
>Depends if you knew he was a rapist?
>
>>When asked, "Would you rent a
>> room to a gay couple?"
>
>Would you rent a room to two guys asking for twin beds? Answer probably yes.
>Would you rent to two Gays? How would you know they are Gay.
>Answer, because they asked for a double bed.
>Could have kept "thier heads down" and had no trouble.
>Instead had to make a point of it, and the S*** flies?
>
>>I suspect that many British people, and not
>> just Highlanders might feel moved to refuse.
>>
>> Let me note that I am neutral on the subject of gays. There have been
>> gay people in my life as friends, one a close friend of my wife and
>> myself, with whom we remained close through his battle with AIDS to
>> his eventual death, but I don't regard the lifestyle as one I would
>> prefer to monogamous marriage.
>>
>> I am a supporter of gay marriage
>
>Why call it a marriage, Marriage in the dictionary requires people of two
>sexes to be in union.
>Homosexuals want some thing to celibrate thier union.
>Let's call it what it is, A Contract of Homosexual Union, got a certain ring
>to it hasn't it.
>
>> as to refuse a loyal; and loving
>> couple the right to make their union and feelings a matter of official
>> public record is childish, immature and persecution by those who enjoy
>> making the lives of others less fortunate than themselves a misery.
>
>Are you saying that Guys are *less fortunate* than others. Now that is
>descrimination.
>
>>
>> But until there is universal agreement on whether gay marriage should
>> be a universal right ot not, I fear gays will continue to be
>> discriminated against.
>
>By people who think they are *less fortunate*?
>
>>
>> One of our daughters was gay and we stood foursquare beside her
>> through her growing up, but after she left home, of course she met
>> discrimination, but reacted as most gays do, with singular courage and
>> wry humour.
>
>We would stand by our offspring, whatever?
>
>>
>> I mention these matters simply to underline that while I understand
>> the Highland guesthouse owner's attitude (I come from the Highlands
>> myself) I do not necessarily support his views, although I do support
>> his right to make his own choice of religion and beliefs; possibly
>> more so than he might support mine as a committed atheist.
>
>Commited athiest who believes in Marriage, Thank God I'm an Athiest ;-)
>
>
>>
>> But that's what democracy is allegedly about and like Christianity,
>> the sooner it's put into practice, the more pleased I'll be.
>>
>And me.
>Cheers LJ.
>
>
Michilín
Rick
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:12:21 -0400, Rick <notgi...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> For your next lesson, please find an appropriate occasion to use the
> expression "I swan".
>
> MacHamish Mór
What one does when Diving.
Rick
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:39:34 +0100, josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:32:00 GMT, I read these words from
> >rus...@concentric.net (MacHamish) :
> >
> >>On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:12:21 -0400, Rick <notgi...@alltel.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>For your next lesson, please find an appropriate occasion to use the
> >>expression "I swan".
> >
> >Much too easy !
>
> Prolly. Especially around here since it is an expression of mild shock or
> surprise. Madra just used it recently. Or was it Elaine?
>
> MacHamish Mór
I swan! You can't remember? Lawsy mercy!! Well, hush my mouth and stuff it with
cornpone. That dog won't hunt, son! *Nevah* confuse what a Lady said.
Or iffen you do, don't evah *admit* to it!! What were you thinkin'?
UmMmUmumm! You done done it now, fo' sho!
You best done hightail it on outa heah. Them wimmin folk gonna be on you like
flies on molasses. They'll have a bee under their bonnet over this one! Theys gonna
be more knots on your head then Carters got Liver pills. You won't no more know
which way to go than a woodpecker in a lumberyard!!
Why, you'd rather have Frenchkissed a rattlesnake!! Best be practicing your
two-steppin', son. You gonna have to be light on your feet to get outa this !!
It's "Katie, Bar the Door!" time, for certain!
Tell you what. You skeedaddle on down to the River. I'll try and figure out sumtin
and I'll let you know when the smoke dies down .
Maybe in a year or two they'll have forgotten all about it.
Anymore request?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "JohnJ" <jj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bhl8e0lcjv9aet9bm...@4ax.com...
> > libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com WROTE:
> >
> > >>Mr Nock, just needed to get on with his life, and find alternative
> > >>accommodation, as any normal person would do.
> > >>But no, he rings his hands together, screams " The Whole World is
> Against
> > >>me", and reports some one for standing up for what he believes.
> > >
> > >It was a bit of an over-reaction, I agree
> >
> > It's a bit of an over-reaction is to claim that someone is screaming
> > "The Whole World is Against me" when he isn't doing any such thing. Mr
> > Nock merely complained that *one* person was against him, which seems
> > perfectly reasonable. In making that complaint Mr Nock is standing up
> > for what *he* believes.
> >
> > JJ
>
> Oh come on, he could have just found some where else to stay.
As a matter of interest it isn't that easy to do in Kinlochewe -especially
at this time of year.
The Gairloch hotel at the other end of Loch Maree is - or was - a
famous/notorious gay hotel but it is about 30 miles away.
Not that I think it makes any difference to the principals involved in the
argument but it might well have had a bearing on Mr Nock's feelings of
pique.
A W-S
JohnJ
>So you see the homosexual as a victim do you?
Not always, but it's certainly true that gay people have often been
victims of prejudice.
>The facts are that the
>homosexual is attempting to force his views upon another person's strong
>religious beliefs
I'm not sure about the "religious beliefs"! Seems that the B&B owner
is quite happy to have unmarried heterosexual couples sharing a bed,
even though that's presumably just as immoral in his eyes.
>Everyone has the right to invite or not invite outsiders into their home.
Agreed, but that's not the point at issue here.
>So their gay rights are to take precedence over the Highlander's rights of
>rejecting whomever he pleses from entering his home. Next thing you will be
>telling me I have allow any homesexual from from my home under my nose just
>because he or she is a homesexual. No one, not even homosexuals, have the
>right to demand entry into another person's home against there will. There
>is no discrimination there. It is a right we all have. If I don't like folks
>with big feet and I refuse them entry into my home I am well within my
>rights.
There's a difference between a home and a business.
>> >Why are they proud of being gay?
>>
>> It's actually just a way of emphasising that they're not ashamed of
>> being gay, which is what society used to expect them to be, and which
>> some people apparently still expect!
>
>So why are they not marching under a banner that says I'm not ashamed to be
>homosexual.
As I've said, that's basically what they *are* doing. I think most
people get the point.
>Please do not call them gays. They are homosexuals. Why do they need to call
>themselves gay?
Why not respect the right of a minority group to define themselves by
their own terms?
>Furthermore the others who are marching for there rights really need to do
>so for they have not yet won their rights. Homosexuals have won their rights
>sonow they have no more need to demonstrate their need for equality
Er ... not quite. We don't yet have partnership rights, or full
protection against discrimination. Once gay people achieve full
equality in society there will, as you say, be no need for them to
march "for their rights". However there will probably still be events
such as Gay Pride or Mardi Gras, put on just for fun - the gay
equivalent of the Notting Hill Carnival!
>I may be wrong but it seem to me that the homosexual members of our society
>form a large part of the entertainment industry. They seem to have a
>psycological need to demand public attention.
I would say that anyone in the entertainment industry probably has a
craving for public attention!
>Just what is wrong with using the right term?
See my earlier comment above.
>It is this demonstrating that
>they are homosexuals we are talking about. What is this compulsion to scream
>it from the housetops.
There is no such "compulsion". There's a gay pride march once a year,
and occasionally you hear examples of anti-gay discrimination brought
to people's attention. But most of the time gay people are just
quietly getting on with their lives like anyone else.
>Are the non-homosexuals shouting about being
>non-homosexual?
I've already explained that.
>Being gay is actually being light hearted or happy.
That's one meaning of the word, though now a rather archaic one.
>The word was hijacked by
>homosexuals to describe themselves for no better reason than an admission by
>them that they are NOT PROUD to be homosexual.
On the contrary, I would say that the word "gay" was adopted to mean
"homosexual and not ashamed of it".
>See what above? I am not telling anyone else what they can or cannot do. I
>am not telling homosexuals they cannot be homosexuals. I am only telling
>them to act like the people they wish equality with and that is, by the
>large, to keep their private doings private.
Which, by and large, they do.
JJ
JohnJ
>Before everyone goes off at half cock: The anti-discrimination laws are not
>what everyone seems to think they are. Much of the legislation only applies
>to workplace and education. In regard to service providers there are size
>guidelines and small business is exempt from much of the law. e.g. All large
>supermarket chains will have to provide good access but a small one-person
>office upstairs in a listed building will not be expected to provide a lift.
>Thus it only makes sense that B&Bs are not subject to these laws.
It seems unlikely though that small businesses would be exempt from
anti-racial discrimination laws?
JJ
JohnJ
> How can it be in private if I know about it?
How can you know about it if it's in private??!!
>Finally what does the bed have to do with anything. I would suspect that
>where
>one sleeps and where one engages in amorism do not have to be the same.
Good point!
JJ
Jim Stewart
> "Jim Stewart" <ste...@ceet.niu.edu> WROTE:
>
> > How can it be in private if I know about it?
>
> How can you know about it if it's in private??!!
Exactly, I work in a University where there is a gay
community. I have the pink ribbon on my door so
that gays know that I am a person who will listen to
problems they have with us straights.
However, one of the questions I ask is if the person
did anything to show that they were gay when they knew
there was likely to be a negative response.
Most-- no many--of the gays I know are not "out", never intend
to march in a parade and have no intention of telling the desk
clerk at some Motel 6 in Lincoln Nebraska any details of how
they intend their rented room. Just as Barb and I would act.
If I were asked there would be a police complaint.
I just wonder how the "Highlander" knew to suggest this
room arrangement. Certainly not by the level of feminity.
One of the most effeminate men I knew in sixty-five years
was the father of four children, a light heavyweight boxer
and a college football (American) end. He also cut his lawn
more often than I did and taught me how to butcher a deer.
(It takes a deft hand).
Do I smell a space filler for gay parade day?
Not that I am against gay pride activities. But just as in the case
of civil rights, or even women's voting, there are consequences for
being in the forward"picture line"
Jim Stewart
josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com
Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> :
>
>"Leighton Jones" <leigh...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:Wq%Ec.245$f02.33@newsfe6-win...
>>
>> "JohnJ" <jj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bhl8e0lcjv9aet9bm...@4ax.com...
>> > libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com WROTE:
>> >
>> > >>Mr Nock, just needed to get on with his life, and find alternative
>> > >>accommodation, as any normal person would do.
>> > >>But no, he rings his hands together, screams " The Whole World is
>> Against
>> > >>me", and reports some one for standing up for what he believes.
>> > >
>> > >It was a bit of an over-reaction, I agree
>> >
>> > It's a bit of an over-reaction is to claim that someone is screaming
>> > "The Whole World is Against me" when he isn't doing any such thing. Mr
>> > Nock merely complained that *one* person was against him, which seems
>> > perfectly reasonable. In making that complaint Mr Nock is standing up
>> > for what *he* believes.
>> >
>> > JJ
>>
>> Oh come on, he could have just found some where else to stay.
>
>As a matter of interest it isn't that easy to do in Kinlochewe -especially
>at this time of year.
>The Gairloch hotel at the other end of Loch Maree is - or was - a
>famous/notorious gay hotel but it is about 30 miles away.
Probably fully booked !!
-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.dsl.pipex.com/
proma1
"no homosexuals sleeping together" then in a way this is better.
but to get them there and ridicule them is a very odd way of showing your
religion.
also does he check the licence of every hetero couple to make sure they are
legally married,and how about birth certificates of the children to make
sure none were born out of wedlock.
bet because he would lose a lot of money by doing this,he does not bother.
just think of all that sin going on under his roof,how terrible
he can refuse what he wants but to use rascist or homophobic language he
cannot,this is what the STB have a problem with and cant support him.
"Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc1dl1$tpa$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "FransHals" <frans...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9b942ce7.04063...@posting.google.com...
> > josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com wrote in message
> news:<0vj5e019iqds3db0g...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:19:51 GMT, I read these words from
> > > frust...@ntlworld.com (Maria) :
> > >
> > > >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040629/323/ewyxm.html
> > > >
> > > >British gay couple offended by double bed ban
> > > >
> > > It's his roof !
> > > It's (last time I looked) still a free country.
> >
> > Maybe only in Scotland. England is not a free country - it is run by
> > left wing Stalinist called teh Lib/Lab/Cons.
> >
> > > Doesn't that mean he has the right to refuse a booking ?
> > > (The management reserve the right to . . . etc ?)
> > >
> > > Maybe the guesthouse owner doesn't allow dogs on his premises either,
> > > should I therefore ask that the tourism board to remove him from
> > > the list of recommended accommodation on its website ?
> >
> > Dogs don't spread diseases or viruses.
> >
> >
> > > -- Josiah J Jenkins
> Frae Auld bob Peffers:
> Just tell that to our local park keeper and see his reaction? Furthermore
> there are various diseases that dogs, particularly poorly cared for pets,
> can and do spread to humans, (and I am a dog loving person - I'm not blind
> though).
>
> Look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_doctor/dog_diseases.shtml
> --
>
> Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
> Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
> Kelty,
> Fife,
> Scotland, (UK).
> Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
> E-Mail:- b...@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
> (Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).
>
>
> ---
> Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004
>
>
H. Wake
> "JohnJ" <jj_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hfu9e01hchjv4vgk7...@4ax.com...
> > "Jim Stewart" <ste...@ceet.niu.edu> WROTE:
> >
> > > How can it be in private if I know about it?
> >
> > How can you know about it if it's in private??!!
>
> Exactly, I work in a University where there is a gay
> community. I have the pink ribbon on my door so
> that gays know that I am a person who will listen to
> problems they have with us straights.
>
> However, one of the questions I ask is if the person
> did anything to show that they were gay when they knew
> there was likely to be a negative response.
>
> Most-- no many--of the gays I know are not "out", never intend
> to march in a parade and have no intention of telling the desk
> clerk at some Motel 6 in Lincoln Nebraska any details of how
> they intend their rented room. Just as Barb and I would act.
> If I were asked there would be a police complaint.
>
> I just wonder how the "Highlander" knew to suggest this
> room arrangement.
It says on his website that double rooms (in his own home) will be let
only to heterosexual couples. Did the poof see this and deliberately
try booking only in order to complain and stir up trouble?
> Certainly not by the level of feminity.
> One of the most effeminate men I knew in sixty-five years
> was the father
I know someone like that too. Rather sweet really.
Madra Dubh
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:qj79e056hal1r2dhj...@4ax.com...
> expression "I swan".
Sorry.
Too late.
I done dunner.
Madra Dubh
> >rus...@concentric.net (MacHamish) :
> >>expression "I swan".
> >
>
> Prolly. Especially around here since it is an expression of mild shock or
> surprise. Madra just used it recently. Or was it Elaine?
Your memory is going, Mac.
Joseph Hutcheon
news:h238e0l3feb04e6bf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:11:45 GMT, "Leighton Jones"
> <leigh...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >It's his choice, surely, who he accepts, he could ban smokers, children,
> >pets, stag / hen nights, why not gays.
>
> Banning gays is illegal
Under which legislation?
Madra Dubh
"Rick" <notgi...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:40E4E829...@alltel.net...
Some there I haven't heard in years.
Here's some more:
No longer than Pat stayed in the Army.
They'll be on you like a chicken on a June Bug (or stink on s**t)
Eat up with the dumb ass
Prettier than a picture
Better than snuff and not near as dusty
Madra Dubh
<josiah-...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4n9ae050n0gdoff0g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:04:34 GMT, I read these words from
It was indeed Madra.
Madra Dubh
And for those not aware, "I swan" comes from "I swear" which comes from "I
swear to God" which is much too bold a statement to use in front of women
and children so it gets boiled down to "I swan".
Robert Peffers
> "Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> WROTE:
snip
> >Please do not call them gays. They are homosexuals. Why do they need to
call
> >themselves gay?
>
> Why not respect the right of a minority group to define themselves by
> their own terms?
The fact is that they hijacked a perfecly good word that had nothing
whatsoever to do with homosexuallity to replace a perfectly good word that
was an exact description of their sexual orientation. This had, and still
has, repercussions for the real use of the word, "gay". The Scottish
Regiment The Gordon Highlanders were once often called The Gay Gordons. They
had a Scottish country dance named after them, "The Gay Gordons". The finest
football winger I ever saw was Gordon Smith and he was nicknamed, "The Gay
Gordon". Do you think the change in the meaning of Gay had no knock on
effects?
Furthermore your use of the term, "Define themselves", is somewhat
unfortunate. They most certainly did not define themselves nor even redefine
themselves. They renamed themselves they are still defined as homosexual. My
point was that by calling themselves gay rather than accepting they were
homosexual they were, in fact, proving to all and sundry that they were
ashamed to be homosexual. Otherwise why bother to seek out what they thought
was a, "nicer", term to describe their particular sexual orientation.
Perhaps I can make that clearer by putting the boot upon the other foot. Why
did the homophobic idiots find the need to call homosexuals, "poofs", "Nancy
boys", "Faggots", "Dykes",or any of the other insulting nastier terms that
have been adopted to describe those with orientations other than their own?
For the very same reason in reverse from the homosexuals use of a wrong word
to describe themselves. How stupid to allow themselves to be hoist by their
own petard. If they are not ashamed to be what they are then why hide under
a false title?
>
snip
> Er ... not quite. We don't yet have partnership rights, or full
> protection against discrimination. Once gay people achieve full
> equality in society there will, as you say, be no need for them to
> march "for their rights". However there will probably still be events
> such as Gay Pride or Mardi Gras, put on just for fun - the gay
> equivalent of the Notting Hill Carnival!
Whoah there! They are, in my opinion, entitled to a civil partnership deal
but in no way are they ever going to be entitled to have a, "Marriage",
either civil, moral or religious.
The whole basis of either civil or religious marriage is of two people of
oposite sex in either a civil or religious contract with the main reason for
such a contract being the protection and ligitimising of their offsprings.
Again this is mainly for inheritance reasons. It really is basic protection
for legitimate children's rights.
Sorry and all that but homosexuals, being of the same sex, do not have legal
or illegal children of a union as a legal problem. The civil union of two
such people is indeed needed to protect each others shared life together but
it stops well short of being a marriage in either the eyes of the law or
that of most Gods.
So you can demonstrate till hell freezes over but nothing short of medical
science making one partner of a homosexual union into a proper female, (and
thus making both partners no more homosexual), will make a union between two
members of the same sex a marriage.
snip
> See my earlier comment above.
I did and it is wrong.
snip
> There is no such "compulsion". There's a gay pride march once a year,
> and occasionally you hear examples of anti-gay discrimination brought
> to people's attention. But most of the time gay people are jus
> quietly getting on with their lives like anyone else.
There are more than one gay pride marches. They had one in Glasgow just the
other day.
Again I say that such a march shows homosexual people are ashamed of being
homosexual so they march to show they are proup to be gay but ashamed to be
homosexual. Furthermore this whole debate is due to them NOT just getting on
with their lives. First there was the complaint by the homosexual when
heterosezual folks would just shrug and go elsewhere. Then there is the fact
that the Highlander is being persecuted by the homosexual community. The
hterosexual community rarely bands together to victimise someone in such
circumstances. That is most certainly not, "Getting on with their lives".
Furthermore it tends to lose the respect of people, like myself, who could
not care what your sexual orientation is but who would prefer to take you as
a fellow human being. In both cases, the march and this present incident,
the homosexual community, (why ie there such a community: should not they be
regarding themselves as just part of THE community), are alienating others.
snip
> I've already explained that.
Not to most people you haven't.
s> That's one meaning of the word, though now a rather archaic one.
snip
Who made it that way? You adopt an incorrect term to describe yourselves
then you leave yourselves without a complaint if others adopt another less
flattering description of you as a collective group. Put it this way you
cannot clain discrimination against anyone who calls you by an incorrect
uncomplementary name while adopting an incorrect name of your own. Here is a
little example of such incorrect word usage. There are more nicknames for
female undergarments than any other item of clothing. The reason is each one
eventually becomes, "A dirty", word. So Bloomers became knickers,
became --- --- and so on. The same goes for other similar things. The
Spastic Society adopted that name to replace one that had become a term of
abuse. The eventually had to change it agai for calling someone a Spastic
also became a term of abuse. Do you think gay is not also becoming a term of
abuse? So you could call yourselves, "Angels", if you wished but that too
would become abusive if wrongly used. So why waste your time and be annoying
to others? Just tell it like it is and, if you must be proud of anything, be
proud to be homosexual. One way and another it won't make a whit of
difference. Those who hate you will still hate you. Those who like you will
still like you and those, like myself, who couldn't care less what you are
but regard you as fellow humans will continue to do so.
" What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
((Romeo and Juliet (1595) act 2, sc. 2, l. 43)): William Shakspeare
snip
NOT PROUD to be homosexual.
>
> On the contrary, I would say that the word "gay" was adopted to mean
> "homosexual and not ashamed of it".
Say what you like but the very fact you sought out another name proves
otherwise. If you are not ashamed of it why change it?
snip
> Which, by and large, they do.
>
> JJ
---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004
Robert Peffers
Wrong! do not confuse the discrimination by a person as the discrimination
of the business. A person calls another person a Raghead in a supermarket
checkout it is the person who is charged not the business.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:- b...@weedugpeffers50.freeserve.co.uk
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).