Posts by Jan Farr
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What do people think about married couples who are both unemployed most of the time but continue to add to their family despite the fact they are already in state housing...
Hi Yamis: the trouble is, when you start to pass judgement on individuals it's hard not to turn that into a generalisation - 'all unemployed couples in state houses who have large families are very, very naughty'.
It's great that your neighbours are doing a good job - maybe they'll produce really good citizens, who understand life from the inside.
-
Great post Jackie!
-
Petra - Stop please with your Spooky Men's Chorale and stuff! Soon I'll have no mascara left at all!
-
Petra - thanks for Women Know Your Limits. My mascara is running!
-
It really is hard to fathom how different the political discourse is over here.
It seems to me that it's different in many ways. Their parties don't seem to have an active grass roots that form distinct party policies. They seem to operate more on a lobby system 'I am your senator and, to you who lobbied hardest and most expensively, I will remove the tax on fairy dust.' Or am I being unfair?
-
Jacqui:
I guess my disquiet about this whole mess is the horrid effect fear had on everyone. Finger-pointing, accusations, and a seeming willingness to believe the worst of others - it gathered momentum and became a national panic. Sides were taken, volleys sent off. I loathed that. At this point, I wish for calm and sober thoughts on this subject, and I know, on this blog at least (can't say I've managed more than the occasional dip into others) there are some thoughtful and measured responses, so feel pretty optimistic about the future.
And the rest of what you said: that was a lovely post - thanks.
-
Kelly displayed and continues to display zero unsertanding of how the film indusrtry works or even of how US unions work.
Well, she knows who to come to next time, Neil.
-
Craig: I don't disagree with your fresh attempt to answer me and my hand is, as always, in clear view. But I was talking about Fran Walsh denying the ban had been lifted, several days after the actors had offered to lift it, and (FW) calling Helen Kelly a liar, when clearly the issue had been discussed between the two groups for some days.
The bit that puzzles me is why the actors felt it necessary to discuss it with PJ and Warner Bros - unless they were actually trying to make amends and acting in good faith. We all make mistakes - I've even spotted one or two of yours from time to time.
By the way, it's the rigidity that makes you go blind (a problem we girls don't have). And not believing in Santa Claus.
-
Particularly Costa Botes, who'd earlier distinguished himself with this little gem.
That cheered me up. Thanks Joe!
-
...not being willing to enter into negotiations he didn't believe he had legal standing or moral authority to engage in isn't my idea of bad faith.
Agreed. Plus, why would anyone agree to "quietly meet" in an illegal discussion, in good faith? That good faith could be turned against you, in very bad faith, very easily. Better to seek legal council than to even go there is by far a more prudent thing to do, imo. Especially when you have such a high profile.
I think you're all missing the point. The issue there was the wording of the withdrawal of the actor's ban. Nothing illegal there. Indeed, rather polite of the actors to give him the opportunity I would have thought.