Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    There was one sentence about that... I just feel that there should be better ways of allowing gay people to donate blood. You have instant HIV tests now, these could be used, obviously not at the tax-payer's cost, but if the person of homosexual orientation wants to donate blood, then it is his responsibility to make sure its not HIV positive.

    The rest of his answer was about tax.

    Slandering the Labour party? What a ridiculous, not well thought through petty attempt at debate.
    Saying you were slandering the Labour party did go a bit far, apologies.

    The point still remains that you're calling one of our bills a farce when it actually reduced the time gay men have to stay abstinent for by 4 years to 1 year, and that 1 year is the recommended medical minimum, recommended by professionals who actually know what they're talking about.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by paperclip)
    And a whole load of previous debate which you cunningly avoided.

    It seems your solution to the problem is ever-changing, considering in the voting thread your response was, "just make people have a blood test every 3 or so years if they want to donate blood." So, seriously, how much consideration did you actually give the bill before voting against it? Did you consider any alternatives, and why were these not presented during the debate on the bill?

    Did you have any criticism of the scientific basis of the bill? Did you even read the 70+ page report that argued for the bill? Can you substantiate any alternatives you provide through any medical journals? Or are your solutions based on speculation?

    Though what gets me, is that despite these obvious questions, you have the nerve to post that another parties bills were a farce. As someone who has given little consideration, or input into the actual bill, it takes a massive ego to do that. Hell, the bill in question passed with an overwhelming majority, could you not accept that perhaps you were wrong, and there was a factor that you overlooked? It certainly would have seemed wiser than coming here and arguing about legislation you clearly know nothing about (or that you know so little, that your opinion on the solution changes every couple of days)?

    When faced with the figures and rationale directly, obviously, you could find no fault with them. That much is clear from your lack of response to my post 4 days ago.

    Finally, how the hell are you still masquerading around pretending this is about homosexual rights? Let me break it down for you:
    Vote no - keep MSM abstinence for 5 years
    Vote yes - lower MSM abstinence by 4 years (to 1 year)

    So either you're completely retarded, or you don't understand how parliament works.
    I wouldn't read a 70+ page report, I don't have time or the interest to do so.

    I'm not retarded thank you very much. I just thinhk that there MUST BE a better way for gay people to give blood. Abstention whether it be for 5 years or 1 wont change the fact that either somebody has HIV or they don't.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Saying you were slandering the Labour party did go a bit far, apologies.

    The point still remains that you're calling one of our bills a farce when it actually reduced the time gay men have to stay abstinent for by 4 years to 1 year, and that 1 year is the recommended medical minimum, recommended by professionals who actually know what they're talking about.
    I accept your apology.

    I just think that abstention shouldn't have to be done when we have instant HIV tests, as an example.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by LPK)
    Sure they do, but that doesn't make them completely reliable, especially not to the same standard that blood screenings use to prevent infection. Despite HIV being a rather weak virus, it can also be a tricky little ******* to test for due to the window-period.

    The way you are tested is largely dependant on the situation that requires the testing in the first place. For example, if it's just a routine check then most clinics tend to recommend having at least one HIV test every 6-12 months, whereas those being tested because they have been considered 'at risk' usually have a few throughout a 6 month window-period. I know this because one of my friends is currently undergoing this as we speak due to being in a relationship with another guy who lied about being HIV negative. At the 3 month testing the nurse told him that it is highly unlikely that he has HIV, but a test at the 6 month mark is still necessary in order for them to make a final conclusion. The detection of HIV can also be affected by other factors, such as patients taking antiretroviral meds which can cause inaccurate results during testing. As a result, SaBTO concluded that a 12 month window-period would be the most safe way to proceed. That period is also perfectly in line with other deferall periods that aim to prevent HIV infection, so it's not something they pulled out of thin air to discriminate against gay men. Heterosexuals with a similar HIV risk also receive the same deferall period.

    It would be great to simply remove the window-period and put them on an equal footing with heterosexual donors, but this is more of a health and safety issue than it is a gay rights (or even political) issue. Unfortunately gay men are a high-risk group when it comes to HIV, and it wouldn't be in the best interests of anybody to overrule the experts on this just to try and gain a political win for gay rights. The very reason I sought to simply implement the recommendations from the SaBTO report is because it offers the best medical guidance that this House has available to it. The fact that you weren't willing to read the report before making up your mind that 12 months is a farce highlights why this decision should never be guided by political opinion. I'm not singling you out there either as I suspect that most (if not all) said 'Aye' or 'Nay' without reading it themselves, and the same can be said for all those who campaign for changes in RL. I don't believe that the NUS LGBT campaign are scrutinising SaBTO reports when they're campaigning for restrictions to be removed, which just shows how irresponsible it would be for this House to give those people an equal voice to the experts who have analysed blood screening, researched evidence in other countries with a similar model (Australia was used in this case), and provided statistics for the risk associated with a 12 month window period. That risk is still considerably higher than most non-MSM donors, so there is still much to be done before the window-period can be reduced or even removed.

    It won't be all that difficult to change the policy when the evidence to do so is there. After all, technology is constantly progressing and HIV awareness is only going to improve. The latest advancements in blood screening have prevented blood donor recipients from being infected since the introduction of HIV NAT testing in 2002, so further advancements will play a vital role in re-assessing the window-period and legislating accordingly. There's a blood shortage as we speak, so the National Blood Service aren't going to prevent donors from giving blood if there's strong evidence that they can screen it safely without virtually any risk whatsoever. We just need to be patient until that evidence is available, rather than using our political ideologue as the driving force behind any changes we make.
    I would be obliged to agree with you. We have to get it right with HIV. Instant kits probably aren't the best thing for the job but they do however provide results quickly, and if somebody is already going through checks I don't think it would be necessary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know some doctors who say that 1 years abstinence is enough, but no less. They say that homosexual males are, as a discernable social group, far more likely than heterosexual males to have HIV. We should listen to the professionals.
    I know some policemen who say that racial profiling works. They say that black males are, as a discernable group, far more likely than white males to commit crime. We should listen to the professionals.

    Y/N ???
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I wouldn't read a 70+ page report, I don't have time or the interest to do so.

    I'm not retarded thank you very much. I just thinhk that there MUST BE a better way for gay people to give blood. Abstention whether it be for 5 years or 1 wont change the fact that either somebody has HIV or they don't.
    Is this based on religious-like faith, or the informed opinion of peer reviewed medicine?

    If you don't have the time, nor the interest to read up on bills before voting on them, then why are you an MP? Moreover, isn't your uninformed opinion, and lack of motivation, grounds for abstaining? You should only vote against a bill if you think there is something wrong with the bill, not because you couldn't be bothered to read the foundations of the bill.

    Are you willing to apologise to the Labour party for calling their bills a farce? And when, quite-rightly being put in your place, becoming quite aggressive* about something that not only you were uninformed on, but that you weren't even motivated to become informed on?

    Are you willing to apologise to me, for making me trawl through stuff you had no interest in, and simply couldn't be bothered, in order to prove your incorrect assumptions wrong when you had already been given the means to do so? In this respect you were clearly up for some party political point scoring, seeing as you clearly stated that you don't have the "time or interest" to actually give the bill the proper consideration it deserved.

    Now, since you don't seem to understand how parliament works, i'll give you a little lesson. Firstly, if you have an opinion, it is good practice to substantiate that opinion (and certainly not good to be flip flopping as you have, judging by your completely different rationale/alternative 3 days ago). Secondly, if you have an opinion, and the bill works towards that, then it is a step in the right direction. For example, if i want London to have a living wage, say £8 an hour, and a bill appears that wants to raise the London wage to £7 an hour it is nonsensical for me to vote against said bill. This bill is working towards my aims, its interests lie in the right place, and it is ultimately better than keeping the system as it currently is.

    *Agressive, yes, i'd say the post "I couldn't give a flying **** whether they passed or not. The bills you have passed are FARCES. Making somebody abstain from sex for a year to give blood is a farce." is pretty aggressive. Especially because you end up shouting halfway through, and pretty much start with swearing. Rather disrespectiful behaviour from someone who simply couldn't be bothered.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Is this based on religious-like faith, or the informed opinion of peer reviewed medicine?

    If you don't have the time, nor the interest to read up on bills before voting on them, then why are you an MP? Moreover, isn't your uninformed opinion, and lack of motivation, grounds for abstaining? You should only vote against a bill if you think there is something wrong with the bill, not because you couldn't be bothered to read the foundations of the bill.

    Are you willing to apologise to the Labour party for calling their bills a farce? And when, quite-rightly being put in your place, becoming quite aggressive* about something that not only you were uninformed on, but that you weren't even motivated to become informed on?

    Are you willing to apologise to me, for making me trawl through stuff you had no interest in, and simply couldn't be bothered, in order to prove your incorrect assumptions wrong when you had already been given the means to do so? In this respect you were clearly up for some party political point scoring, seeing as you clearly stated that you don't have the "time or interest" to actually give the bill the proper consideration it deserved.

    Now, since you don't seem to understand how parliament works, i'll give you a little lesson. Firstly, if you have an opinion, it is good practice to substantiate that opinion (and certainly not good to be flip flopping as you have, judging by your completely different rationale/alternative 3 days ago). Secondly, if you have an opinion, and the bill works towards that, then it is a step in the right direction. For example, if i want London to have a living wage, say £8 an hour, and a bill appears that wants to raise the London wage to £7 an hour it is nonsensical for me to vote against said bill. This bill is working towards my aims, its interests lie in the right place, and it is ultimately better than keeping the system as it currently is.

    *Agressive, yes, i'd say the post "I couldn't give a flying **** whether they passed or not. The bills you have passed are FARCES. Making somebody abstain from sex for a year to give blood is a farce." is pretty aggressive. Especially because you end up shouting halfway through, and pretty much start with swearing. Rather disrespectiful behaviour from someone who simply couldn't be bothered.
    What is your problem, if it is something personal, I couldn't care.

    If it something to do with my stance and believe on things, I couldn't care either.

    I know how parliament works, and I am certainly not flip-flopping my judgements either, I don't believe you, unless you can prove otherwise. Why should I take time out my life to read a document with 70 pages? It needs to be condensed if it is to be accepted as a source imo.

    I am voting against the bill because I believe that there should be a better way of solving this, as I have said before.

    I did say it was a farce firstly as it is unlikely to refrain from having sex for a year and secondly because there is no way of proving whether they have or have not had sex in the past year, so that is why screening them makes is possibly a better solution to the problem
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I know some doctors who say that 1 years abstinence is enough, but no less. They say that homosexual males are, as a discernable social group, far more likely than heterosexual males to have HIV. We should listen to the professionals.
    I know some policemen who say that racial profiling works. They say that black males are, as a discernable group, far more likely than white males to commit crime. We should listen to the professionals.

    Y/N ???
    We should, actually. I can link you to lots of psychological, criminological and sociological evidence suggesting the contrary, if you'd like? Although if your facetious point is something we're gonna start a debate about, then i'd like you to cite your sources first. Importantly, there is a difference between a scientific journal, which has a basic peer reviewing process, and an offhand comment. Moreover, if you have a problem with an article in question, it needs to be grounded in the work, not an assumption (as with MacCuishy). If the paper is false, you can deconstruct it, it certainly helps that we're students and we've been trained to do this throughout our degree. In any political/academic debate watch MacCuishy's religious-like, unfounded, unsubstantiated argument that changes daily be taken apart.

    Prison systems are something that i have a pretty keen interest in, although it's not directly related do your facetiouspoint, i would direct anyone to this book, it's pretty well written and comprehensive.


    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    What is your problem, if it is something personal, I couldn't care.
    My problem is that there are people who can't be bothered to read or debate legislation, yet still feel the need to flame parties regarding it. It's parliamentary behaviour that is simply not on.

    If it something to do with my stance and believe on things, I couldn't care either.
    No, it's to do with your fundamentalism and arrogance in assuming that you are right, that you don't need to substantiate your argument, and that you can flame parties because you couldn't be bothered to do basic levels of research (actually, scratch that, the research had already been done for you). What's worse, is that you are so cognitively fixated on the idea that you're right, that you're still unable to accept that you were unnecessarily flaming, and slandering the labour party enough to apologise.

    I know how parliament works, and I am certainly not flip-flopping my judgements either, I don't believe you, unless you can prove otherwise. Why should I take time out my life to read a document with 70 pages? It needs to be condensed if it is to be accepted as a source imo.
    I can prove otherwise.

    3 days ago, you argued for a test every 3 years. Today, your argument has changed that you voted against the bill because instant tests are available. And just now, your argument has become that credible sources need to be summarised, a fact that you hadn't ever bought up before.

    You're trying to rationalise your behaviour/vote after you've made it. Interestingly, this is a cognitive illusion called hindsight bias.

    I am voting against the bill because I believe that there should be a better way of solving this, as I have said before.
    There should. But have you provided any alternatives? None that contain any consistency (as illustrated above). Similarly, money is a horrible idea; and i can show you plenty of psychological evidence showing massive problems in this system (actually, just google "the psychology of money" and you'll get some pretty interesting blogs). However, i do not produce a bill abolishing money, because of the need of a working alternative system. Basically, when discussing/voting on legislation we think of the real world ramification - what's the alternative to the bill, is this bill better than the current situation? I can abolish money, that's easy, what's the alternative.

    You haven't provided a (consistent) alternative, you haven't provided any rationalisation. Hell, you haven't provided any solid justification for voting against the bill.

    I did say it was a farce firstly as it is unlikely to refrain from having sex for a year and secondly because there is no way of proving whether they have or have not had sex in the past year, so that is why screening them makes is possibly a better solution to the problem
    So you think someone's gonna lie about having sex in order to give blood? Dude, this just demonstrates my argument about you failing to consider the real world implications.

    Firstly, why would someone be motivated to lie in order to give blood? It's not like it's a service they get paid for. If it is such a problem, then you'll be able to find some instances where it has already happened, as the current system (which has a much longer time period) has been in place for a while.

    Secondly, all blood is screened anyway. The current system is meant to be a failsafe because infections such as HIV (amongst others) can lay dormant for a while.

    Hell, if you had any knowledge of the blood donation service you'd know it's pretty strict in everything - if you're of Asian origin you have to go through extra tests every time you donate, because of the increased likelihood of being anemic (the same with being a vegetarian). It really isn't about discrimination, or treating people differently for the sake of it. Blood is a tricky thing, it only has a shelf life of a week, is a costly procedure and not something you mess around with. If you have a belief in something, and someone else provides evidence to the contrary, believe it or not, the evidence outweighs that belief, especially if you couldn't be bothered to read that evidence.

    Let me provide a parallel example, George Bush believed god told him to go to war with Iraq. The evidence suggests that god doesn't exist. Would Bush be right in leading an entire country to war based on his belief that was unverifiable to anyone? Forgot for a minute the other issues surrounding the Iraq war, would Bush's belief be enough to lead an entire country?

    You're a (pretend) politician ffs, if you wanna use faith like belief as a defence go join a (pretend) church. But if you insist on staying here at least have the decency to not flame parties on something you're clearly uninformed on. This is a model house of commons ffs, what's the point in being here and voting on fake legislation if not for the debate? If you can't be bothered to read the report than don't, just don't vote against it because you clearly can't be bothered to try to understand it, and don't try to engage in party political point scoring either. It's just embarrassing.

    I thought Libertarians believed in evidence based politics? Not imposing your beliefs on society? But that's exactly what MacC is doing here, he has an irrational, unfounded belief and is rejecting legislation based on it. Just like pro-lifers, in this case the church of MacC should remain separate from politics.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by paperclip)
    We should, actually. I can link you to lots of psychological, criminological and sociological evidence suggesting the contrary, if you'd like? Although if your facetious point is something we're gonna start a debate about, then i'd like you to cite your sources first. Importantly, there is a difference between a scientific journal, which has a basic peer reviewing process, and an offhand comment. Moreover, if you have a problem with an article in question, it needs to be grounded in the work, not an assumption (as with MacCuishy). If the paper is false, you can deconstruct it, it certainly helps that we're students and we've been trained to do this throughout our degree. In any political/academic debate watch MacCuishy's religious-like, unfounded, unsubstantiated argument that changes daily be taken apart.

    Prison systems are something that i have a pretty keen interest in, although it's not directly related do your facetiouspoint, i would direct anyone to this book, it's pretty well written and comprehensive.



    My problem is that there are people who can't be bothered to read or debate legislation, yet still feel the need to flame parties regarding it. It's parliamentary behaviour that is simply not on.



    No, it's to do with your fundamentalism and arrogance in assuming that you are right, that you don't need to substantiate your argument, and that you can flame parties because you couldn't be bothered to do basic levels of research (actually, scratch that, the research had already been done for you). What's worse, is that you are so cognitively fixated on the idea that you're right, that you're still unable to accept that you were unnecessarily flaming, and slandering the labour party enough to apologise.



    I can prove otherwise.

    3 days ago, you argued for a test every 3 years. Today, your argument has changed that you voted against the bill because instant tests are available. And just now, your argument has become that credible sources need to be summarised, a fact that you hadn't ever bought up before.

    You're trying to rationalise your behaviour/vote after you've made it. Interestingly, this is a cognitive illusion called hindsight bias.


    There should. But have you provided any alternatives? None that contain any consistency (as illustrated above). Similarly, money is a horrible idea; and i can show you plenty of psychological evidence showing massive problems in this system (actually, just google "the psychology of money" and you'll get some pretty interesting blogs). However, i do not produce a bill abolishing money, because of the need of a working alternative system. Basically, when discussing/voting on legislation we think of the real world ramification - what's the alternative to the bill, is this bill better than the current situation? I can abolish money, that's easy, what's the alternative.

    You haven't provided a (consistent) alternative, you haven't provided any rationalisation. Hell, you haven't provided any solid justification for voting against the bill.



    So you think someone's gonna lie about having sex in order to give blood? Dude, this just demonstrates my argument about you failing to consider the real world implications.

    Firstly, why would someone be motivated to lie in order to give blood? It's not like it's a service they get paid for. If it is such a problem, then you'll be able to find some instances where it has already happened, as the current system (which has a much longer time period) has been in place for a while.

    Secondly, all blood is screened anyway. The current system is meant to be a failsafe because infections such as HIV (amongst others) can lay dormant for a while.

    Hell, if you had any knowledge of the blood donation service you'd know it's pretty strict in everything - if you're of Asian origin you have to go through extra tests every time you donate, because of the increased likelihood of being anemic (the same with being a vegetarian). It really isn't about discrimination, or treating people differently for the sake of it. Blood is a tricky thing, it only has a shelf life of a week, is a costly procedure and not something you mess around with. If you have a belief in something, and someone else provides evidence to the contrary, believe it or not, the evidence outweighs that belief, especially if you couldn't be bothered to read that evidence.

    Let me provide a parallel example, George Bush believed god told him to go to war with Iraq. The evidence suggests that god doesn't exist. Would Bush be right in leading an entire country to war based on his belief that was unverifiable to anyone? Forgot for a minute the other issues surrounding the Iraq war, would Bush's belief be enough to lead an entire country?

    You're a (pretend) politician ffs, if you wanna use faith like belief as a defence go join a (pretend) church. But if you insist on staying here at least have the decency to not flame parties on something you're clearly uninformed on. This is a model house of commons ffs, what's the point in being here and voting on fake legislation if not for the debate? If you can't be bothered to read the report than don't, just don't vote against it because you clearly can't be bothered to try to understand it, and don't try to engage in party political point scoring either. It's just embarrassing.

    I thought Libertarians believed in evidence based politics? Not imposing your beliefs on society? But that's exactly what MacC is doing here, he has an irrational, unfounded belief and is rejecting legislation based on it. Just like pro-lifers, in this case the church of MacC should remain separate from politics.
    I'm not even going to reply to that. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and making yourself look ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Damn. That was an amazing deconstruction and demolition, paperclip.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I'm not even going to reply to that. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and making yourself look ridiculous.
    Quite the opposite.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Quite the opposite.
    I don't get what he is trying to say. If he trying to say that I am saying that the "expert" opinion is wrong - I'm not. My points are reasonable, saying that gay people should have blood tests before giving blood.

    I don't want to impose my beliefs on anybody and I gave up when he started comparing myself to George Bush, who is a moron.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I'm not even going to reply to that. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and making yourself look ridiculous.
    So he provides an actual detailed, insightful reply that he clearly took a bit of time over to you and you respond that he is making himself look ridiculous?! Especially since you only provided a one line reply of nothing to his post.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    So he provides an actual detailed, insightful reply that he clearly took a bit of time over to you and you respond that he is making himself look ridiculous?! Especially since you only provided a one line reply of nothing to his post.
    How am I meant to reply to it? Making stupid comparisons to Bush. My reply would look exactly the same as the ones before because it's not one I would like to devote my time to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    How am I meant to reply to it? Making stupid comparisons to Bush. My reply would look exactly the same as the ones before because it's not one I would like to devote my time to.
    Whatever you say, I'm not getting involved. I just think you should think before saying someone else is making themselves look ridiculous.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmmm maybe a bit off topic, but which labour prime minister would you say has been the best, and who has been the worst and why? Also, another question; what sort of impact are the upcoming local elections likely to have? Apparently I'm voting for Ceredigion in West Wales (Where I live in term time) instead of elections in my home area. I thought that you could post your vote or do it online if you are a student
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What do the labour party think of Ken Livingstone?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    Hmmmm maybe a bit off topic, but which labour prime minister would you say has been the best, and who has been the worst and why? Also, another question; what sort of impact are the upcoming local elections likely to have? Apparently I'm voting for Ceredigion in West Wales (Where I live in term time) instead of elections in my home area. I thought that you could post your vote or do it online if you are a student
    I don't know - to be quite honest I don't know enough about the history of UK prime ministers to answer accurately.

    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    What do the labour party think of Ken Livingstone?
    I have no opinion of him - the London mayoral election doesn't affect me in the slightest.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    Hmmmm maybe a bit off topic, but which labour prime minister would you say has been the best, and who has been the worst and why? Also, another question; what sort of impact are the upcoming local elections likely to have? Apparently I'm voting for Ceredigion in West Wales (Where I live in term time) instead of elections in my home area. I thought that you could post your vote or do it online if you are a student
    Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson. (Tony Blair is up there according to polls)

    Attlee: Welfare State
    Wilson: Liberalising society (decriminalizing homosexuality for example)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    We should, actually. I can link you to lots of psychological, criminological and sociological evidence suggesting the contrary, if you'd like? Although if your facetious point is something we're gonna start a debate about, then i'd like you to cite your sources first. Importantly, there is a difference between a scientific journal, which has a basic peer reviewing process, and an offhand comment. Moreover, if you have a problem with an article in question, it needs to be grounded in the work, not an assumption (as with MacCuishy). If the paper is false, you can deconstruct it, it certainly helps that we're students and we've been trained to do this throughout our degree. In any political/academic debate watch MacCuishy's religious-like, unfounded, unsubstantiated argument that changes daily be taken apart.
    Sure, that's fine, but I could find you plenty of policemen who'd disagree with the idea that racial profiling doesn't work. I'd find plenty that'd say it doesn't work, too. My point isn't either pro or anti racial profiling, my point is that you're correct - arguments can and should be deconstructed; and therefore the idea that experts should be listened to is moot. Their arguments hold no more weight than anyone elses, they're just more likely to be right (ie not deconstructable).
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.