Daily Mail readers of all persuasions are welcome.........
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Daily Mail readers of all persuasions are welcome.........
But wait! They do work apparently...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-564363/Pub-manager-caught-strangling-fiancee-CCTV.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...IY-store-workers-trussed-violent-robbers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/art...ed-caught-CCTV-rifling-barmaids-handbags.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-just-hours-using-49-cloned-credit-cards.html
And apparently, as long as it's not some evil corporation or the police doing the monitoring, it's quite good
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-385468/Residents-monitor-CCTV.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-564363/Pub-manager-caught-strangling-fiancee-CCTV.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...IY-store-workers-trussed-violent-robbers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/art...ed-caught-CCTV-rifling-barmaids-handbags.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-just-hours-using-49-cloned-credit-cards.html
And apparently, as long as it's not some evil corporation or the police doing the monitoring, it's quite good
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-385468/Residents-monitor-CCTV.html
I also don't pay tax - not even council tax, but still expect to get free healthcare on the NHS. And I get my prescriptions free.
Come on, someone must be boiling over with hatred...
Wasn't invited either, just turned up. I did pay tax once, but I claimed it all back.
Sponging... it's faaaaantastic.
Oh yeah, and I also come from a country with a history of terrorist attacks against Britain, and yet they still let me take advantage of everything.
Sponging... it's faaaaantastic.
Oh yeah, and I also come from a country with a history of terrorist attacks against Britain, and yet they still let me take advantage of everything.
WTF how? And if it makes you happy yeah i'm getting a bit pissed off.
Don't bite.It's all true, I'm a Daily Mail nightmare and they'd never even notice me.
Don't listen to the liberals - Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows
By Peter Schweizer
Last updated at 10:25 PM on 14th June 2008
George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.
Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.
There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.
In my experience, they are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted.
Much of this springs from the destructive influence of modern liberal ideas.
In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.
The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being 'true' to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.
The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live.
Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.
To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.
It's been my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much fun over a long dinner.
Research also indicates those on the Left are less interested in getting married: 30 per cent of those who were 'very liberal' said it was important, in contrast to 65 per cent of Right-wingers.
The same holds true when the question of having children arises. Progressive American cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have become 'childless liberal boutique' cities, according to Joel Kotkin, an expert on urban development.
While 69 per cent of those who called themselves 'very conservative' said it was important for them to have children, only 38 per cent of corresponding liberals agreed.
Many on the Left proudly proclaim themselves 'child-free'. While some do not want children on ecological grounds, much has to do with the fact that they simply don't want the responsibility of having a child.
When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No.
'I'll have babies if you pay for them,' one Leftie blogger said on the social networking website yelp.com.
Billionaire Ted Turner, a self-described socialist, publicly regrets that he had five children. 'If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many,' he says. 'But I can't shoot them now they're here.'
All of this should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the drift of progressive thinking over the past 40 years.
Starting with British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who said: 'Far from being the basis of a good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all its discontents', feminists, progressives and others have seen the family as an oppressive force.
Feminist Gloria Steinem says on behalf of women: 'The truth is, finding ourselves brings more excitement and wellbeing than anything romance can offer.'
Linda Hirshman tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises. Ah, the important things in life.
Even when they do have children, research carried out at Princeton University shows liberals hug them less than conservatives. My wife thinks they're too busy hugging trees.
Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.
Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say 'after good health, money is the most important thing', and agree with the statement 'there are no right or wrong ways to make money'.
You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. 'He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known - and that's saying a lot,' claims Urbanski.
How is it possible that those who seem to renounce the money culture are more interested in money?
One might suggest those on the Left are simply being more honest when they answer such questions. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this.
Instead, I believe the results have more to do with the powerful appeal of progressive thinking.
Many on the Left apparently believe that espousing liberal ideals is a 'get out of jail free' card that inoculates them from the evils of the money culture.
Cherie Blair, for example, never lets her self-proclaimed socialist attitudes stop her making money. She is even willing to be paid (as she was in Australia) to appear at charity events.
Such progressives, sure that they are not overly interested in money and possessions, believe they are then free to acquire them.
Studies also indicate that those on the Left are less likely to give to charity or to volunteer their time to charity. When they do support charity, it is often less the sort of organisation that helps people and more one that advocates political action.
Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry - the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation.
Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center - but barely a penny goes to needy people.
Progressives see economic equality as the highest form of social justice, so they have become obsessed with questions of income inequality.
Can there be any surprise then that those on the Left tend to be more envious and jealous of successful people? That's what studies indicate.
Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not.
Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.
Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.
The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.
Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.
The culprit here is not those on the Left who embrace progressive ideas but the ideas themselves.
As John Maynard Keynes reminds us: 'The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.' Or, as the American theorist Richard Weaver once declared: 'Ideas have consequences.'
And it seems that today modern progressive ideas can often bring out the worst in people.
• Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His book, Makers And Takers, is published by Doubleday.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html
......................................................
What do you Lefties make of this?
By Peter Schweizer
Last updated at 10:25 PM on 14th June 2008
George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.
Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.
There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.
In my experience, they are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted.
Much of this springs from the destructive influence of modern liberal ideas.
In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.
The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being 'true' to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.
The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live.
Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.
To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.
It's been my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much fun over a long dinner.
Research also indicates those on the Left are less interested in getting married: 30 per cent of those who were 'very liberal' said it was important, in contrast to 65 per cent of Right-wingers.
The same holds true when the question of having children arises. Progressive American cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have become 'childless liberal boutique' cities, according to Joel Kotkin, an expert on urban development.
While 69 per cent of those who called themselves 'very conservative' said it was important for them to have children, only 38 per cent of corresponding liberals agreed.
Many on the Left proudly proclaim themselves 'child-free'. While some do not want children on ecological grounds, much has to do with the fact that they simply don't want the responsibility of having a child.
When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No.
'I'll have babies if you pay for them,' one Leftie blogger said on the social networking website yelp.com.
Billionaire Ted Turner, a self-described socialist, publicly regrets that he had five children. 'If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many,' he says. 'But I can't shoot them now they're here.'
All of this should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the drift of progressive thinking over the past 40 years.
Starting with British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who said: 'Far from being the basis of a good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all its discontents', feminists, progressives and others have seen the family as an oppressive force.
Feminist Gloria Steinem says on behalf of women: 'The truth is, finding ourselves brings more excitement and wellbeing than anything romance can offer.'
Linda Hirshman tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises. Ah, the important things in life.
Even when they do have children, research carried out at Princeton University shows liberals hug them less than conservatives. My wife thinks they're too busy hugging trees.
Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.
Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say 'after good health, money is the most important thing', and agree with the statement 'there are no right or wrong ways to make money'.
You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. 'He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known - and that's saying a lot,' claims Urbanski.
How is it possible that those who seem to renounce the money culture are more interested in money?
One might suggest those on the Left are simply being more honest when they answer such questions. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this.
Instead, I believe the results have more to do with the powerful appeal of progressive thinking.
Many on the Left apparently believe that espousing liberal ideals is a 'get out of jail free' card that inoculates them from the evils of the money culture.
Cherie Blair, for example, never lets her self-proclaimed socialist attitudes stop her making money. She is even willing to be paid (as she was in Australia) to appear at charity events.
Such progressives, sure that they are not overly interested in money and possessions, believe they are then free to acquire them.
Studies also indicate that those on the Left are less likely to give to charity or to volunteer their time to charity. When they do support charity, it is often less the sort of organisation that helps people and more one that advocates political action.
Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry - the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation.
Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center - but barely a penny goes to needy people.
Progressives see economic equality as the highest form of social justice, so they have become obsessed with questions of income inequality.
Can there be any surprise then that those on the Left tend to be more envious and jealous of successful people? That's what studies indicate.
Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not.
Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.
Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.
The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.
Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.
The culprit here is not those on the Left who embrace progressive ideas but the ideas themselves.
As John Maynard Keynes reminds us: 'The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.' Or, as the American theorist Richard Weaver once declared: 'Ideas have consequences.'
And it seems that today modern progressive ideas can often bring out the worst in people.
• Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His book, Makers And Takers, is published by Doubleday.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html
......................................................
What do you Lefties make of this?
Comedy gold.You can have concerns about things like privacy without resorting to the ludicrous rhetoric of the tabloids or raising the spectre of Nazi Germany. Just as you can have an opinion about the levels and types of migration without resorting to "we are being overwhelmed by Johnny Foreigner" type silliness.
The Mail is as bad as The Sun or The Mirror but does it with pretensions of grandeur when in reality they are just rabble rouse rs for sections of small minded little Englanders.
From personal experience, I think there's some truth in that.
No
Without it being black and white (never make a Mail journalist) I'd say that it closer to the opposite of my experience.
and one can make a comment about the basic facts in the article without resorting to flippant remarks about the messenger too
No. Commonwealth citizens and ROI citizens have an automatic right to vote in UK elections if on the electoral roll.
Unfortunately not topper. Non-citizens right to vote were enshrined in a 1981 Act of Parliament passed by Thatcher's conservatives.
But we had internment in the 40's and 70's (and torture back then too) so it may be the case of history repeating itself. Or it could show that it times of 'national security' governments try to get away with as much as possible.
Yep, the Mail themselves have flip-flopped on this issue. Private Eye picked this point up a few weeks ago too.
Seconded.
Thirded
and one can make a comment about the basic facts in the article without resorting to flippant remarks about the messenger too
When written in such a silly inflammatory manner I would give the "facts" no weight whatsoever and try to get a more balanced view. After all The Sun is right some of the time but you don't go there for fact based journalism. And the messenger is almost everything. With scientific journals you know that anything published in Science or Nature is cutting edge with very high level peer review so you tend to trust these articles the most (but not unquestioningly) whereas The Mail and Sun are the equivalent of the Myanmar Amateur Horticulturist Weekly. They might sometimes have some correct information but you wouldn't trust it or waste your time trying to guess which bit isn't utterly wrong.
another generalisation Wibble - prove your point go to todays Mail and list those political/social articles that are false - I warrant you'll not find many. although you may not like the slant the Mail puts on them
A very good point, and I think you are absolutely correct.
Yep, the Mail themselves have flip-flopped on this issue. Private Eye picked this point up a few weeks ago too.
There you go, it's the Daily Mail way of offering a balanced argument.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...n-devastated-America-wake-nuclear-attack.html
According to the Daily Mail, this is an Al Qaeda vision of the future.
According to Private Eye, it's a still from a computer game.
I know who I believe.
According to the Daily Mail, this is an Al Qaeda vision of the future.
According to Private Eye, it's a still from a computer game.
I know who I believe.
The conclusion (or slant as you put it) that you come to is very important and can't be separated for the "fact" quite so easily. For example if you drop an apple it and the earth meet. This fact doesn't change if you conclude that the apple falls to earth or that the earth rises to the apple. Rather a big difference despite the "facts" being the same.
An example of a wildly innacurate conclusion drawn from facst is the headline on today's front page:
Inflation outstrips salary rises for first time - and it's going to get worse
Which seems to imply that this is a truly terrible thing. Except in times of inflationary pressures you don't want pay rises to be rising faster than inflation unless you want to fuel that inflation.
Another example is the front page headline:
It's as bad as the 70s: Food prices up 20% in a year as oil crisis and credit crunch bite
Which presumably uses lots of big bright graphics to prove that food is going up fast. Even assuming that these "facts" are correct, the conclusion, namely that "It's as bad as the 70's", which implies far more than a simple comparison between 70''s and current food prices rises, is simply inaccurate scaremongering as anyone who lived through the economic disaster that swept Maggie to power, presumably including yourself, can attest.
And the source is vital. The Mail is such a trash newspaper that you can't rely on a single word printed. What is the point of using something to gain accurate information when that source is so untrustworthy. You would be better off going elsewhere. Preferably a variety of more reliable elsewheres.
And looking at the online version makes me wonder if The Mail hasn't slithered even lower than it used to do. The majority of the articles seem to be celebrity or sensational minor crime related or "nasty ethic minority picked on me" type trash.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't read that utter rubbish.
now go to the rag you read with the same mindset you had with your look at the Mail and you'll find similar slants perhaps with less florid vocabulary but slanted nonetheless- the basic difference is that they fall in with your opinions/views/biases etc so you accept them.
As for printed or on line versions I haven't bought a UK newspaper for years so rely on the online versions
By and large, they're faithful to the printed versions.
I hope they are better than the online version.
Boomerang the racing pigeon returns to the owner who gave her away TEN years ago
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 6:27 PM on 18th June 2008
As she staggered up to the doorstep, the pigeon looked a little dishevelled.
Yet while her feathers may have been out of place, there was clearly nothing wrong with this bird's remarkable homing instincts.Nor, for that matter, with her sense of occasion.
It was 10 years since Dino Reardon, the man who bred and raised her, had last seen her. And what's more, the date she chose to wing her way back to his home was last Sunday - Father's Day.
But then, this is no ordinary pigeon we're talking about. For to 76-year-old Mr Reardon's amazement, his unexpected visitor was none other than a bird named Boomerang, whose extraordinary homing instincts have become legend among pigeon fanciers.
She first made the headlines back in 1998 when, on retiring after 50 years of breeding racing pigeons, Mr Reardon gave her to a friend in Algericas, southern Spain - and Boomerang promptly flew the 1,200 miles back to his home in Skipton, North Yorkshire.
He then gave her to another breeder in Filey, North Yorkshire, but she returned to his pigeon loft again.
Finally, Mr Reardon thought Boomerang had overcome her instinct when he gave her to a third new owner in a year, his friend Alf Pennington, who had built a aviary specially for her at his home in Lancashire.
Mr Reardon had not seen her since - until Sunday. Now aged 13, she was looking tired, but it is not known exactly where she had flown from as Mr Pennington is thought to have died five years ago.
Boomerang's whereabouts since then are unknown.
Today, Mr Reardon, who bred racing pigeons for 50 years, said: 'She's back home now and paired up with a mate in her own loft. It's like she has been in prison for the last 10 years.
'I recognise all my pigeons but when I saw Boomerang I thought she was a stray, then she ran up to me and I thought she must know me.
'I checked the tag and nearly collapsed when I saw who it was. I don't have a clue were she's been since Alf died but I'm glad she's home.
'I just couldn't believe it. She could barely stand up and couldn't even make it into the aviary, she was just exhausted.
'I spent all Sunday feeding her glucose and honey to try and get her energy back from the journey.'
Boomerang's return has attracted interest from breeders as far afield as Capetown, South Africa, who have been phoning constantly since her reappearance.
But Mr Reardon said: 'She will be going nowhere from now on. She is staying here and will be looked after for the rest of her life. She has already paired up and if she lays any eggs they will be staying with me.'
Boomerang's feats are all the more remarkable because she is not a racing bird. The daughter of Bluey Champion, a winner of 17 national titles, she was kept for breeding.
She may, however, have inherited her homing skills from her father, who was once 'bird-napped' and had his wings clipped by thieves, but escaped and walked 60 miles back to Mr Reardon's home.
Mr Reardon, who bred Boomerang from stock which have been in his Italian family for 200 years, said: 'I only breed champions and I breed off homing instinct. She's home for good now.'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027484/Boomerang-racing-pigeon-returns-owner-sold-TEN-years-ago.html
...................................................
Every word is true, I'm sure..........
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 6:27 PM on 18th June 2008
As she staggered up to the doorstep, the pigeon looked a little dishevelled.
Yet while her feathers may have been out of place, there was clearly nothing wrong with this bird's remarkable homing instincts.Nor, for that matter, with her sense of occasion.
It was 10 years since Dino Reardon, the man who bred and raised her, had last seen her. And what's more, the date she chose to wing her way back to his home was last Sunday - Father's Day.
But then, this is no ordinary pigeon we're talking about. For to 76-year-old Mr Reardon's amazement, his unexpected visitor was none other than a bird named Boomerang, whose extraordinary homing instincts have become legend among pigeon fanciers.
She first made the headlines back in 1998 when, on retiring after 50 years of breeding racing pigeons, Mr Reardon gave her to a friend in Algericas, southern Spain - and Boomerang promptly flew the 1,200 miles back to his home in Skipton, North Yorkshire.
He then gave her to another breeder in Filey, North Yorkshire, but she returned to his pigeon loft again.
Finally, Mr Reardon thought Boomerang had overcome her instinct when he gave her to a third new owner in a year, his friend Alf Pennington, who had built a aviary specially for her at his home in Lancashire.
Mr Reardon had not seen her since - until Sunday. Now aged 13, she was looking tired, but it is not known exactly where she had flown from as Mr Pennington is thought to have died five years ago.
Boomerang's whereabouts since then are unknown.
Today, Mr Reardon, who bred racing pigeons for 50 years, said: 'She's back home now and paired up with a mate in her own loft. It's like she has been in prison for the last 10 years.
'I recognise all my pigeons but when I saw Boomerang I thought she was a stray, then she ran up to me and I thought she must know me.
'I checked the tag and nearly collapsed when I saw who it was. I don't have a clue were she's been since Alf died but I'm glad she's home.
'I just couldn't believe it. She could barely stand up and couldn't even make it into the aviary, she was just exhausted.
'I spent all Sunday feeding her glucose and honey to try and get her energy back from the journey.'
Boomerang's return has attracted interest from breeders as far afield as Capetown, South Africa, who have been phoning constantly since her reappearance.
But Mr Reardon said: 'She will be going nowhere from now on. She is staying here and will be looked after for the rest of her life. She has already paired up and if she lays any eggs they will be staying with me.'
Boomerang's feats are all the more remarkable because she is not a racing bird. The daughter of Bluey Champion, a winner of 17 national titles, she was kept for breeding.
She may, however, have inherited her homing skills from her father, who was once 'bird-napped' and had his wings clipped by thieves, but escaped and walked 60 miles back to Mr Reardon's home.
Mr Reardon, who bred Boomerang from stock which have been in his Italian family for 200 years, said: 'I only breed champions and I breed off homing instinct. She's home for good now.'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027484/Boomerang-racing-pigeon-returns-owner-sold-TEN-years-ago.html
...................................................
Every word is true, I'm sure..........In what world is this news???
Pigeon fanciers have lives too....
as newsworthy as Beckham going to US or Blairs son going to Uni - news is news ffs its items thar are fresh not what YOU consider serious such as what freebies are available in the UK for our cousins ??
Pensioner, 81, ordered to remove flat cap as he has a quiet pint - because it's a security risk
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:08 PM on 20th June 2008
An 81-year-old pensioner was ordered to remove his flat cap in a bar - because it was deemed a security risk.
Harvey Talbot was having a quiet afternoon pint in his regular pub when he was told he had to take off the cap.
Staff said the bemused former driver, who suffers from mobility problems, could use it to hide his face if he committed a crime.
And when the pensioner complained, he was told the Yates' bar was only following police advice.
Embarrassed: Harvey Talbot, 81, was ordered to take off his cap as he had in his local in case he used it to hide his face while committing a crime
He said: 'I said I was not a yob and that I had done 60 years' work before he was born. I told him I was 81 and couldn't move that fast because my legs are bad and what trouble am I going to cause at my age?
'I've never been told anything like that in my life and I have been going to the pub since I was 18. I could understand it if I was a violent person causing trouble, but I do not have a blemish on my record.'
He went on: 'I was embarrassed and fuming and I couldn't do anything about it.'
Harvey, of Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Staffs, had been drinking in the Yates' wine bar up to three times a week when staff enforced their dress code.
It was put in place after a young drinker went in wearing a baseball cap.
Fellow drinker Ralph Burnley, aged 54, said: 'I said "What do you expect him to do - raid the pork scratchings?". I felt he had been totally humiliated.
'This chap was immaculately dressed in a suit and tie and was sober and so naturally he asked why he would be obscuring his face.
'The barman said they had to stop people wearing these baseball caps to prevent yobs causing trouble so they can see their faces.'
Yates' said the pub had been following Staffordshire Police advice but the force said a dress code was up to its management.
Inspector Steve Thirsk said: 'It is not Staffordshire Police's licensing policy that people must take their hats off when they go into premises.'
A Yates' spokesman said: 'The bar staff were using their discretion, but as soon as someone came in and made a fuss about someone else in the bar they adopted a uniform policy,'
Philip Snow, chairman of North Staffordshire Pensioners' Convention, said: 'When you have an elderly person who likes wearing a flat cap it doesn't make much sense to impose a policy so indiscriminantly. There needs to be some common sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027993/Pensioner-81-ordered-remove-flat-cap-quiet-pint--security-risk.html
.....................................................................
Passing resemblance to Oddjob...............
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:08 PM on 20th June 2008
An 81-year-old pensioner was ordered to remove his flat cap in a bar - because it was deemed a security risk.
Harvey Talbot was having a quiet afternoon pint in his regular pub when he was told he had to take off the cap.
Staff said the bemused former driver, who suffers from mobility problems, could use it to hide his face if he committed a crime.
And when the pensioner complained, he was told the Yates' bar was only following police advice.
Embarrassed: Harvey Talbot, 81, was ordered to take off his cap as he had in his local in case he used it to hide his face while committing a crime
He said: 'I said I was not a yob and that I had done 60 years' work before he was born. I told him I was 81 and couldn't move that fast because my legs are bad and what trouble am I going to cause at my age?
'I've never been told anything like that in my life and I have been going to the pub since I was 18. I could understand it if I was a violent person causing trouble, but I do not have a blemish on my record.'
He went on: 'I was embarrassed and fuming and I couldn't do anything about it.'
Harvey, of Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Staffs, had been drinking in the Yates' wine bar up to three times a week when staff enforced their dress code.
It was put in place after a young drinker went in wearing a baseball cap.
Fellow drinker Ralph Burnley, aged 54, said: 'I said "What do you expect him to do - raid the pork scratchings?". I felt he had been totally humiliated.
'This chap was immaculately dressed in a suit and tie and was sober and so naturally he asked why he would be obscuring his face.
'The barman said they had to stop people wearing these baseball caps to prevent yobs causing trouble so they can see their faces.'
Yates' said the pub had been following Staffordshire Police advice but the force said a dress code was up to its management.
Inspector Steve Thirsk said: 'It is not Staffordshire Police's licensing policy that people must take their hats off when they go into premises.'
A Yates' spokesman said: 'The bar staff were using their discretion, but as soon as someone came in and made a fuss about someone else in the bar they adopted a uniform policy,'
Philip Snow, chairman of North Staffordshire Pensioners' Convention, said: 'When you have an elderly person who likes wearing a flat cap it doesn't make much sense to impose a policy so indiscriminantly. There needs to be some common sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027993/Pensioner-81-ordered-remove-flat-cap-quiet-pint--security-risk.html
.....................................................................
Passing resemblance to Oddjob...............Good riddance: Hook-handed Abu Hamza loses fight against extradition to U.S.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:18 PM on 20th June 2008
Facing extradition: Abu Hamza has lost his battle against being sent to the U.S. where he is accused of terror offences
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza lost his High Court battle against extradition to the US where he faces terror-related charges today.
Two judges ruled the decision to extradite was 'unassailable' and rejected every single argument his lawyers made against it.
Egyptian-born Hamza, 51, who is fitted with hooks on both partially-amputated arms, is already serving a seven-year jail term in Britain for stirring up racial hatred and inciting followers to murder non-believers.
The US authorities want the preacher from west London to stand trial for allegedly attempting to set up an al Qaida training camp in Bly, Oregon.
He could face a total of 11 terrorism charges, including sending money and recruits to assist the Taliban and al Qaida.
Judges at the High Court today dismissed his case and gave his lawyers a fortnight to launch a final appeal bid to the House of Lords.
Senior district judge Timothy Workman had already ruled at Westminster Magistrates' Court that Hamza could be extradited and in February, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith gave the final approval.
But the cleric from west London, who is currently being held in Belmarsh top-security prison, insisted on fighting the decision at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
They argued extradition was unlawful because he would be tried in the US 'on the basis of the fruits of torture', citing 'clear evidence' torture had already been used by America to gather information backing up their original extradition request.
It was also claimed it would be against Hamza's human rights and 'unjust and oppressive' to extradite him after such a long time and that he should be tried in London instead.
High Court judges Sir Igor Judge and Mr Justice Sullivan today said they completely agreed with the earlier decisions and rejected every argument.
They dismissed claims about that the U.S. evidence against Hamza was 'tainted by torture' and therefore inadmissible as flawed.
'The submission fails to recognise that, unlike evidence obtained directly by torture, the 'fruits of the poisoned tree' are, in principle, admissible under domestic law, and that in this respect there is no fundamental difference between the approach to such evidence either in this country or in the USA,' the judgement said.
They also ruled that none of the material relied on by the U.S. authorities 'carries anything of the smell of the torture chamber sufficient to require its exclusion in a trial in this country'.
The allegation of torture had also been made 'in the most general terms, unsupported by evidence'.
It failed to distinguish between evidence 'which is the indirect fruits of torture and that which is indirectly obtained as a result of ill-treatment falling short of torture'.
Hamza's future now depends on whether the judges are prepared to certify that his case raises a question of law fit for consideration by the House of Lords.
His lawyers have 14 days in which to apply for permission to make this last-ditch appeal.
The July 7 London bombers were inspired by Hamza's sermons and the would-be bombers of July 21 were regular worshippers at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London where he was formerly the imam.
In 2003 he was dismissed from his position after making speeches supporting al Qaida and speaking out against the invasion of Iraq.
Listed at the High Court in London under his real name, Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, he was the first person to be arrested under the streamlined Anglo-American extradition treaty when police raided his home in May 2004.
The extradition process was put on hold when he stood trial in Britain and attempted to appeal against his convictions.
A decision by the House of Lords in that case to refuse him leave to make a further appeal against his convictions left the path clear for extradition proceedings.
Some of the most serious charges against him allege that he assisted a gang of kidnappers in Yemen who abducted a party of Western tourists in 1998.
Abu Hamza allegedly bought the kidnappers a satellite phone and gave them advice and assistance during the kidnap, in which four people, including three Britons, were shot dead.
....................................................
Excellent news, get him out of the UK. Even the human rights crap seems to have failed for once.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:18 PM on 20th June 2008
Facing extradition: Abu Hamza has lost his battle against being sent to the U.S. where he is accused of terror offences
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza lost his High Court battle against extradition to the US where he faces terror-related charges today.
Two judges ruled the decision to extradite was 'unassailable' and rejected every single argument his lawyers made against it.
Egyptian-born Hamza, 51, who is fitted with hooks on both partially-amputated arms, is already serving a seven-year jail term in Britain for stirring up racial hatred and inciting followers to murder non-believers.
The US authorities want the preacher from west London to stand trial for allegedly attempting to set up an al Qaida training camp in Bly, Oregon.
He could face a total of 11 terrorism charges, including sending money and recruits to assist the Taliban and al Qaida.
Judges at the High Court today dismissed his case and gave his lawyers a fortnight to launch a final appeal bid to the House of Lords.
Senior district judge Timothy Workman had already ruled at Westminster Magistrates' Court that Hamza could be extradited and in February, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith gave the final approval.
But the cleric from west London, who is currently being held in Belmarsh top-security prison, insisted on fighting the decision at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
They argued extradition was unlawful because he would be tried in the US 'on the basis of the fruits of torture', citing 'clear evidence' torture had already been used by America to gather information backing up their original extradition request.
It was also claimed it would be against Hamza's human rights and 'unjust and oppressive' to extradite him after such a long time and that he should be tried in London instead.
High Court judges Sir Igor Judge and Mr Justice Sullivan today said they completely agreed with the earlier decisions and rejected every argument.
They dismissed claims about that the U.S. evidence against Hamza was 'tainted by torture' and therefore inadmissible as flawed.
'The submission fails to recognise that, unlike evidence obtained directly by torture, the 'fruits of the poisoned tree' are, in principle, admissible under domestic law, and that in this respect there is no fundamental difference between the approach to such evidence either in this country or in the USA,' the judgement said.
They also ruled that none of the material relied on by the U.S. authorities 'carries anything of the smell of the torture chamber sufficient to require its exclusion in a trial in this country'.
The allegation of torture had also been made 'in the most general terms, unsupported by evidence'.
It failed to distinguish between evidence 'which is the indirect fruits of torture and that which is indirectly obtained as a result of ill-treatment falling short of torture'.
Hamza's future now depends on whether the judges are prepared to certify that his case raises a question of law fit for consideration by the House of Lords.
His lawyers have 14 days in which to apply for permission to make this last-ditch appeal.
The July 7 London bombers were inspired by Hamza's sermons and the would-be bombers of July 21 were regular worshippers at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London where he was formerly the imam.
In 2003 he was dismissed from his position after making speeches supporting al Qaida and speaking out against the invasion of Iraq.
Listed at the High Court in London under his real name, Mostafa Kamel Mostafa, he was the first person to be arrested under the streamlined Anglo-American extradition treaty when police raided his home in May 2004.
The extradition process was put on hold when he stood trial in Britain and attempted to appeal against his convictions.
A decision by the House of Lords in that case to refuse him leave to make a further appeal against his convictions left the path clear for extradition proceedings.
Some of the most serious charges against him allege that he assisted a gang of kidnappers in Yemen who abducted a party of Western tourists in 1998.
Abu Hamza allegedly bought the kidnappers a satellite phone and gave them advice and assistance during the kidnap, in which four people, including three Britons, were shot dead.
....................................................
Excellent news, get him out of the UK. Even the human rights crap seems to have failed for once.
don 't count your chickens yet - our liberal friends are probably, working to preserve his feckin human rights even now
Excellent, insightful comment there.