Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
And Theyre At It Again....
98 Answers
http://
nature of the beast i suppose....oh well...
nature of the beast i suppose....oh well...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ummm - //Naomi - the Mayor was on the news last night saying initially they were policing peaceful protests so they were keeping their distance as it's in their rights to peacefully protest. Then the gangs turned up.//
Thank you - that does back up my perception that an initial protest by citizens was hi-jacked by trouble-makers, as is so often the case.
Thank you - that does back up my perception that an initial protest by citizens was hi-jacked by trouble-makers, as is so often the case.
As I read it, had the death of a man due to police action been the subject of the OP. ‘The nature of the beast’ could have applied to them. As it is, the OP concerns the actions of the rioters so clearly the phrase applies to them. The heading ‘They’re at it again’ speaks volumes. It’s not that difficult to apply a little simple logic, is it?
///As I read it, had the death of a man due to police action been the subject of the OP. ‘The nature of the beast’ could have applied to them. As it is, the OP concerns the actions of the rioters so clearly the phrase applies to them. The heading ‘They’re at it again’ speaks volumes. It’s not that difficult to apply a little simple logic, is it?///
Apparently so, Naomi!
Baldric - /////As I read it, had the death of a man due to police action been the subject of the OP. ‘The nature of the beast’ could have applied to them. As it is, the OP concerns the actions of the rioters so clearly the phrase applies to them. The heading ‘They’re at it again’ speaks volumes. It’s not that difficult to apply a little simple logic, is it?///
I don't think that asking for clarification about use of a phrase is the crime of the century is it?
OK, a lot of people interpreted the use of the phrase in the same way, but that's not the same as saying they interpreted it correctly is it?
I never demean, much less take a stance of nasty hostility to anyone who asks for explanation of something I have written - it's not adult, and it's not nice.
Being misunderstood is an occupational hazard of written communication and it is perfectly understandable and acceptable - or should be.
Being snide, accusatory, inflammatory and innaccurate are not understandable or acceptable - maybe some of the above posters would like to think about that next time they query something?
I don't think that asking for clarification about use of a phrase is the crime of the century is it?
OK, a lot of people interpreted the use of the phrase in the same way, but that's not the same as saying they interpreted it correctly is it?
I never demean, much less take a stance of nasty hostility to anyone who asks for explanation of something I have written - it's not adult, and it's not nice.
Being misunderstood is an occupational hazard of written communication and it is perfectly understandable and acceptable - or should be.
Being snide, accusatory, inflammatory and innaccurate are not understandable or acceptable - maybe some of the above posters would like to think about that next time they query something?
Naomi - //andy-hughes, for goodness sake stop being so precious. This thread's all over the place because of all this nonsense. //
Your perception - not mine - we can agree to differ.
As for the direction of this, or any thread - it goes where it goes, I have no control over it - nor do you, nor does anyone.
But if I feel I am under unfair attack, I will defend myself, as would you, or anyone else.
Just because you choose to dismiss it does not mean it hasn't happened, or does not need to be addressed.
Your perception - not mine - we can agree to differ.
As for the direction of this, or any thread - it goes where it goes, I have no control over it - nor do you, nor does anyone.
But if I feel I am under unfair attack, I will defend myself, as would you, or anyone else.
Just because you choose to dismiss it does not mean it hasn't happened, or does not need to be addressed.
I think you'll find that was Naomi's post from 13:56 that I copied and pasted in true AB style, do keep up!
I think you are attention seeking, you sound as if you have a point to make, but you delay making it, because having done so you will no longer be the centre of attention, until the next time.
// I was, as you can see - merely asking for clarification about the use of the phrase 'nature of the beast' - and whether that referred to the gangs, or the police. //
clearly the Police in my opinion and MOST insulting to the lads who saved us from Mark Duggan - and Steven Waldorf whom I note retro has omitted
I plough a lonely furrow, Andy - hey did you see Antigone on tee vee the other night ? That is where the line comes from, 440BC, line 569 I think
clearly the Police in my opinion and MOST insulting to the lads who saved us from Mark Duggan - and Steven Waldorf whom I note retro has omitted
I plough a lonely furrow, Andy - hey did you see Antigone on tee vee the other night ? That is where the line comes from, 440BC, line 569 I think
Retrocop
I cant see why you didnt include Steven Waldorf - who survived but you might say: " kicked it all off"
but what about the PC who shot the other PC ( by mistake of course ) on an training exercise in Manchester.... and wait for it - - no one was found to be to blame. Widow not happy - but I suppose you would say, "they seldom are in these cases."
I cant see why you didnt include Steven Waldorf - who survived but you might say: " kicked it all off"
but what about the PC who shot the other PC ( by mistake of course ) on an training exercise in Manchester.... and wait for it - - no one was found to be to blame. Widow not happy - but I suppose you would say, "they seldom are in these cases."
