Sam
Member
Systema,
Who hasn't whipped the French?
Sam
Who hasn't whipped the French?
Sam
England really is a police state
- Thread starter atek3
- Start date
- Status
Silly BS arguments from A-C
Sure, AngriCola, John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Act pretty much negated this for all times:
Face it, A-C, you like a government with ten-thousand lackeys muscling their way on British subjects, for security sake.
In the end it is clear that when Pitt gave his warning: "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves," he was talking about people just like you.
That's where you stand. That's all we need to know.
Rick
Sure, AngriCola, John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Act pretty much negated this for all times:
And, of course, Jefferson was a slave owner. Just ruins the Declaration of Independence for me.
Face it, A-C, you like a government with ten-thousand lackeys muscling their way on British subjects, for security sake.
In the end it is clear that when Pitt gave his warning: "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves," he was talking about people just like you.
That's where you stand. That's all we need to know.
Rick
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
How did these same people manage to produce such a screwed up system.
They sell high-end bottled water from the UK at the local supermarkets here in NoVa. I'm reluctant to drink it lest I start to develop a strong compulsion to give away all my guns, knives, plastic sporks, tooth picks, & other such potentially lethal weapons and walk around defenseless.
Jim March
Member
England has no monopoly here.
Weapons control laws always turn cops into the allies of criminals first, and criminals themselves before too long.
Running my website and publishing my EMail address, I get all kinds of people writing in with problems.
I'll strip out enough details to protect this guy's privacy.
Anyways.
This guy was from Arizona, driving through the "Golden State" of California with his 12yr old kid. With a 45 in the glovebox, which is legal in most states. 'Cept California.
So on one of the major interstates, some lunatic tries to run him off the road - plays "chicken" with him for a couple of miles.
The Arizonan does what any Arizonan would do unless they're a recent transplant from a Liberal zone - he pulls out that 45 and holds it up. Lunatic peels rubber outta there. Arizonan assumes problem solved.
Problem most definately not solved. Lunatic didn't like his game interrupted, calls 911 on a cellphone, reports "nut with a gun" and his vehicle description. CHP (Calif Highway Patrol) is waiting for him down the road. Whole "cuffed and stuffed" thing ensues...kid is in tears, 'cuz dad has just gone from "hero" to "criminal" in less than 15 minutes.
CHP took the report as the Arizonan having committed "assault" but that got dropped when the "complainant" didn't come forward. Gee, I wonder why not? Maybe it was because he was a CRIMINAL??
Sigh.
I hate it, folks. I hate it with a passion.
Take another example: the '94 "assault weapon" ban, or California's variants. Big confusing messes. Some small percentage of us "gun nuts" aren't going to understand it or otherwise get caught up purely by accident.
So the passage of these laws is effectively a promise to criminalize some small percentage of "gun nuts" and jail them purely for not keeping up with new laws?
Picture DiFi saying "oh don't worry, we're only gonna jail one or two percent of you - this time...aren't we nice?"
No. HELL no.
Weapons control laws always turn cops into the allies of criminals first, and criminals themselves before too long.
Running my website and publishing my EMail address, I get all kinds of people writing in with problems.
I'll strip out enough details to protect this guy's privacy.
Anyways.
This guy was from Arizona, driving through the "Golden State" of California with his 12yr old kid. With a 45 in the glovebox, which is legal in most states. 'Cept California.
So on one of the major interstates, some lunatic tries to run him off the road - plays "chicken" with him for a couple of miles.
The Arizonan does what any Arizonan would do unless they're a recent transplant from a Liberal zone - he pulls out that 45 and holds it up. Lunatic peels rubber outta there. Arizonan assumes problem solved.
Problem most definately not solved. Lunatic didn't like his game interrupted, calls 911 on a cellphone, reports "nut with a gun" and his vehicle description. CHP (Calif Highway Patrol) is waiting for him down the road. Whole "cuffed and stuffed" thing ensues...kid is in tears, 'cuz dad has just gone from "hero" to "criminal" in less than 15 minutes.
CHP took the report as the Arizonan having committed "assault" but that got dropped when the "complainant" didn't come forward. Gee, I wonder why not? Maybe it was because he was a CRIMINAL??
Sigh.
I hate it, folks. I hate it with a passion.
Take another example: the '94 "assault weapon" ban, or California's variants. Big confusing messes. Some small percentage of us "gun nuts" aren't going to understand it or otherwise get caught up purely by accident.
So the passage of these laws is effectively a promise to criminalize some small percentage of "gun nuts" and jail them purely for not keeping up with new laws?
Picture DiFi saying "oh don't worry, we're only gonna jail one or two percent of you - this time...aren't we nice?"
No. HELL no.
Chuck Jennings
Member
Unfortunately, Jim is correct. There is no shortage of countries (including the U.S.) headed towards police state status. There are forces working to create so many laws and rules that anyone can be made a criminal simply by applying the law in a certain way.
agricola
Member
AZRickD,
I presume you can post up evidence when I call for more laws in the US?
I presume you can post up evidence when I call for more laws in the US?
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Ag' ..... let's have a longer post - I want to see how you defend this - or otherwise. Total honesty here - exactly what you think - trying to leave your working hat off if possible - a ''man-in-street'' appraisal.
Even better - you are just Joe Public - responsible, law-abiding - and you are on the receiving end of an unjust search.
Even better - you are just Joe Public - responsible, law-abiding - and you are on the receiving end of an unjust search.
Several things I'd like to analyse here.
1. Why has England been used in the title? Why is England persistently singled out from the UK nations here on THR?
I can only assume that it is 'cool' to be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, and not 'cool' to be English. Or that there is the assumption that England is some tyranny that forces its laws on the unwilling Celtic fringe. This ignores the fact that it is partly Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians that sit in the House of Commons and help make these rules. And they are enforced there just as much as anywhere else.
2. A conversation starts about 'free press' and hydromeda takes it on. The members who are arguing with him/her change the definition of free press so that they can call the BBC 'non free press'.
That's really adult. And ignores the glee that some members took in that whole incident where the BBC attacked the Government over the Iraq war, and got in a whole load of trouble for getting its facts wrong, and arguable leading to a man's suicide. Some of you loved that attack on the 'leftist BBC'. So again with the changing goalposts to suit your arguments.
The poster who raised the issue of the BBC has yet to respond to my analysis of the mis-information he is spreading in his sig.
3. Personal attacks on agricola. A member who I have NEVER seen call for stricter gun laws in the US, or call for any sort of legal change in the US. In fact his purpose here seems to be to resist that kind of - how to say - 'legalistic imperialism' when it is directed at us.
When a British person called cotzal turned up here and delivered the most amusing and ignorant rant on 'Ammendment 5' (he meant 2A) he was told not to be ethnocentric by a moderator. And quite rightly.
4. Jim is absolutely right. One thing I have learned here is that people respond better when you take the log out of your own eye before attempting to remove the log from theirs (I've been liberal with scripture there). I learned this in time to prevent getting my ass handed to me on THR over the election (I was not a Kerry supporter, I hate attack and partisan politics)
My country is not perfect. No country is. Most inhabitants of Western countries think that their particular boiling pot looks like it is boiling less than their neighbours. And which of us can claim to have an objective thermometer? I can't.
1. Why has England been used in the title? Why is England persistently singled out from the UK nations here on THR?
I can only assume that it is 'cool' to be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, and not 'cool' to be English. Or that there is the assumption that England is some tyranny that forces its laws on the unwilling Celtic fringe. This ignores the fact that it is partly Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians that sit in the House of Commons and help make these rules. And they are enforced there just as much as anywhere else.
2. A conversation starts about 'free press' and hydromeda takes it on. The members who are arguing with him/her change the definition of free press so that they can call the BBC 'non free press'.
That's really adult. And ignores the glee that some members took in that whole incident where the BBC attacked the Government over the Iraq war, and got in a whole load of trouble for getting its facts wrong, and arguable leading to a man's suicide. Some of you loved that attack on the 'leftist BBC'. So again with the changing goalposts to suit your arguments.
The poster who raised the issue of the BBC has yet to respond to my analysis of the mis-information he is spreading in his sig.
3. Personal attacks on agricola. A member who I have NEVER seen call for stricter gun laws in the US, or call for any sort of legal change in the US. In fact his purpose here seems to be to resist that kind of - how to say - 'legalistic imperialism' when it is directed at us.
When a British person called cotzal turned up here and delivered the most amusing and ignorant rant on 'Ammendment 5' (he meant 2A) he was told not to be ethnocentric by a moderator. And quite rightly.
4. Jim is absolutely right. One thing I have learned here is that people respond better when you take the log out of your own eye before attempting to remove the log from theirs (I've been liberal with scripture there). I learned this in time to prevent getting my ass handed to me on THR over the election (I was not a Kerry supporter, I hate attack and partisan politics)
My country is not perfect. No country is. Most inhabitants of Western countries think that their particular boiling pot looks like it is boiling less than their neighbours. And which of us can claim to have an objective thermometer? I can't.
Hydromeda
Member
Free Press?
Added to what St Johns has just said, yes the BBC has certain controls held over it by the Government, and this is in return for recieving the benefits of the licence fee that Boats' brother, along with every other person who has a tv in Britain, pays for the privilege. The BBC however is not the be all and end all of the media in Britain. It doesn't even constitute the majority of the tv, let alone when you take into account radio and newspapers.
Added to what St Johns has just said, yes the BBC has certain controls held over it by the Government, and this is in return for recieving the benefits of the licence fee that Boats' brother, along with every other person who has a tv in Britain, pays for the privilege. The BBC however is not the be all and end all of the media in Britain. It doesn't even constitute the majority of the tv, let alone when you take into account radio and newspapers.
Ah, I see, you don't have signed confessions from the French soldiers on the scene, therefore the episode is ambiguous. Isn't France a signator to the International Criminal Court? Why not at least some brave Belgian complaintant agitating for an investigation by the ICC? The dog that isn't barking is all I need to know about how the game in Den Hague is rigged.
It simply isn't the United States under the microscope this time, so it's no fun in the European pressrooms to go cutting and pasting the overheated rhetoric flung at America time and again to redirect the same to the French. I can only guess we'll have to keep going with the fiction that those Ivorians slaughtered themselves.
The support for this in the rags of Great Britain are a google away. Since you go out of your way not to challenge that, I'll guess it's a safe bet. To deny it is really pretty silly, anyway, don't you think? For A-C, that he defends laws against pocket knives and umbrellas is enough (remember, it's none of our concern). If I am wrong, perhaps you will tell us exactly where you stand.
Hydro, the New York Times doesn't constitute a majority of media in the USA, but it drives the news coverage for most everyone else. Less so today than five years ago, but it still drives.
Rick
That's nonsensical.
British newspapers may occasionally call for certain things - and because Ag does not routinely condemn them for doing so he somehow supports them? Want us to post up every article written and disagree with it?
British newspapers may occasionally call for certain things - and because Ag does not routinely condemn them for doing so he somehow supports them? Want us to post up every article written and disagree with it?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
St. Johns: For many in the U.S., "England" includes all of the British Isles. Oh, sometimes Ireland is considered as a separate deal, but "England" is used to include Scotland and Wales and the Channel Islands, etc. Just one of those things...
As far as "free press": If you'll recall from Gulf War 1, our press kept yapping about where the Marines were and kept yapping about the casualty rate WHEN they stormed ashore in Kuwait. Shwartzkopf never bothered to mention the movement of forces to the west. He kept remonstrating (mildly) about not telling Saddam when we'd attack. Recall all that? IOW our press is free to report war plans, insofar as they can ascertain them.
That's a part of what we see as "freedom of the press". It includes the freedom to put our own people in physical jeopardy for their lives. Dumber'n hammered dirt, but that's what we live with.
It's my understanding that the British government has the legal power to prevent just such reporting. That's what's commonly meant, here, when people speak of a lack of press freedom in your country.
Dunno if I have it correct as your government's powers, but that's the best I can do to sorta clarify the argument...
Art
As far as "free press": If you'll recall from Gulf War 1, our press kept yapping about where the Marines were and kept yapping about the casualty rate WHEN they stormed ashore in Kuwait. Shwartzkopf never bothered
to mention the movement of forces to the west. He kept remonstrating (mildly) about not telling Saddam when we'd attack. Recall all that? IOW our press is free to report war plans, insofar as they can ascertain them.That's a part of what we see as "freedom of the press". It includes the freedom to put our own people in physical jeopardy for their lives. Dumber'n hammered dirt, but that's what we live with.
It's my understanding that the British government has the legal power to prevent just such reporting. That's what's commonly meant, here, when people speak of a lack of press freedom in your country.
Dunno if I have it correct as your government's powers, but that's the best I can do to sorta clarify the argument...
Art
Hydromeda
Member
However the New York Times is not the BBC, and the UK, as we may have mentioned, is not the US.
It may be true that other major news distributors take the lead from the BBC in the stories that they cover. It is not something I have studied in depth but it is true that most major newspapers tend to cover the same stories, whether this is because they are lazy and can't be bothered to find their own stories, or if it's because they are the stories that they expect people to be interested enough in to buy or watch.
The point however was not that the British press, as an entire body, is biased (which it may well be, as well as any other press in the world), but that is free from governmental control.
Art: the powers that the government has re the reporting of military actions, as discussed with Sam are as follows:
1) The official secrets act makes it a criminal offence for any governmental worker to reveal confidential information, including such things as military maneuvers, to any third party. It does not give them any powers to stop the information from being published once it has been leaked.
2) The system of defense advisory notices allows the government to advise the media as to which type of stories they deem it unwise to publish. They are not however legally binding, and are followed on a purely voluntary basis, usually to try and stop our guys getting killed.
There is no legislation to allow them to ban specific information being published, as far as i know, sam i believe is currently looking for any that may be in existence, and if he finds some i will of course stand corrected.
It may be true that other major news distributors take the lead from the BBC in the stories that they cover. It is not something I have studied in depth but it is true that most major newspapers tend to cover the same stories, whether this is because they are lazy and can't be bothered to find their own stories, or if it's because they are the stories that they expect people to be interested enough in to buy or watch.
The point however was not that the British press, as an entire body, is biased (which it may well be, as well as any other press in the world), but that is free from governmental control.
Art: the powers that the government has re the reporting of military actions, as discussed with Sam are as follows:
1) The official secrets act makes it a criminal offence for any governmental worker to reveal confidential information, including such things as military maneuvers, to any third party. It does not give them any powers to stop the information from being published once it has been leaked.
2) The system of defense advisory notices allows the government to advise the media as to which type of stories they deem it unwise to publish. They are not however legally binding, and are followed on a purely voluntary basis, usually to try and stop our guys getting killed.
There is no legislation to allow them to ban specific information being published, as far as i know, sam i believe is currently looking for any that may be in existence, and if he finds some i will of course stand corrected.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Hokay...
As usual, "everybody knows" is an arena rife with error...
, Art
As usual, "everybody knows" is an arena rife with error...
, Art
Sistema1927
Member
St. John's makes some valid points about American ignorance of the UK.
Maybe my perspecitve is a bit different. English blood flows through my veins. I am 11th generation on my Dad's side, his ancestors came over on the Lyon's Whelp in 1629. I am first generation on my Mother's side, she came over on the Queen Mary in 1950. I have also lived in England a total of 5 years (Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties).
Yet, what gives with both the British isles, the home of the rights of free men, and America, the land that once delivered on the promise? When did a penknife become a weapon to be feared? It is not just the UK, we see the same lunacy in the USA with "zero tolerance" policies that will not allow even a drawing of a gun or knife in a classroom. Heck, when I was young I was drawing pictures of 42 gun square rigged frigates. I wonder what the school counselors of today would have to say about that? (A good dose of Ritalin, I guess.) Additionally, when I was in High School, it was not uncommon for male students to carry a 4" Buck folding knife in a belt sheath. How far we have fallen.
What happens in the UK should scare us in America, due to the fact that this stuff is not confined by oceans. We see the same (or worse) in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and a host of other states. Just because I live in the wide-open West does not mean that this disease cannot spread to my neighborhood.
Something to think about.
Maybe my perspecitve is a bit different. English blood flows through my veins. I am 11th generation on my Dad's side, his ancestors came over on the Lyon's Whelp in 1629. I am first generation on my Mother's side, she came over on the Queen Mary in 1950. I have also lived in England a total of 5 years (Essex, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties).
Yet, what gives with both the British isles, the home of the rights of free men, and America, the land that once delivered on the promise? When did a penknife become a weapon to be feared? It is not just the UK, we see the same lunacy in the USA with "zero tolerance" policies that will not allow even a drawing of a gun or knife in a classroom. Heck, when I was young I was drawing pictures of 42 gun square rigged frigates. I wonder what the school counselors of today would have to say about that? (A good dose of Ritalin, I guess.) Additionally, when I was in High School, it was not uncommon for male students to carry a 4" Buck folding knife in a belt sheath. How far we have fallen.
What happens in the UK should scare us in America, due to the fact that this stuff is not confined by oceans. We see the same (or worse) in California, New Jersey, Maryland, and a host of other states. Just because I live in the wide-open West does not mean that this disease cannot spread to my neighborhood.
Something to think about.
I can respect that. A factually accurate discussion of the UK, without resorting to attacks and factually inaccurate hearsay, with reference to why the UK is less than perfect, whilst also acknowledging the imperfect nature of the United States would make for more interesting and amicable discussions. I'm all for that.
agricola
Member
You seem to have misunderstood the question, despite quoting it. Can you point me to where I have stated that "what America needs is more laws just like they (the UK) have"?
Straight from your mouth to this thread...
That would require me to use the Search function at THR -- which doesn't work. Far easier for you to simply give your opinion on the matter.
You've had separate individuals ask you at least three times what your position is. You've failed to do so here.
Lastly, I'm guessing by your omission that you concede the point that the BBC and other major outlets do opine, with much snootiness, in the affirmative on this issue?
Rick
That would require me to use the Search function at THR -- which doesn't work. Far easier for you to simply give your opinion on the matter.
You've had separate individuals ask you at least three times what your position is. You've failed to do so here.
Lastly, I'm guessing by your omission that you concede the point that the BBC and other major outlets do opine, with much snootiness, in the affirmative on this issue?
Rick
Last edited:
agricola
Member
AZRickD,
What you dont have the links to hand? One would have thought as you were able to post:
Also, the search function appears to be working now. As it happens, my opinion is that: firstly, its your business and not ours what your laws are, and secondly given the prevalance of criminal use of firearms in the US CCW is understandable and common-sense.
I await your apology with interest.
What you dont have the links to hand? One would have thought as you were able to post:
Also, the search function appears to be working now. As it happens, my opinion is that: firstly, its your business and not ours what your laws are, and secondly given the prevalance of criminal use of firearms in the US CCW is understandable and common-sense.
I await your apology with interest.
Sam
Member
Mr. St. Johns
Your questions answered, in order:
1. Here in the states we generally make no distinction between the different parts of the UK.
Nothing personal :†it’s all English to usâ€. Hasn’t got a thing to do with “coolnessâ€.
2. I did not change the argument. First I am not arguing with Mr., Hydromeda, It’s called a discussion.
Haven’t told him off or treated him impolitely. The press is not restricted to print media any more. Has not been that way for over 50 years. Even in the UK.
3. I didn’t ignore a single bit of the glee as you put it. I am attempting to discuss law, rule, and regulation not emotional content. Your Home Secretary has preemption rights over the broadcast media in the UK.PERIOD. Wither he exercises them or not is immaterial. He has those rights. That is not an argument, it is a fact. It is in your law.
4. What analysis am I supposed to respond to? You have not posted an analysis. You have not posted anything between my entry into the discussion at response #34 and the beginning of your rant at entry 59.
I have willingly spread no mis information and where I have made incorrect statements, I have stood corrected.
5. If you read my initial post #34 you will see that I have not criticized your country. I stated that no US citizen should be surprised by the fact that your countrymen and mine have nothing in common when it comes to civil liberties since that is why we separated our interests from yours in 1776. Statement of fact. Not a criticism.
I shall give you the opportunity to review the posts and settle down before I have my friends call upon yours.
Mr. Hydromeda,
Fear not. I am still researching. It appears that when I am done I may well know more about your laws than ours. I am currently stuck in the middle of a bundle of “Orders in Council†from the 40’s and it is going to take me a while. I still have to feed the wife and kids.
Sam
Your questions answered, in order:
1. Here in the states we generally make no distinction between the different parts of the UK.
Nothing personal :†it’s all English to usâ€. Hasn’t got a thing to do with “coolnessâ€.
2. I did not change the argument. First I am not arguing with Mr., Hydromeda, It’s called a discussion.
Haven’t told him off or treated him impolitely. The press is not restricted to print media any more. Has not been that way for over 50 years. Even in the UK.
3. I didn’t ignore a single bit of the glee as you put it. I am attempting to discuss law, rule, and regulation not emotional content. Your Home Secretary has preemption rights over the broadcast media in the UK.PERIOD. Wither he exercises them or not is immaterial. He has those rights. That is not an argument, it is a fact. It is in your law.
4. What analysis am I supposed to respond to? You have not posted an analysis. You have not posted anything between my entry into the discussion at response #34 and the beginning of your rant at entry 59.
I have willingly spread no mis information and where I have made incorrect statements, I have stood corrected.
5. If you read my initial post #34 you will see that I have not criticized your country. I stated that no US citizen should be surprised by the fact that your countrymen and mine have nothing in common when it comes to civil liberties since that is why we separated our interests from yours in 1776. Statement of fact. Not a criticism.
I shall give you the opportunity to review the posts and settle down before I have my friends call upon yours.
Mr. Hydromeda,
Fear not. I am still researching. It appears that when I am done I may well know more about your laws than ours. I am currently stuck in the middle of a bundle of “Orders in Council†from the 40’s and it is going to take me a while. I still have to feed the wife and kids.
Sam
It was a bit of a rant. Only because my experience with 'English' threads here at THR can be a little tiresome - same 'arguments', same people. My post after the rant was essentially a call for 'less noise, more signal' on these threads, I'm quite happy to discuss things without the same snippy attacks cropping up each time. While you are researching our broadcast laws in detail I'd suggest you can exempt yourself from being part of the 'noise' on this thread.
agricola
Member
AZRickD,
Yet that is the extent of my opinions on the US, as the search would have showed you, because (as I said) it is a matter for those who live in that country.
You said:
Please evidence your statement, or withdraw it and apologise.
Yet that is the extent of my opinions on the US, as the search would have showed you, because (as I said) it is a matter for those who live in that country.
You said:
Please evidence your statement, or withdraw it and apologise.
- Status