Hilda buys the farm. [Archive]

Pannonian

04-08-2013, 21:48

I wasn't alive back then, so I have no opinion

If you've heard any of Blair's speeches aimed at the British electorate, that's the Thatcherite influence to a tee. All the catchwords for freedom to, right to, etc. Americans probably take all that for granted from their founders and their lyrical odes to liberty. However, in Britain liberty was more of an understanding, and it was Thatcher who put them to words and formed an ideology and policies to suit. What opponents dislike is the side effects of those policies, but with the mainstream well and truly taken over by Thatcherite politics, there is no political language that both addresses these issues and is electable.

"If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can't pay. I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old."

A magnificent speech from the hugely underrated orator-politician Neil Kinnock (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neil_Kinnock), and the prophecies have largely been proven true as the side effects of Thatcher's policies. There's no chance of anyone giving that speech ever getting into a position of power though. That is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.

HoreTore

04-08-2013, 22:24

I don't agree with her economic policies by any means, but she was an honest politician that meant well.

Stay classy, guys. (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/220638-council-says-stay-away-from-george-square-party-for-thatcher/)

If you watched the above, you'll notice people gathering in George Square, Glasgow, to celebrate Thatcher's death - dancing, playing the bagpipes, and flying communist flags.

It's shameful, and it cements me in my refusal to identify with or participate in Scottish political life.

Completely off topic, but...

You're a scot?!?! I thought I had you nailed down as a welshman. What gives?

Papewaio

04-08-2013, 22:24

Thatcher was an interesting, strong, smart conservative.

Her time as Prime Minister was at the peak of the Cold War, massive UK privitisation, Falklands War, The Troubles and many more complex issues.

UK isn't Portugal, Italy, Greece or Spain. Part of that is the market reforms made under her stewardship.

Whilst not all her policies were popular or well received. At least she appeared to deliver them from a consistent belief system and was fairly transparent about it. Sure it wasn't a popular, mud slinging backstabbing we hold in such high regard of today's politicians. But it was a quaint time and her policies had all the transparency of a Croquet mallet to the family jewels.

HopAlongBunny

04-08-2013, 23:15

R.I.P.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-08-2013, 23:45

InsaneApache

04-09-2013, 00:48

A magnificent speech from the hugely underrated orator-politician Neil Kinnock, and the prophecies have largely been proven true as the side effects of Thatcher's policies. There's no chance of anyone giving that speech ever getting into a position of power though. That is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher.

Oh is that the guy who was opposed to the EU. Until he and his wife earned millions (our taxes BTW) and then found an epiphany as a die hard EU supporter. Traitor.

Whilst not all her policies were popular or well received. At least she appeared to deliver them from a consistent belief system and was fairly transparent about it. Sure it wasn't a popular, mud slinging backstabbing we hold in such high regard of today's politicians. But it was a quaint time and her policies had all the transparency of a Croquet mallet to the family jewels.

Election after election she increased her popular vote. Unlike Blair.

LittleGrizzly

04-09-2013, 01:35

I think she did a lot of damage, and a lot of good.

Those dancing on her grave are doing something inherently evil, rejoicing in the death of another human being. Thatcher was not a terrible person, not even remotely close.

RIP

For me it is just the same as those who celebrate the deaths of other people that they might not like.

I am not equating them but many celebrated when Saddam and Osama died.

RIP and my thoughts to her friends and family.

Major Robert Dump

04-09-2013, 02:20

I really enjoyed her in Tootsie.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2013, 05:58

RIP in peace. If Strike is right, then I hope that she may continue to milk Welsh and Scottish cows for her fellow Britons in heaven.

Kadagar_AV

04-09-2013, 08:20

FFS...

No, I won't ever congratulate her on her politics.

FFS, give some cred to one of the women up there with Cleopatra in a man's world, giving her all for what she believed in.

She has my respect and gratitude, not for doing what I want, but for doing the things she did.

Fragony

04-09-2013, 08:32

https://www.anpfoto.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=22976538&pos=0 nice, apparently the police had to mob a party in London. Thatcher was a visionary, one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century. Southern-Europe wouldn't be in this mess if the eurocrats were as smart as she was.

My favorite:"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

She was even a technical genius, unlike the unions she understood that electrical trains don't run on steam, so there was no need for a coal-shoveler. What a woman

Ronin

04-09-2013, 11:07

Greyblades

04-09-2013, 12:17

Some good things(Falklands, her speeches were pretty good), some bad things(Union busting, privatization, South africa, Milk cuts,) some grey areas(IRA), either way thatcher was human, faults and all, and should be allowed to R.I.P. without people dancing on her grave.
My favorite:"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." And the problem with capitalism is that you are hostage to the whims on the psychopathic monied few. A balance between the two is best and all she did was try to go back to hard capitalism.

She was even a technical genius, unlike the unions she understood that electrical trains don't run on steam, so there was no need for a coal-shoveler. What a womanYes, if only we hadnt at the time recently bought a fleet of new steam trains that we had to scrap before they had a chance to earn our money back. And it would have been nice to have coal to sell and maybe have something to fall back on when our financial sector had it's decadely crisis, do something with the inheritance from the workshop of the world instead of throwing it away and becoming a country completely dependant on the whims of a fragile market of bubbles and busts. Technical genius, maybe, but economic twit at best.

Fragony

04-09-2013, 14:07

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2013, 14:44

The UK has lost all the respect it had with her when she resigned.

Wasn't Britain widely hated because of the Falklands War? Don't get me wrong I completely support her stance on that, but Britain was not particularly popular under her.

She coped well with some extremely difficult political issues. She protected the Falkland Islanders, and she stoped the Troubles in Northern Ireland from escalating into something more serious than it had the potential to do. People that say she was too harsh forget that there were two sides to appease in that conflict.

I think she meant well but a lot of what she did was counterintuitive. She took a conservative stance on social issues, and yet her economic reforms damaged the traditional family and led to more divorce, abortion etc. She hated the fact that the state helped subsidise a chunk of the population by supporting their industries, yet created a situation where those same people became entirely dependent on the state. She wanted to improve council estates by letting people buy their own homes, yet that simply meant that the slightly better-off ones were able to move, leaving the estates to the poorest sort and turning them almost into ghettos.

The fact she is a divisive figure should hardly be suprising when she created much of that social division herself.

Whether the alternative of continuining along the path of Old Labour would have been any better is another matter entirely.

Lemur

04-09-2013, 16:38

http://youtu.be/aSrBO4_qPzo

Greyblades

04-09-2013, 17:07

Sure she made mistakes, but I strongly doubt you will get someone with her qualities very soon. The UK has lost all the respect it had with her when she resigned. She was quite something, I heard a bit of a flirt as well
Now that I think of it I cant think of any nation in the last 10-20 years that has had any leader on the level of her. It's like such strength has dissapeared and the capable politicians died with the colonial age.

Personally I theorise that when america "won" and became the last superpower it made everyone with both capability and determination give up on politics, without conflict, viable competition and the possibility to change the world even america has devolved into fools and fat cats.

Come back next week for another installment of "The modern world sucks and why I wish I was born in the 1800's British middle class."

Tellos Athenaios

04-09-2013, 17:49

Come back next week for another installment of "The modern world sucks and why I wish I was born in the 1800's British middle class."

Come back the week after that for "The 1800's British middle class really sucks and why I wish I stayed with the modern world".

HoreTore

04-09-2013, 19:24

http://youtu.be/aSrBO4_qPzo

Bloody tree-hugging hippie!!!

Fragony

04-09-2013, 19:32

Bloody tree-hugging hippie!!!

Some angry tongues claim it was her invention to promote nuclear energy

HoreTore

04-09-2013, 19:35

Some angry tongues claim it was her invention to promote nuclear energy

No, she was obviously a cultural marxist, hell bent to enslave the world for her NWO masters.

Greyblades

04-09-2013, 20:11

Come back the week after that for "The 1800's British middle class really sucks and why I wish I stayed with the modern world".

And the week afer that for "Oh crap! The 16th of April 2013 time machines dont send the machines with you, I'm stuck!"

drone

04-09-2013, 20:23

And the week afer that for "Oh crap! The 16th of April 2013 time machines dont send the machines with you, I'm stuck!"
The time machines go, the nuclear power source and distilled petroleum does not. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cYgRnfFDA)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-09-2013, 23:14

Wasn't Britain widely hated because of the Falklands War? Don't get me wrong I completely support her stance on that, but Britain was not particularly popular under her.

She coped well with some extremely difficult political issues. She protected the Falkland Islanders, and she stoped the Troubles in Northern Ireland from escalating into something more serious than it had the potential to do. People that say she was too harsh forget that there were two sides to appease in that conflict.

I think she meant well but a lot of what she did was counterintuitive. She took a conservative stance on social issues, and yet her economic reforms damaged the traditional family and led to more divorce, abortion etc. She hated the fact that the state helped subsidise a chunk of the population by supporting their industries, yet created a situation where those same people became entirely dependent on the state. She wanted to improve council estates by letting people buy their own homes, yet that simply meant that the slightly better-off ones were able to move, leaving the estates to the poorest sort and turning them almost into ghettos.

The fact she is a divisive figure should hardly be suprising when she created much of that social division herself.

Whether the alternative of continuining along the path of Old Labour would have been any better is another matter entirely.

I think this is a fair analysis.

Here's a good one from the Beeb regarding Liverpool: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-22073199

Key point: Thatcher didn't "hate" Northerners, some of her cabinet didn't care about them, but she didn't have any answers either.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2013, 00:25

Very few of the great leaders of that era remain. Thatcher has joined, John Paul Magnus, Reagan, Mitterand, Honeker, and Xiaoping among the majority. Kohl is a shell of a man, awaiting his turn. Only Gorbachev -- the "loser" of the Cold War -- is alive and well, sometimes speaking on the self-help circuit or on behalf of his wife's charity foundation.

I remember when these names encompassed all of our hopes and fears. What an era.

Of course, the '80s also gave us Duran-Duran, the Stray Cats, and Yuppies who managed to convince themselves that concaine was not addictive. So perhaps I am waxing eloquent about another era that was no more nor less than another era.

a completely inoffensive name

04-10-2013, 01:26

The 80s were the worst decade of the second half of the Twentieth Century.

Lemur

04-10-2013, 01:31

Of course, the '80s also gave us [...]
Parachute pants. And Maggie Thatcher. What else do you need to know?

https://i.imgur.com/mo2kdub.jpg?1

Fragony

04-10-2013, 07:22

No, she was obviously a cultural marxist, hell bent to enslave the world for her NWO masters.

Oh shoo hornboy it wasn't me who did

drone

04-10-2013, 14:57

The 80s were the worst decade of the second half of the Twentieth Century.

You are obviously too young to remember the 70s.

InsaneApache

04-10-2013, 15:46

You are obviously too young to remember the 70s.

Got it in one. The '70s were bloody awful in every way. Except for Punk Rock.

Fisherking

04-10-2013, 18:22

Got it in one. The '70s were bloody awful in every way. Except for Punk Rock.

I didn’t care for punk rock all that much either. I was more into New Riders of the Purple Sage (Panama Red, etc.) ,the Eagles and Al Stewart. Tolerating the 70s had a lot to do with mood altering substances.

HopAlongBunny

04-10-2013, 18:37

Tolerating the 70s had a lot to do with mood altering substances.

So, it wasn't all bad...

johnhughthom

04-10-2013, 18:45

Wait a minute, are you oldies saying my generation didn't invent drugs?

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2013, 18:48

Wait a minute, are you oldies saying my generation didn't invent drugs?

Correct. Nor was your generation the first to discover sex. Horrifying, I am sure.

InsaneApache

04-10-2013, 19:29

Correct. Nor was your generation the first to discover sex. Horrifying, I am sure.

Ah the nippers. They think they invented everything. As I did when I was a teen. A long long time ago, I can still remember all the things they used to say....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2013, 19:37

Ah the nippers. They think they invented everything. As I did when I was a teen. A long long time ago, I can still remember all the things they used to say....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsV5-Hv-7U

1972. Nixon re-elected despite plumber problems at the Watergate. Muskie's melting snowflakes. Wallace shot. It was a year....

InsaneApache

04-10-2013, 19:40

Nowt really changes mate. Different faces same cretins.

Furunculus

04-10-2013, 19:47

a few facts:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-thatcher-myths/

Idaho

04-11-2013, 12:06

She was a hypocrite and a tyrant. She claimed to roll back the state while increasing state spending massively. She claimed to be about personal freedom but created laws that gave the police sweeping powers of arrest and detention and targeted people who were not like her . She claimed to be free market but manipulated the economy to create the huge banking industry that has bankrupted us and made her husband and his clique fantastically wealthy.

InsaneApache

04-11-2013, 12:10

Perhaps. But if the alternative was Foot or Kinnock then no contest.

Idaho

04-11-2013, 12:42

You'll not find me defending any UK politicians.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-11-2013, 14:58

You'll not find me defending any UK politicians.

Or standing against them, which makes you morally bankrupt.

You want to rage, fine, but then go do something about it.

Idaho

04-11-2013, 15:28

Or standing against them, which makes you morally bankrupt.

You want to rage, fine, but then go do something about it.

You what? You are saying that it is morally bankrupt to hold politicians in contempt?

InsaneApache

04-11-2013, 15:50

You what? You are saying that it is morally bankrupt to hold politicians in contempt?

I must be the moral equivalent of Cyprus then. :laugh4:

lars573

04-11-2013, 18:48

You what? You are saying that it is morally bankrupt to hold politicians in contempt?
To me it sounds like he means holding politicians in contempt and not striving to change it makes you, part of the problem, compounding the problem, or just as bad. Take your pick.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2013, 20:26

Or standing against them, which makes you morally bankrupt.

You want to rage, fine, but then go do something about it.

PVC:

I am not sure if Idaho has been out at rallys or petitioned his MP to complain; nor do he and I view things eye-to-eye on most political issues.

Over the years on this forum, though, he has been pretty consistent in his disdain for virtually all of Britain's political leadership. I'll credit him with consistency.

Papewaio

04-11-2013, 21:51

You what? You are saying that it is morally bankrupt to hold politicians in contempt?

You can't win, because if you put politicians on a pedestal I will call you intellectually challenged or a Tory... Which is possibly redundant. ~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-11-2013, 23:42

You what? You are saying that it is morally bankrupt to hold politicians in contempt?

Tell you what - if you run for parliament in the next election I'll vote for you (for those who don't know, Idaho and I live in the same constituency).

My point is - you complain but you also absent yourself from the whole political process, which makes your opinion redundant.

We get the politicians we deserve - you don't like anyone who gets elected, but you don't even vote for the ones who don't get elected. So you're a part of the problem, if not actually emblematic of it.

Montmorency

04-11-2013, 23:56

We get the politicians we deserve - you don't like anyone who gets elected, but you don't even vote for the ones who don't get elected. So you're a part of the problem, So you're a part of the problem, if not actually emblematic of it.

This is just an excuse used by those who haven't actually made a substantial contribution to solving any problems. :smug:

Idaho

04-12-2013, 10:29

Tell you what - if you run for parliament in the next election I'll vote for you (for those who don't know, Idaho and I live in the same constituency).

My point is - you complain but you also absent yourself from the whole political process, which makes your opinion redundant.

We get the politicians we deserve - you don't like anyone who gets elected, but you don't even vote for the ones who don't get elected. So you're a part of the problem, if not actually emblematic of it.

Really?

In order to complain I must put up a few thousand pounds as a deposit (which I will lose) and campaign as an independent (of which only two or three very high profile and wealthy people out of thousands have won in recent years).

Presumably after I have gone through that expensive and tiresome charade, I am finally allowed to say it's a sh###y system? Or will you just say that the public have clearly rejected my views so therefore I was wrong all along?

Husar

04-12-2013, 11:41

Nobody gets the politicians they deserve.

Everybody does, because they voted for them. And if you voted for someone else you still get the guy you deserve because you failed to convince your peers to vote for your guy. If you just cannot be bothered to inform yourself or campaign for your guy because you work 20 hours every day, then you still get what you deserve because you failed to lead the socialist revolution against your slave masters.

Your post completely contradicts the American spirit of personal responsibility and being the master of your own fate.

Idaho

04-12-2013, 12:30

The UK's delightful right-wing press are now on a campaign to "out" anyone who is celebrating the death of Thatcher. Posting up pictures and names and calling for them to lose their jobs.

Meanwhile the politicians line up to be sychophantic, so as to not provide any sharp edges that the media might cut themselves on.

This article sums it up the best:
You can't just shut us up now Thatcher is dead (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html)

Before long came the complaints, such as Tony Blair saying: “Even if you disagree with someone very strongly, at the moment of their passing you should show some respect.” Presumably then, when Bin Laden was killed, Blair’s statement was: “Although I didn’t agree with Osama’s policies, he was a conviction terrorist, a colourful character whose short films were not only fun but educational as well. He will be sadly missed.”

Greyblades

04-12-2013, 15:31

Its reasonable to give her the respect the dead deserve, that the UK media are going overboard is to be expected at this point.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-12-2013, 18:15

I have always been in favor of a period of courtesy towards the deceased, primarily for the benefit of their families during mourning. I believe that such a courtesy should be enforced by social pressure/sense of good manners on the part of the individual.

However, in a society that honors the freedom of speech, the choice to adopt restraint must be a choice.

The Lurker Below

04-12-2013, 22:27

RIP

and thanks for being so that there was another excuse for Meryl Streep to show off her wonderful talent

LittleGrizzly

04-12-2013, 23:38

Blair’s statement was: “Although I didn’t agree with Osama’s policies, he was a conviction terrorist, a colourful character whose short films were not only fun but educational as well. He will be sadly missed.”

This was my point with a post a page or two back.

I don't celebrate people's death's. As I view human life as precious so a death is a tragedy regardless of the person (killing in the defence of others is a bit different)

So the arguments about everybody is somebody's son/daughter/mother ect. ring true to me. I don't think you can criticise people for celebrating the death of someone they hated when you are also willing to celebrate the deaths of people you hated. All it is then is a sliding scale of acceptability for celebrating people's death's...

Which does get a little tricky. For example somebody who could trace a suicide in their immediate family to Thatcher's policies would have much more cause to celebrate her death than some American who doesn't know a single victim of the twin towers or military service victim from Afghanistan has to celebrate Osama's death.

Sorry for the all italics happened with the bit I copy pasted and I couldn't be bothered to change it back.

Beskar

04-13-2013, 03:12

One thing to come from Maggie Thatcher's Era was the political comedy. Yes, Minister, The New Statements, Only Fools and Horses, The Young Ones, it was the hightide of comedy.

Fragony

04-13-2013, 07:57

RIP

and thanks for being so that there was another excuse for Meryl Streep to show off her wonderful talent

Meryl Streep is absolutely awesome in that movie. She is always great but here she is simply magnificant. Best performance of playing someone real since Hellen Mirren did 'The Queen'. I totally bought how she played her character, she must have studied even the tiniest detail.

a completely inoffensive name

04-13-2013, 08:58

Everybody does, because they voted for them. And if you voted for someone else you still get the guy you deserve because you failed to convince your peers to vote for your guy. If you just cannot be bothered to inform yourself or campaign for your guy because you work 20 hours every day, then you still get what you deserve because you failed to lead the socialist revolution against your slave masters.

Your post completely contradicts the American spirit of personal responsibility and being the master of your own fate.

You know nothing about the American spirit. Why must you make me blush with embarrassment for you on a Friday night?

Husar

04-13-2013, 10:07

You know nothing about the American spirit. Why must you make me blush with embarrassment for you on a Friday night?

If I know nothing about it then you and your peers are doing a very, very poor job of communicating it!
Your fellow American GC just said I'm right by the way, so who of you two knows more about it now?

a completely inoffensive name

04-13-2013, 10:12

If I know nothing about it then you and your peers are doing a very, very poor job of communicating it!
Your fellow American GC just said I'm right by the way, so who of you two knows more about it now?

There is no American spirit. That's why you know nothing about it and neither does GC. It does not exist.

People once thought the American spirit was freedom from British tyranny. Later on it was Manifest Destiny and Americana from sea to sea. Now it's extreme individualism to the point of absurdity. It's all lies.

Sarmatian

04-13-2013, 10:21

There is no American spirit. That's why you know nothing about it and neither does GC. It does not exist.

People once thought the American spirit was freedom from British tyranny. Later on it was Manifest Destiny and Americana from sea to sea. Now it's extreme individualism to the point of absurdity. It's all lies.

That's not true. There are American spirits, but European spirits are generally much better. Also, European beers and wines are better than American.

InsaneApache

04-13-2013, 10:43

I like Polish pure spirit. In small doses it has to be said.

http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-5129.aspx

Beskar

04-13-2013, 15:33

That's not true. There are American spirits, but European spirits are generally much better. Also, European beers and wines are better than American.

That is actually changing. USA is now producing some fine beers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21541887

Seamus Fermanagh

04-13-2013, 16:51

That is actually changing. USA is now producing some fine beers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21541887

Indeed, and also with wines, at least if the Wine Spectator is to be credited. More than 15% of the top 100 are USA product, including their 2012 #1. They seem to show a bit of a preference for Oregon over California in their choices. Europe is still more heavily represented both per capita and by ranking versus product output than is any other continent, but good vinos are no longer Euro-only.

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2013, 17:10

EDIT: On topic - For those who say that public celebrations of Thatcher's death, or the broadcasting of songs mocking Thatcher's death on public radio are part of free expression - what is your take on the Westboro Baptist Church and their funeral protests?

Meryl Streep is absolutely awesome in that movie. She is always great but here she is simply magnificant. Best performance of playing someone real since Hellen Mirren did 'The Queen'. I totally bought how she played her character, she must have studied even the tiniest detail.

I half-watched that film because it was showing on a ferry, and it was atrocious. The acting was so overdone it felt like a comedy. As if every decision in Thatcher's career was somehow an emotional reaction to whatever nostalgic flashback the issue brought up. Don't get me wrong, Meryl Streep can be a good actor in films that have a political message - Silkwood for example, despite the fact that it contained Cher.

But this was not her finest hour. :no:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-13-2013, 17:26

Rhyf:

About the same, with one caveat.

The WBC has the right to make public protests and statements at public events and in the public forum. The fact that I find their message loathsome and their lack of manner repulsive does not preclude or curtail this right.

However, some of those protest efforts were at PRIVATE funeral events of which to public was notified but to which the public were not invited. As such, those events would not constitute a public forum for expression requiring the WBC to be protected.

Moreover, the etiquette has been that protests involving the use of public domain (streets etc.) can be halted by the authorities if the protestors have failed to secure the appropriate permits to use that public domain in advance AND if the protest is curtailing other indivdual's use of that public domain. The WBC was quite haphazard about securing appropriate permission and annoying about getting in other -- equally within thier "rights" -- persons.

To date, they have NOT run afoul of the law for their insipid and offensive message -- just afoul of public opinion. They have had some legal snafus over the failure to secure permits and in blocking other people's equally permissable use of public domain.

Husar

04-13-2013, 18:22

Sarmatian

04-13-2013, 18:33

That is actually changing. USA is now producing some fine beers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21541887

Bollox. Been there, tasted that, don't want to ever again. Ah, sweet nectar of Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Bohemia how thy taste lingers still.

But,being a Brit, your basis for comparison is inadequate at best, so I'll let you off this once.

Indeed, and also with wines, at least if the Wine Spectator is to be credited. More than 15% of the top 100 are USA product, including their 2012 #1. They seem to show a bit of a preference for Oregon over California in their choices. Europe is still more heavily represented both per capita and by ranking versus product output than is any other continent, but good vinos are no longer Euro-only.

Paid reviews.

On a serious note, it's easier to make quality wines than quality beers. Any country with a half-decent climate produces some high end brands. It's more of a question how much can actually be produced than know-how.

InsaneApache

04-13-2013, 19:38

But,being a Brit, your basis for comparison is inadequate at best, so I'll let you off this once.

You are joking right? Chastising a 'Brit' over his taste in beers. :rolleyes:

Sarmatian

04-13-2013, 20:02

You are joking right? Chastising a 'Brit' over his taste in beers. :rolleyes:

Of course ;). I believed it clear that the post was mostly humorous in nature. Most of the things I say shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2013, 20:56

Rhyf:

About the same, with one caveat [WBC picketing of PRIVATE funerals].

That's fair enough, I can't say you are inconsistent.

I just think our balance is a bit off sometimes. Free speech is one of many rights. I don't think it was ever intended for some of the uses it has taken on nowadays. For me, to hold public celebrations of a fellow citizens death is not acceptable while her family is grieving.

Montmorency

04-13-2013, 21:06

Why should states waste time and resources going after provocateurs just because people like you take offense?

Now, states should expend time and resources working out designs of new brains which can function from a fixed or inputted motivation, and moreover lack the capacity to take offense at all, let alone as a motivational correlate.

Of course, in the state which I envision "free speech" would be the concern of no one... :mellow:

Rhyfelwyr

04-13-2013, 21:28

Why should states waste time and resources going after provocateurs just because people like you take offense?

If stopping public celebrations mocking the dead in the face of their grieving families is not a good use of the state's time and resources, I'm not sure what is. What could they be doing instead... giving people parking tickets?

Greyblades

04-13-2013, 21:30

Not messing up the country...

Kralizec

04-13-2013, 22:06

R.I.P.

My personal opinion about her is somewhere in the middle. While I knew before that Thatcher's policies and legacy was controversial, I must say I'm surprised at some of the venomous reactions. That Independent article somebody posted is a good example; basicly it said that "speak no ill of the dead" shouldn't apply to Thatcher any more than to Osama Bin Laden.

I'm hard pressed to think of other examples of deceased democratic leaders receiving such a treatment. One example might be Craxi, a former Italian PM - but that was more understandable, since he left his office in disgrace a decade earlier in a corruption scandal that was massive even by Italian standards. He died in exile, having been convicted in absentia with a very long jail sentence.

HopAlongBunny

04-13-2013, 23:17

Getting wound up about Maggie is to focus on the trunk of the elephant. She got to where she was and was able to do the things she did because of the urging and consent of a large number of people...that's how politics works. To deify or demonize her is to miss the point.

InsaneApache

04-14-2013, 02:12

The left hate her because she was right. Not right wing, just right.

Greyblades

04-14-2013, 05:58

Nah the left hate her because while right in a lot of cases she went too far unnecessarily.

Fragony

04-14-2013, 07:42

Nah the left hate her because while right in a lot of cases she went too far unnecessarily.

Nah. Hell hath no fury like a leftist being proven wrong. Or having doubted their superiority of course

Latest news, another grave-dancing party comming up, 2500 expected to show up to show how compassionate and social they are.

Lefties.

Husar

04-14-2013, 09:45

The left hate her because she was right. Not right wing, just right.

Nah. Hell hath no fury like a leftist being proven wrong. Or having doubted their superiority of course

Latest news, another grave-dancing party comming up, 2500 expected to show up to show how compassionate and social they are.

Lefties.

Do you two have anything to add but platitudes or can we just ignore you?

Also once you stop looking at the trunk of the elephant, you may notice that it's very fat.
I don't know a whole lot about Thatcher but I can tell that privatizing too much is usually not a good idea IMO, which will be noticeable once all the cost-cutting and profit-maximizing in vital services starts. Or you have to put tons of legal requirements in place to lock the privatized services in a postition where they have to offer decent services.

Fragony

04-14-2013, 09:48

or can we just ignore you?

Well I can't do anything about it if you do

InsaneApache

04-14-2013, 13:16

Do you two have anything to add but platitudes or can we just ignore you?

Also once you stop looking at the trunk of the elephant, you may notice that it's very fat.
I don't know a whole lot about Thatcher but I can tell that privatizing too much is usually not a good idea IMO, which will be noticeable once all the cost-cutting and profit-maximizing in vital services starts. Or you have to put tons of legal requirements in place to lock the privatized services in a postition where they have to offer decent services.

OK I'll bite.

I have personal experience of the UK before and after Thatcher. We were a basket case before she came to power and going downhill fast. If she hadn't implemented the reforms she did, then we'd be like Greece is now. I didn't agree with everything she did, poll tax anyone? But, by and large the course she took was the right one.

After all, we'd tried the consensus/socialist route since 1945.

That better? :smug:

From the Adam Smith Institute....

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/owen-jones-and-the-real-story-of-the-last-35-years

Fragony

04-14-2013, 14:50

OK I'll bite.

I have personal experience of the UK before and after Thatcher. We were a basket case before she came to power and going downhill fast. If she hadn't implemented the reforms she did, then we'd be like Greece is now. I didn't agree with everything she did, poll tax anyone? But, by and large the course she took was the right one.

After all, we'd tried the consensus/socialist route since 1945.

That better? :smug:

From the Adam Smith Institute....

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/owen-jones-and-the-real-story-of-the-last-35-years

Indeed. Sure she made mistakes, human beings make mistakes. But I couldn't think of better 'man on the job'. History will probably treat her much more kindly in retrospect considering the challenges she faced. Falklands war was a mistake imho, could have just given it up and just hand it over without any bloodshed, an otherwise very pragmatic leader kinda screwed up there. But breaking the back of the unions just had to be done as they were just being unreasonable and the UK would be in the same territory as the garlic-countries but with less good food and sunny days.

She deserves a lot more respect than people celebrating her death, soooo tasteless to do that didn't mommy and daddy teach those that do so any manners

Edit, I don't know anyone noticed but she was also kinda cheeky, it's in her eyes, a quality I apreciate. Baaaaad boy needs spanking. I am pretty sure she was a riot to have a drink with. I can't help finding her really sympathatic really

The Lurker Below

04-14-2013, 15:43

Pardon me for this but am jumping back to the off topic discuss on page 3 re: American Spirit.

I can't define the American Spirit in words but I've seen it. It was at Wal-Mart at 10pm on November 22.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-14-2013, 17:22

That's fair enough, I can't say you are inconsistent.

I just think our balance is a bit off sometimes. Free speech is one of many rights. I don't think it was ever intended for some of the uses it has taken on nowadays. For me, to hold public celebrations of a fellow citizens death is not acceptable while her family is grieving.

I agree. Freedom of Speech was never meant to be "Freedom from any and all consequences stemming from what I said."

HopAlongBunny

04-14-2013, 18:07

Do you two have anything to add but platitudes or can we just ignore you?

Also once you stop looking at the trunk of the elephant, you may notice that it's very fat.
I don't know a whole lot about Thatcher but I can tell that privatizing too much is usually not a good idea IMO, which will be noticeable once all the cost-cutting and profit-maximizing in vital services starts. Or you have to put tons of legal requirements in place to lock the privatized services in a postition where they have to offer decent services.

But the difference (that makes all the difference) is now someone makes a profit. The service might suck, maintenance might be delayed (or non-existent) but now some people make money, and if its an essential service they make a lot of money. It might turn out, that in order to get the level of service needed the service has to be regulated to death; which might explain why it was a public asset in the first place; but for a brief shining moment the market reigned supreme and some people made a butt-load of dough. Democracy sometimes forgets that, at times, we do need to be protected from ourselves and our "friends".

Idaho

04-14-2013, 19:40

InsaneApache

04-14-2013, 19:57

The economic growth was mainly due to North Sea gas.

You've been reading Ken Livingstone havn't you?

Guess what?

He's wrong. Again.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/red-ken-maggie-and-the-north-sea-oil-money

A quick read of that (or an ignorance of economics of course) would lead you to think that it was 16% of GDP each year. When of course it wasn't: it was 16% of one year of GDP spread over the 11 years of her term. Or 1.5% or so of GDP in any one year.

Fragony

04-14-2013, 20:13

You've been reading Ken Livingstone havn't you?

Guess what?

He's wrong. Again.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/red-ken-maggie-and-the-north-sea-oil-money

I wouldn't know. I fondly remember her because she saw why the european union was a bad idea from the start. There now is Farrage for pointing out the obvious, I understand why Thatcher is hated even more furiously.

Kadagar_AV

04-14-2013, 20:55

"The problem with political jokes is that they get elected."

a completely inoffensive name

04-15-2013, 01:16

What the hell, is this true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

I just heard about this, since I never knew the circumstances that led to Thatcher being elected in the first place.

"Other alternatives were considered, including keeping the bodies in heat-sealed bags for up to six weeks, allowing the bereaved to dig their own graves, deploying troops, and engaging private contractors to inter the bodies."
The gravediggers went on strike?!?! Who fucking does that? My sympathy to the unions is lacking at the moment and I think I understand why Thatcher did what she did.

InsaneApache

04-15-2013, 01:42

What the hell, is this true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

I just heard about this, since I never knew the circumstances that led to Thatcher being elected in the first place.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
The gravediggers went on strike?!?! Who fucking does that? My sympathy to the unions is lacking at the moment and I think I understand why Thatcher did what she did.

It wasn't just the gravediggers. Refuse was uncollected. Hospitals had no sheets for patients beds due to laundry workers striking. The buses didn't run. HGVs went on strike so no collections, no deliveries. Bakers walked out, so no bread. Many, many more examples.

I tried to work in that era but it was well nigh impossible. I had to walk 3 miles to work and 3 miles back again and once the stores had been used up, (I made clutch plates back then) we were laid off, as we couldn't get materials in or out. Eventually the firm collapsed and we were all made redundant. I'll never forget the bosses face when he told us, he was close to tears.

Labour for the working classes? No, nothing but scum.

Greyblades

04-15-2013, 07:10

Labour for the working classes? No, nothing but scum.

Good to see people acknowledging labour is exactly like every other political party.

InsaneApache

04-15-2013, 08:33

Good to see people acknowledging labour is exactly like every other political party.

I've been saying it for years. :wink:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-15-2013, 13:00

Nah the left hate her because while right in a lot of cases she went too far unnecessarily.

You should read up on it - the problem wasn't that she went too far at all, it's that she failed to have a follow-through plan to get the North up and running again.

InsaneApache

04-15-2013, 13:09

You should read up on it - the problem wasn't that she went too far at all, it's that she failed to have a follow-through plan to get the North up and running again.

You mean like Wilson didn't even though he closed far more mines than Hilda?

Greyblades

04-15-2013, 14:18

You should read up on it - the problem wasn't that she went too far at all, it's that she failed to have a follow-through plan to get the North up and running again.

#sigh# see my rant on the sheeple thread for how I regard shortsighted organisational stupidity. I'm too depressed to repeat it here.

Beskar

04-15-2013, 15:03

I do like this election poster of Maggie Thatcher's government.

https://i.imgur.com/N1tUR6u.jpg

The pun on the government and social reality of the time.

Idaho

04-16-2013, 12:34

I do like this election poster of Maggie Thatcher's government.

https://i.imgur.com/N1tUR6u.jpg

The pun on the government and social reality of the time.
The bitter irony being that under her unemployment went from 1m to 4m.

Beskar

04-16-2013, 14:56

The bitter irony being that under her unemployment went from 1m to 4m.

:laugh4: It does paint a picture that she was advertising the dole for the labour force in that context.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-21-2013, 13:00

InsaneApache

04-21-2013, 14:11

Not surprised at all.

Idaho

04-21-2013, 19:53

Anybody seen this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10005253/Margaret-Thatcher-protest-ring-leader-cashed-in-on-right-to-buy-scheme.html

One of the organisers of the Thatcher death-protests (or celebrations) used Right to Buy to make a tidy profit on her Council House after four years.
Could that not be indicative of the corrupting nature of her reforms? That they made being selfish, hypocritical and greedy and fact of life?

Fragony

04-21-2013, 20:06

Could that not be indicative of the corrupting nature of her reforms? That they made being selfish, hypocritical and greedy and fact of life?

Wasn't she being oh so incompassiate, how can you rape the very nature of compassion by celebrating a personal tragedy

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-23-2013, 22:04

Could that not be indicative of the corrupting nature of her reforms? That they made being selfish, hypocritical and greedy and fact of life?

Allowing people to own shares or buy houses is corrupt?

I think not.

This is indicative of the kind of person who now demonises here - there are plenty of people (particularly Labour politicians of the Old Guard such as Michael Foot and Hilary Benn who respected her and disagreed with her) but the people celebrating her death are from the generation that benefited from the country not being a basket case.

Greyblades

04-23-2013, 22:17

I think I need the cliff notes for thatcher.

LittleGrizzly

04-24-2013, 01:47

I saw a member of some trade union celebrating with a cigar talking about how it was a double celebration because it wasn't his birthday, there certainly were a fair few people who were around in here days celebrating.

I bet many celebrated at home.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-24-2013, 09:47

I think I need the cliff notes for thatcher.

Some good - some bad.

On the one hand, Thatcher broke down the restrictive post-war society that was still largely class-based and made a dent in the Old Boy's Club, but she did it by preaching individualism and self interest as a motivation. That's not to say that she said everyone should be out for themselves, but she didn't try to rein that sentiment in, either.

The "Big Bang" of stock market de-regularisation is is part of how we ended up in the current mess.

On the other hand, Thatcher came to power at a time when successive governments had failed to regulate the Trade Unions and they had become tantamount to the personal fiefdoms of certain radicals on the left, including Communists. As IA has said, you couldn't work in this era.

Certain people hate Thatcher because she destroyed the post-war consensus certain people hate her because she amputated necrotic industry that had survived on State Aid and certain people hate her because she allowed a few people to get fabulously rich in a less than ethical way.

On the other hand - before she came to power we were an economic basket case,, we needed an IMF bailout (first Western Country ever) and the grave diggers tended to strike.

InsaneApache

04-24-2013, 13:23

The "Big Bang" of stock market de-regularisation is is part of how we ended up in the current mess.

Nope.

Brennus

04-24-2013, 17:22

Bring back Pitt the Younger!

johnhughthom

04-24-2013, 17:26

Lord Palmerston!

drone

04-24-2013, 19:54

Lord Palmerston!

PITT THE ELDER!

Seamus Fermanagh

04-24-2013, 23:12

How come nobody ever calls for Lord North to have another go?

Greyblades

04-25-2013, 03:03

Because Britons have long lost the ability to recognise competence.

Brennus

04-25-2013, 07:02

Because Britons have long lost the ability to recognise competence.

What's this competence you speak of? Is he the new England manager?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-25-2013, 11:53

Because Britons have long lost the ability to recognise competence.

Erm...

Lord North is probably responsible for us not ruling the world.

Greyblades

04-25-2013, 13:46

I know nothing of lord North, yet he was still more competent that our current crop. It should be noted I say that not because I have a great faith in his competence, but great faith in the current rank's incompetence.

Edit: now that I have looked up who lord north is, because I didnt learn it in school (thank you very much current educational squeamishness for anything between 1700 and 1960, bunch of super-politically-correct twits), I can say with utter certainty while he may have been the fool who lost the Americas he is still better than Cameron, milliband, clegg and farage's respective scourges because for all his faults he didn't get so bad that even Scotland wanted to leave.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-25-2013, 16:52

Greyblades

04-25-2013, 18:25

And this is me on happy pills. I have never known a good government in my entire life and the current prospectives make me want screaming Lord Sutch. Even the lib dems, the party you vote for to express your displeasure with the actual parties are not worth bothering with.

InsaneApache

04-26-2013, 02:37

Even the lib dems, the party you vote for to express your displeasure with the actual parties are not worth bothering with.

I told you so before the last election.

UKIP for me next time. We need to extricate ourselves from the disaster that used to be called the EU.

LittleGrizzly

04-26-2013, 02:41

Even the lib dems, the party you vote for to express your displeasure with the actual parties are not worth bothering with.

Isn't that the truth, I usually vote the Lib Dems and watching them jump into bed with the conservatives is probably the complete opposite of what I want...

I cannot, at the very least, vote for them in the next election.

Unfortunately I have never seen a green party candidate for selection...

That leaves me with Plaid Cymru (I would rather eat my hand) UKIP (I would rather eat my arm) The Tory's (chop me up and serve me) some terrible independent candidates who probably disagree with my views completely (but mean well) and I guess that just leaves Labour, not exactly passionate about them either.

With my seat being such a safe Labour seat I really do wonder if it is even worth the bother...

It does remind me of a funny line from the Vicar of Dibley where her ditsy blonde assistant says she went into the booth and didn't know who to vote for so she put a big X next to the conservative one to make sure he didn't get in.

Sir Moody

04-26-2013, 13:08

welcome to my world Grzzly

I have been a long time Liberal Democrat voter but the "limelight" has really washed out their Liberal image - couple that with me living in a completely safe Conservative seat (I think it has been over 2 decades since someone else won it) and I honestly cant be bothered to vote anymore...

Even if I did want to vote I dislike Labour as much as the Conservatives, the Greens scare me with their over the top environmental policies, UKIP worries me with their isolationist policies and I don't know anything about any of the Independents because they don't bother to tell me about themselves (probably because they know they will lose)

yay Democracy...

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2013, 13:28

I do not vote or engage with the political process because the underlying social conditions mean we have a situation where our politics expresses social conflict rather than consensus.

inb4 edgy guy posting on the internet.

InsaneApache

04-26-2013, 13:58

Where on earth do you get isolationist policies from?

Also why on earth would you wish to remain shackled to that twitching corpse called the EU?

UKIP have been proven right.

LibLabCon proven wrong.

We need to be masters of our own destiny on the global stage. Unless you think we British aren't capable of standing alone?

Sir Moody

04-26-2013, 15:21

erm because most of our trade is currently with that "twitching corpse" and the UKIP's "solution" is to simply stick our fingers up at Europe and then hope they are willing to renegotiate individual trade treaties - yeah that's is really going to work...

as for going it alone - we havent done that since the turn of last century - do you REALLY think we could do it now?

Beskar

04-26-2013, 15:24

We need to be masters of our own destiny on the global stage. Unless you think we British aren't capable of standing alone?

The world is getting smaller, especially geopolitically with advances in communication and transportation and the interweaving web of economics and resources. Unification is the way forward to bring the best results for the people instead of imaginary lines drawn in the sand dividing people.

InsaneApache

04-26-2013, 16:23

erm because most of our trade is currently with that "twitching corpse"

You mean the dishonest way that our trade with the world is calculated as trade with the EU? I'm sure you're not that naive or ignorant.

UKIP's "solution" is to simply stick our fingers up at Europe

UKIP loves Europe. Just not the EU. Another thing, they, the EU, need us as trade partners much, much more than we need them.

Aren't you sick and tired of wasting your vote for a provincial parliament of the EU? We can't even throw out terrorists and criminals because of our 'requirement' to be part of the ECHR, which in turn is a requirement of membership of the EU. Or maybe you think that's a good place to be?

as for going it alone - we havent done that since the turn of last century - do you REALLY think we could do it now?

Yes. It was in the '70s BTW. That's the 1970s, not the 1870s. :smug:

Another thing. The 'template' of stealing peoples savings to pay for the bailouts will be rolled out across the EU. Unless your happy with poor people supporting rich bankers and politicians, ask yourself this; do I want to be a part of that or do I want to oppose that? Don't think it will happen?

I didn't, in my lifetime, expect to see Greeks starving in their capital city in the second decade of the 21st century.

No, we've tried it the swivel eyed, little europhile way and look where that's got us.

The world is getting smaller, especially geopolitically with advances in communication and transportation and the interweaving web of economics and resources. Unification is the way forward to bring the best results for the people instead of imaginary lines drawn in the sand dividing people.

Except no one wants unification of Europe. No one that is apart from loons, fruitcakes and closet Marxists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/european-dream-badly-need-reality-check

When the Gruniad is advocating the same thing that I do, then be sure that an elephantine matriarch is about to exercise her tonsils.

Sir Moody

04-26-2013, 17:06

You mean the dishonest way that our trade with the world is calculated as trade with the EU? I'm sure you're not that naive or ignorant.

prove me wrong then - last time I looked 60% of our exports go to countries in the EU and 50% of our imports come from EU countries - if you can provide up to date figure from a reliable source that prove this to be wrong then go ahead - link them

UKIP loves Europe. Just not the EU. Another thing, they, the EU, need us as trade partners much, much more than we need them.

for a group who "loves Europe" the seem to blame them for just about everything that goes wrong...

Aren't you sick and tired of wasting your vote for a provincial parliament of the EU? We can't even throw out terrorists and criminals because of our 'requirement' to be part of the ECHR, which in turn is a requirement of membership of the EU. Or maybe you think that's a good place to be?

you take the good with the bad - I am quite happy to have rights beyond those granted by my Government and a Court which can "weigh in" to stop our Government from restricting my rights simply because it can - if that means accepting that we cant always get what we want and remove people simply because we say we want to then so be it - I don't always agree with the EU - it has made its fair share of stupid decisions (just like our Government) - but the safety net it provides is worth it (at least right now - future decisions could change that...)

Yes. It was in the '70s BTW. That's the 1970s, not the 1870s. :smug:

pffff you are willfully ignoring the fact that we haven't taken a political stance without allies since the First World War- sometimes that is the US, sometimes it is the EU, sometimes it is the UN etc etc - we haven't done anything alone in a long long time - leaving the EU would alienate a large proportion of those allies we like to lean on (although it may be worth it to stick it to the French...)

Another thing. The 'template' of stealing peoples savings to pay for the bailouts will be rolled out across the EU. Unless your happy with poor people supporting rich bankers and politicians, ask yourself this; do I want to be a part of that or do I want to oppose that? Don't think it will happen?

When it does save my spot on the picket lines - it hasn't happened yet and may not - and you think OUR government is any better? we bailed our own banks with public money remember...

I didn't, in my lifetime, expect to see Greeks starving in their capital city in the second decade of the 21st century.

how is us leaving the Eu going to help the Greeks?

No, we've tried it the swivel eyed, little europhile way and look where that's got us.

Except we never REALLY have - we have always tried to be the "Special" EU country - we demand we get all the benefits and still be treated "differently" from everyone else - we basically took our hands off the tiller and now are surprised the German/French alliance has built a wall between the EU and us and treats us like spoiled kids

At this moment the only way I could support leaving the EU was if the EU demanded we join the Euro... but feel free to try and persuade me UKIP have it right :2thumbsup:

Greyblades

04-26-2013, 17:37

Also why on earth would you wish to remain shackled to that twitching corpse called the EU?
Because it makes us alot more money inside than out, money we are in desperate need for.
We should be carefully trimming the power they have over us, removing the european court's authority over the house of lords, get accountability for those in the european parliament or denounce it's power over us altogether. Ukip wants to take an axe to the whole thing and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need to be masters of our own destiny on the global stage. Unless you think we British aren't capable of standing alone?

We're still run by the same breed of idiots who granted independance to the entire empire instead of giving equal rights, we are having trouble keeping scotland. Scotland! The only nation who joined us by choice want out! Right now we are barely standing with all the supports the european union give us, we couldnt so much as sit up on our own now.

InsaneApache

04-26-2013, 19:01

prove me wrong then - last time I looked 60% of our exports go to countries in the EU

Even at the time, his statistics were questionable. Many British-made goods are routed via Antwerp and Rotterdam to overseas markets. They thus show up in the raw figures as exports to the EU, even though their final destination might be Argentina or Australia. Economists call it the Rotterdam Effect.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100083748/britains-non-eu-exports-now-account-for-the-majority-of-our-overseas-sales-however-you-measure-it/

I am quite happy to have rights beyond those granted by my Government

Deary me. If you think that your rights are granted by government you'd probably be better off voting Lib Dem. Epic fail lad, epic fail.

pffff you are willfully ignoring the fact that we haven't taken a political stance without allies since the First World War-

The Falklands.

we bailed our own banks with public money remember...

Yes they did. Or rather MacRuin did. Even the snot gobbler didn't think of stealing off ordinary savers though, did he?

how is us leaving the Eu going to help the Greeks?

It wont directly. It might show the way out for those poor bastards down there.

Except we never REALLY have - we have always tried to be the "Special" EU country

Not special, just lied to. Ring any bells?

Sir Moody

04-26-2013, 19:06

prove me wrong then - last time I looked 60% of our exports go to countries in the EU and 50% of our imports come from EU countries - if you can provide up to date figure from a reliable source that prove this to be wrong then go ahead - link them

not Often you quote yourself but I was talking to a friend and he pointed out the HRMC site has a "build your own table" system which allows you to get these figures really quickly

so for the last 5 Months (December to the end of March)

Total Exports = £70,798,899,437
Total Non EU = £34,917,946,231
Total EU = £35,880,953,206

in % EU Export comes to 50.6%

Total Imports = £97,099,369,694
Total Non EU = £47,635,689,310
Total EU = £49,463,680,384

in % EU import comes to 50.9%

so basically exactly half of all our exports and imports come from the EU...

nice tool - odd to find an actually interesting Government site... and in .NET as well - finally the government are showing some taste :yes:

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/BuildYourOwnTables/Pages/Home.aspx

Sir Moody

04-26-2013, 19:14

Deary me. If you think that your rights are granted by government you'd probably be better off voting Lib Dem. Epic fail lad, epic fail.

Granted by the Crown through their Representatives - ie the Government and the Courts - not much of a difference is it?

The Falklands.

so we are counting Wars with Tin pot dictators - ok fine but I would point out we had US help (in the form of intelligence).

We also probably couldn't do it again since we have massively downsized our Navy to the point we have Aircraft carriers with no planes...

Yes they did. Or rather MacRuin did. Even the snot gobbler didn't think of stealing off ordinary savers though, did he?

So remind me which of those savers didn't pay their taxes - because that is the money that was used to bail our banks out - yes they didn't gouge us quite so directly but they did gouge us none the less

Seamus Fermanagh

04-26-2013, 19:38

The world is getting smaller, especially geopolitically with advances in communication and transportation and the interweaving web of economics and resources. Unification is the way forward to bring the best results for the people instead of imaginary lines drawn in the sand dividing people.

This is an argument for good working relationships, principled negotiation, and better communication (the process, not the technologies). Such can be achieved without discarding sovereignty.

LittleGrizzly

04-26-2013, 22:46

All this stuff about the EU is really great but from a personal standpoint I still wouldn't be voting for UKIP even I absolutely hated the EU...

They are basically conservatives that are really Eurosceptic...

Even If I wanted Euroscepticism I still do not want the conservatives...

..................................................
This is an argument for good working relationships, principled negotiation, and better communication (the process, not the technologies). Such can be achieved without discarding sovereignty.
................................................

Sure but turning round sticking two fingers up the union and tell them we are going our own way is certainly not going to promote such good relations.

InsaneApache

04-27-2013, 01:26

All this stuff about the EU is really great but from a personal standpoint I still wouldn't be voting for UKIP even I absolutely hated the EU...

Basically Conservatives, you're having a giraffe surely.

Anything but mate, anything but.

A lot of former tories do vote for them. Then again so do a lot of former Labour voters. As for the Lib Dems I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Unprincipled and disingenuous. Always were always will be. They should be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act. Neither Liberal nor Democratic.

Anyone who voted for that shower should be sectioned for the public good.

Now, as you say, you dislike the EU.

Who will assuage your fears? The big three?

*Nurse, nurse, I need my meds*

Another of the hard of thinking.

Sir Moody

04-27-2013, 02:03

Basically Conservatives, you're having a giraffe surely.

Anything but mate, anything but.

Their policies tend to fall on the Conservative side of the Political spectrum - further Right than the Conservative party in fact.

This makes them Conservative - a Different flavor of Conservative from the Tories but still Conservative.

Who will assuage your fears? The big three?

*Nurse, nurse, I need my meds*

Another of the hard of thinking.

... not 5 posts up you had Grizzly and myself saying we DIDN'T like the "Big" three so you are preaching to the choir there

LittleGrizzly

04-27-2013, 02:20

... not 5 posts up you had Grizzly and myself saying we DIDN'T like the "Big" three so you are preaching to the choir there
.........................................................................

Exactly, it isn't that I think one of the main parties is great. It is more like of the candidates that do run in my area I don't want to give any of them my vote.

I think I just might try and find the least disagreeable independent (or one that has no policies and is just doing it for the fun of it) that is probably my best option...

InsaneApache

04-27-2013, 02:35

That's two more out of the LibLabCon trick then.

Keep it up guys and spread the news.

UKIP ftw then. Cheers. :party2:

LittleGrizzly

04-27-2013, 02:53

What is going to make UKIP any different?

Surely as they get closer to power they will be just as corrupt and lacking principles as the major 3. I am sure they will get up to all the anti EU stuff they promise but outside of that when it comes to Britain (domestic policy) what would be majorly different about them?

I ask not to disagree with you Apache but in the hope you may just have a great answer for me...

If they could prove themselves to be less corrupt and more principled than the major 3 and their conservatism would come with a very healthy dose of libertarianism I could be tempted to vote for them if it was between them and the major 3.

Sell them to me ~;)

Furunculus

04-27-2013, 11:17

nice to see you back around LG. :)

Strike For The South

04-27-2013, 16:28

So UKIP is to the right of the Tories because the Tories like the continent?

Fragony

04-27-2013, 17:26

Pretty much. But they are a lot less conservative on social issues like religion, I would vote on them if I could, farrage asks the right questions

Bit overly dramatic but he's so right http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=ViPm0GUxw-M

Von Rompuy seeing recovery is just as predictable as fireworks at new yeárs eve, he always sees it every year. Put that owl back in the tree he dropped from and hire someone who at least knows something about something. This Flemmish ferret won't do

Greyblades

04-27-2013, 17:27

So UKIP is to the right of the Tories because the Tories like the continent?

Technically. The tories are supposed to be the one out of the top three that dont like the EU.

InsaneApache

04-27-2013, 19:18

Technically. The tories are supposed to be the one out of the top three that dont like the EU.

Except they were the party in power that signed up the the bloody thing in the first place. Then Maastricht, then the ERM.

Actually it was Labour that opposed it. Until they realised the gravy train it really was. See that Welsh cretin Kinnock, he and his Mrs. made millionaires out of it. Not a peep about that though.

Bastards, all of 'em.

Greyblades

04-27-2013, 22:11

I said supposed. Besides at the time the Eu was supposed to be a money making machine, not wannabe overlords.

LittleGrizzly

04-27-2013, 22:25

So UKIP is to the right of the Tories because the Tories like the continent?
...................................................

I am not sure the EU is a right left issue... albeit the opposition more often comes from the right. The tories are generally the most Eurosceptic of the three...

In practice though all they seem to do is criticise the governments policy on the EU when in opposition and then they get into power and don't really do a whole lot different.

InsaneApache

04-28-2013, 01:53

Good Lord I think you're getting it.

I am not sure the EU is a right left issue.

It's a freedom issue. Left, right or center doesn't come into it.

If you value your freedom, then you would oppose it.

Papewaio

04-28-2013, 10:43

If you value your freedom, then you would oppose it.

Are you running for US Senate?

Fragony

04-28-2013, 10:55

Are you running for US Senate?

Mock it all you want, but the EU is a creeping poison that does nothing in the open

InsaneApache

04-28-2013, 11:05

Are you running for US Senate?

LOL

As Frags said it's a poison. You can vote all you want to, as long as you vote the right way. If you don't they will either a: Ignore you, or b: Make you vote again until you do vote the right way.

I don't know what you call it but it sure aint democracy.

Fisherking

04-28-2013, 11:58

From what I have seen, many of the laws and regulations passed by the EU are harmful to all but a few private interests.

Many of these may seem well intended but usually they do a lot of harm. Some of them are cultural attacks, others simply help one manufacturer or developer while forcing all others to comply or invest in some patented process.

Whether it is effecting individuals or business interests, they have a very bad track record for doing anything for the actual betterment of society.

Rhyfelwyr

04-28-2013, 14:38

While I'm not pro-EU, aren't the people that complain the EU is not democratic also the same ones that constantly oppose any measures to make it more democratic? Because they see it more as a confederation to represent nations, rather than a federal body to represent Europeans as individuals?

Kralizec

04-28-2013, 15:12

Furunculus

04-28-2013, 15:56

While I'm not pro-EU, aren't the people that complain the EU is not democratic also the same ones that constantly oppose any measures to make it more democratic? Because they see if more as a confederation to represent nations, rather than a federal body to represent Europeans as individuals?

Of the term "representative-democracy" the latter word is only the means to an end, what really matters is the first word.

I can vote on EU measures till i go blue in the face, but it still won't be representative in any meaningful way that would allow me to consider it legitimate, for there is no common demos whose common rule i am willing to assent to. Give me a common demos, whose shared social and cultural history is sufficiently converged that i have confidence that common governance will be both predictable and acceptable and we are getting somewhere.

However, europe has no common people, therefore no common aims and expectations from which common rule can be popularly legitimised. It cannot therefore represent all its constituent people[s], and in the absence of representation it will likewise diminish mechanisms for accountability in order that it can still act regardless of the people[s] will. Without both representation and accountability, of what value is this voting business you speak of?

Do greeks and spaniards feel represented right now................ I mean, they have the vote after all, surely that is enough?

Fisherking

04-28-2013, 19:29

This is, I assume, based on a detailed reading of all the legislation the EU passes?

What's the last regulation you read in its entirety?

The changes to the computation and distribution of compensations and royalty payments to musical artists from 2011.

Would you like me to rant on about that? And no I am not a recording artist.

It was clearly in favor of the US recording industry and could well have been written by them, to the detriment of classical artists and the distribution scheme for those royalties.

Kralizec

04-28-2013, 19:54

Fisherking

04-28-2013, 21:53

May well be. However, you used the word "many". I'm not a native English speaker, but I was under the impression that this means "a significant amount" or something along those lines - more than just one. You also seem to think you're qualified to judge their "track record", so I'm guessing that you must have read hundreds of regulations. Everything from consumer protection to wildlife conservation.

The EU passes hundreds of new provisions each year. I won't have a hard time naming a handful of dumb acts of legisation from the US Congress, either.

And I would not disagree with you on US legislation either.

I live in Europe and see the impact of many of their rules, regulations, and laws.

As I said many seem well intended, at least on the surface but their impact is anything but.

Some are just dumb good intention but others are of questionable motive. It is the same in the US. People in power tend to do things which benefit themselves more than those they represent.

Many of the same laws and regulations, amazingly similar in content occur on both sides of the Atlantic. I would say, many again, are wrong headed or designed to benefit a small few.

Whether it has been continuing education for engineers, agricultural regulations, or light bulbs they have all had negative and foreseeable effects.

Given the length and complexity of most of these, it is doubtful that any legislator or administrative official has read them through, including those who offered them.

Brennus

04-28-2013, 23:28

This debate is getting pretty heavy, time for a joke:

Man walks into a bar. UKIP.

Greyblades

04-29-2013, 02:49

The more I talk about the way the political world works, the more I realize I dont have a clue.
The more I read from others about how political world works, the more I realize noone else has any clues either.

a completely inoffensive name

04-29-2013, 04:02

Fragony

04-29-2013, 07:07

nice to see you back around LG. :)

Seconded. Now if only we could drag AdrianII and the Frenchman at their hair, really miss their witty posts

Greyblades

04-29-2013, 09:36

You should read more.

Yes I should, and so should everyone else.

Most of my opinions on the political parties come from preconceptions, stereotypes and bias and I think everyone else is in the same boat. It's kinda scary how little I know for sure about any of the guys we're giving the reins to.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 10:35

Yes I should, and so should everyone else.

Most of my opinions on the political parties come from preconceptions, stereotypes and bias and I think everyone else is in the same boat. It's kinda scary how little I know for sure about any of the guys we're giving the reins to.

Sorry to disappoint but my views are born from experience. The mainstream parties caused the mess we're in and don't either have a clue or the will to do anything about it.

Time for some new blood and clear thinking, not the old hidebound ideologies that brought us to this junction.

As for the guys we're giving the reins to.

You don't need to. They're all the same. Ken Clarke was banging on yesterday about UKIP clowns and idiots. Good keep it up. He just lost several hundred thousand votes. The trouble with the big three is this. It's like walking into a pub, which sells mild, bitter and lager but when you look behind the bar all the pipes go into the same barrel.

Well, I for one would like my mild to actually be mild. My bitter to actually be bitter and my lager to actually be lager. When the elite political class are as homogenised as this, it's no surprise that an alternative will arise. The people have been ignored and patronised for far too long but it took a recession, caused by the political elites to rouse them to fury.

To paraphrase Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

a completely inoffensive name

04-29-2013, 10:40

What I find interesting is how in the UK, the people have 3 big parties to choose from and still demand for another option. Meanwhile in the US we got two parties and people call 3rd parties a joke....

Both countries use first past the post so it isn't like the incentives are so different.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 10:43

That's my point. We don't have three parties to choose from. Just one party wearing different coloured rosettes.

a completely inoffensive name

04-29-2013, 10:52

That's my point. We don't have three parties to choose from. Just one party wearing different coloured rosettes.

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. You seem to have a really odd situation by having a combined Lib Dem-Tory coalition that requires a unified position in order to have a majority government that actually passes laws. People say the Repubs and Dems are exactly the same, but it's really not the case.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 11:00

It's no exaggeration. It's the truth. They are all wedded to the idea of the EU and a pan-European superstate, something the majority of Britons oppose. Parliament has become a regional backwater, rubber stamping legislation imposed from Bruxelles. That's why people are fed up. Their votes count for nowt. As a yank I would have thought that you 'got' the idea of self determination and no taxation without representation.

I loved this quote from todays Speccie....

The irony of a smear campaign being employed by the current set of Westminster sociopaths and crooks is laughable.

They seem to have no understanding of why the electorate is seething with anger and resentment - but then sociopaths are not noted for their empathy.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/voters-hold-ukip-to-a-different-standard-there-is-no-point-in-attacking-their-people-or-their-policies/

Couldn't have put it better myself.

a completely inoffensive name

04-29-2013, 11:12

As a yank I would have thought that you 'got' the idea of self determination and no taxation without representation.

I understand those ideas very well. My experience just tells me that people love to be sloppy with the grandest of ideas and very pedantic with the most irrelevant.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 11:16

I understand those ideas very well. My experience just tells me that people love to be sloppy with the grandest of ideas and very pedantic with the most irrelevant.

Tha's nowt sloppy about wanting to have sovereignty over you own country.

a completely inoffensive name

04-29-2013, 11:29

Tha's nowt sloppy about wanting to have sovereignty over you own country.

Yeah, yeah. And I weep for all the conservatives crying about their lost country ever since Obama won. And I wept for all the liberals crying for their lost country under Bush.

I'm going to see if I can make some free time and actually look into the history of the EU. Obviously you feel as if it is an abomination but as far as I know everyone voted to join it.

Brennus

04-29-2013, 12:48

The EU is certainly in need of reform, it is a very unresponsive institution and rather detached from the voters, however it is hardly the Roman Empire reincarnate as my fellow Yorkshireman would have you believe. The EU has resulted in numerous progressive measures for her member states; improved trade relations, a greater economic say in the world, assistance in improving the economy of smaller, poorer nations, it has acted as a human rights watchdog in many cases, has provided a balance to a more despotic and confident Russia, an intermediary between the USA and some of her less favoured fellow nations, binding resolutions on environmental matters and the ability to move freely between member states (however, as an island I think we need stricter controls over the number of migrant works entering, based solely on the issue of over population).

I would also argue the EU has been a major region why, with the exception of Yugoslavia, Transdinistra and Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, there has not been a European war since 1945; those conflicts which have occurred have been localised affairs (the campaigns of ETA, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Red Army Faction in Germany and Corsican and Algerian separatists in France).

I would also like to ask InsaneApache if he is concerned about a loss of national sovereignty to the EU, would he also be in favour of withdrawing from NATO, the Commonwealth or the UN?

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 12:51

Yeah, yeah. And I weep for all the conservatives crying about their lost country ever since Obama won. And I wept for all the liberals crying for their lost country under Bush.

What the hell are you talking about? Weird.

No one* voted to join the EU. They voted to join a trading bloc.

*In the UK.

I would also like to ask InsaneApache if he is concerned about a loss of national sovereignty to the EU, would he also be in favour of withdrawing from NATO, the Commonwealth or the UN?

If you could furnish me with some examples of how these organisations made laws binding in the UK, I'd be glad to.

Greyblades

04-29-2013, 14:55

Sorry to disappoint but my views are born from experience. The mainstream parties caused the mess we're in and don't either have a clue or the will to do anything about it.

Time for some new blood and clear thinking, not the old hidebound ideologies that brought us to this junction.

As for the guys we're giving the reins to.

You don't need to. They're all the same. Ken Clarke was banging on yesterday about UKIP clowns and idiots. Good keep it up. He just lost several hundred thousand votes. The trouble with the big three is this. It's like walking into a pub, which sells mild, bitter and lager but when you look behind the bar all the pipes go into the same barrel.

Well, I for one would like my mild to actually be mild. My bitter to actually be bitter and my lager to actually be lager. When the elite political class are as homogenised as this, it's no surprise that an alternative will arise. The people have been ignored and patronised for far too long but it took a recession, caused by the political elites to rouse them to fury.

To paraphrase Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

You sound like a piece of propoganda.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 16:12

No refutation or constructive comment then? When people have lost the argument they resort to slurs.

Greyblades

04-29-2013, 18:30

Yeah, no thanks, I've argued with avg and fragony enough to know arguing when someone is this defensive is useless.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 18:34

It's called conviction based on over 50 years experience of the real world.

Rhyfelwyr

04-29-2013, 18:42

IA's main point - that there is no substantial difference between the 3 major parties - is true.

All of them combine a Thatcherite-lite economic outlook with liberal social policies and a pro-EU stance. The fact that all major parties in a democracy can actually be in opposition to public opinion on major issues like the EU should be pretty staggering, but sadly we've all become used to the fact that politicians are in effect a class, or an interest group, unto themselves.

Sir Moody

04-29-2013, 18:59

So UKIP is to the right of the Tories because the Tories like the continent?

I have been busy but I thought I would bring this up again

No Europe isn't a left or right Issue - it is their other policies which make UKIP a Conservative party (even further than the Tories)

1) They want to introduce a flat rate Tax system where everyone - no matter their income - pays the same rate
2) They agree with the Tories that the way out of the current financial crisis is to cut funds and reduce Government spending however they think the Tories haven't gone far enough and believe we should be cutting government budgets even further
3) They are completely "anti-Environment" and believe we should ignore our effect on the Environment completely (mainly because our Emissions are already very low in comparison to other states)
4) They want to increase and rebuild the Military (with funds "saved" by demolishing the Ministry of Defense)

basically they are a picture perfect "small government" party who hides most of the that behind EUROPE - their actual policies are generally to get rid of every government Ministry and "cut out the middle man" - they are very much a party on the Right and as I showed much further than the Tories

Greyblades

04-29-2013, 19:27

Oh good, UKIP are reactionaries taking a public grievance and using it to shield policies that would make them an unconciousable choice otherwise. Somehow my dislike of the EU does not make me willing to help USA republican level of right wing idiocy into power.

It's called conviction based on over 50 years experience of the real world.

And calling someone's observation a slur is called getting defensive, once that is achieved there is no amount of reasoning that will shift anyone as they take it as attacks on their person, RVG and Frags proved that long ago and I have no interest in reliving those encounters thank you.

Furunculus

04-29-2013, 19:39

I'm going to see if I can make some free time and actually look into the history of the EU. Obviously you feel as if it is an abomination but as far as I know everyone voted to join it.

*some* of us got to vote on this:

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

doesn't resemble the eursozone merekel is (rightly) demanding the eurozone accept today, now does it? :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313140/Merkel-warns-eurozone-EU-word-national-budgets-ahead-crunch-talks-saving-single-currency.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

I would also like to ask InsaneApache if he is concerned about a loss of national sovereignty to the EU, would he also be in favour of withdrawing from NATO, the Commonwealth or the UN?

there is a huge difference between intergovernmental cooperation between sovereign nation-states, and supranational governance of european regions.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 22:34

And calling someone's observation a slur is called getting defensive, once that is achieved there is no amount of reasoning that will shift anyone as they take it as attacks on their person, RVG and Frags proved that long ago and I have no interest in reliving those encounters thank you.

I'm open to reason alright. You just didn't show any. No coherent opposite views, just a lumping me in with other posters with whom you don't agree with.

Pathetic.

Has had been said, the quality of debate in the backroom has dropped considerably.

I miss JAG, Adrian II, Louis the plump, Tribes and others who I frequently didn't agree with but rarely, if ever, dismissed an alternative view as propaganda.

It's childish in the extreme.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Perhaps next time you might consider to put a bit of thought in your posts.

That is all.

Brennus

04-29-2013, 23:22

Good point Furunculus! Although I would say that national interests are invariably subservient the interests of such organisations; the UK must abide by the rules of the Commonwealth, her military is tied into NATO command and is restricted in her ability to act independently should the alliance engage in a war, and the UK is a signatory to numerous binding UN resolutions, not to mention other international agreements which do not require the UK to be part of an international organisation (for example the treaty against the use of land mines).

It is not the same degree of control which the EU commission holds over member states, but nevertheless it still a curtailing of national liberties.

InsaneApache

04-29-2013, 23:28

her military is tied into NATO command and is restricted in her ability to act independently should the alliance engage in a war

Again the Falklands. No NATO member declared war on Argentina.

It is not the same degree of control which the EU commission holds over member states, but nevertheless it still a curtailing of national liberties.

LMFAO.

I think I'm just about done with the backroom. Incoherent and absurd propositions abound.

Ridiculous.

It's like having a debate with five year olds. I'm done here.

Greyblades

04-30-2013, 00:01

Pathetic.

Has had been said, the quality of debate in the backroom has dropped considerably.

It's childish in the extreme.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Perhaps next time you might consider to put a bit of thought in your posts.

I put forth that all I said was that you sounded like a propganda piece, and that in response you have named me pathetic, childish, thoughtless, and bemoaned the lack of quality.
That is the sort of reaction I meant; you have bombarded me with insults and insinuations far beyond what would be considered a proportionate response: you took my post for a personal attack to you directly and you are lashing out, for which I question your ability to call me childish.
You have ignored or forgotten Sir moody, whose criticisms on UKIP are far more damaging to the position you profess to support, for which I question your ability to call me thoughtless.
And by doing so you have dodged a potentially difficult discussion to your belifs in favour of hitting an easier target at minimal effort to yourself, for that I question your ability to call me pathetic.
Finally, I note that from the very same post you take offense from you ignored a criticism leveled at the point of discussion and centered in on the one directed at you. As such I agree and bemoan the loss of JAG, Adrian II, Louis the plump, Tribes and others, such quality posters from days of old. Almost as much as I bemoan the lack of quality in the ones remaining.

I'm done. Come back when you cool off.

Brennus

04-30-2013, 00:03

There's no need to be rude InsaneApache.

With regards to the first point NATO was created to oppose the Axis Powers, later it was adapted to deal with the Warsaw Pact. Argentina was an ally of the USA and other members of NATO, her invasion of the Falklands was not a threat to the alliance, only one of her members. For the same reason the alliance did not intervene in Suez, or Algeria, or Vietnam.

With regards to your second point, I would suggest reading the works of John Locke or Thomas Paine and consider thir thoughts on liberty; both personal and national.

Thank you.

LittleGrizzly

04-30-2013, 00:11

I miss a lot of the old guys, Gawain who was a debating machine, Beirut would have me practically crying with his palestinian cartoons, Martha and George I think. BQ was a good guy too and many many others I can't remember the name off...

InsaneApache

04-30-2013, 00:23

At last some thoughtful and considered posts.

:)

a completely inoffensive name

04-30-2013, 03:03

What the hell are you talking about? Weird.

My point is that people are quick to deride the path they have chosen when they realize there are extenuating circumstances they did not bother to look into.

My point is that the onus in any representative democracy is always on the people. It is the people who decide to vote in obvious liars. It is the people who stood by while their government gets deeper involved in the EU or whatever organization you disagree with. When the UK results of 2010 came back and you had the center right party joining the center left party how could you expect anything but a bastardization of everything both of those parties stood for? If the Green Party and the Republicans had to join forces to create a majority in Congress, will the policies they agree on be anything but horrific?

Once again, it seems that the public will fail by either accepting a greater evil (the UKIP [which seems like a completely reactionary party, a nice quality to have in any unstable economic times]) or by accepting the devil before them hoping that things will be different this time around.

The answer when your political system has failed so utterly is rebellion not sabotage. How's that for the idea of self determination?

Since this is actually the Margaret Thatcher thread this seems to be of some relevance:

"Naivete can also be detected in my supposition that it would take something as melodramatic as a near-miss nuclear conflict to nudge England towards fascism. Although in fairness to myself and David, there were no better or more accurate predictions of our country's future available in comic form at that time. The simple fact that much of the historical background of the story proceeds from a predicted Conservative defeat in the 1982 General Election should tell you how reliable we were in our role as Cassandras. It's 1988 now. Margaret Thatcher is entering her third term of office and talking confidently of an unbroken Conservative leadership well into the next century. My youngest daughter is seven and the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against. I'm thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime over the next couple years. It's cold and it's mean-spirited and I don't like it here anymore."

Greyblades

04-30-2013, 03:41

I'm starting to envy the american political parties, They've got an obvious "definitely make things worse" party and an obvious "bad but better than the alternative" party.
We have three "bad but better than the alternative" that are hard to distinguish between, and there's the fear that the votes will be split between them in such a way that they wont be able to muster enough numbers to counter act the "Definitely make things worse" Party.

Brennus

04-30-2013, 07:13

I wouldn't envy the Americans. I suggest reading Noam Chomsky "Deterring Democracy" to get an idea of just how must common ground the Republicans and Democrats share.

Fragony

04-30-2013, 07:49

Chomsky, I would't envy anyone reading it. Brilliant linguist I'll give him that

Brennus

04-30-2013, 09:14

Chomsky, as with any social commentator, should be read with a critical mind. He is by no means the infallible messiah his devoted flock believe him to be, for example he argued that the initial initial killings of the Khmer Rouge were nothing to be worried by, and compared it to the loss of life among the French population at the end of WWII. Nevertheless his political critiques are well researched and provide a fresh angle in their enquiries.

Now, to return to those topic at hand here are my musings on Maggie (I do love alliteration).

Nobody, even the far left of the political spectrum, can argue that Britain in the late 1970s was not in need of reform; the UK remains the only western nation to have required a bailout from the IMF, the Winter of Discontent was a shameful display of unionised power, and the medias portrayel of Britain as "the Sick Man of Europe" (note that the last time this phrase was used was in reference to the Ottoman Empire in its death throes). Thatcher had the iron will and determination, as well as a deeply entrenched sense of patriotism, to ensure that the action which Britain required to right herself was undertaken. Her reducing the influence of the unions, in particular the printers union, who's ingrained sexism and elitist dogma was, as Christopher Hitchens noted, completely at odds with the socialism which their union supposedly existed to promote. The lack of a unanimous ballot on the miners strike, due to Mr. Scargill, was also a threat which had to be dealt with. Her reforms of the civil service, making them a more accountable and fluid institution, were also to the benefit of British politics. Her negotiating the EU rebate can only be praised and her privatisation of state owned businesses such as British Telecom, Jaguar, British Airways and the various parts of British Leyland are all to her credit, whislt her freeing the City of London, allowing it to return to its place as the financial capital of the world, was also an important achievement. Finally, as both a proud Briton and a person with a sense of social justice, I must praise above all her determination in the Falklands War (although I cannot agree with the sinking of the Belgrano) and her decision to enable council house tenants to buy their houses, a policy which Labour had been opposed to since the 1960s, despite being a party who professed to support the working classes.

However, on the whole I think Thatcher did more harm than good to the nation. Her privatisation of the industries listed above was, ultimately, to the benefit of the consumer. By contrast her privatisation of British Petroleum and British Gas and the energy sector denied the exchequer of huge future revenues. The privatisation of the energy sector and the work of her successors in privatising British Rail have ultimately been shown to be against the interests of the consumer; there is limited competition in these sectors, prices continue to rise, and next to no money is injected into the infrastructure of these sectors. Nor did Thatcher use the revenues from these privatisations to invest back into the British economy; she spent it on tax cuts to ensure a boost in the opinion polls, something which MacMillan and Heath, former Tory PMs, rightly condemned. The same goes for council houses which were sold; the money raised from them was not used to build new council houses and as a result today we suffer from a lack of social housing, yet private landlords, again contrary to the interests of the consumer, have come to dominate the sector. Her introduction of private contractors to the public sector, in an effort to decrease running costs, has met with some success (for example a private carer is cheaper to employ in a nursing home than an NHS nurse) however in many cases it has resulted in sub-standard levels of quality; would you like a nutritious turkey twizzler with your MRSA sir? Although Thachers approach of giving primacy to the City is not to blame for the current UK economic woes, her refusal to invest in other sectors of the economy, namely industry, is; hence the reason Germany and Australia with their balanced economies and long term investment schemes, are coping so much better. By placing such importance on one sector and allowing other aspects of the economy to slide into oblivion she created an economic system which was extremely vulnerable to the sort of market crashes which have hit this country since the early 19th century. On the subject of money I will never be able to agree with her adoption of Moneterism and abandonment of Keynesian economics. This shift produced, as stated above, a fragile and fickle economy, one which could rapidly turn large profits but was unable to adapt in the long run. Her opening up of the banking sector also gave rise to the Yuppie culture, the children of who continue in their privileged outlook (if you think the "entitlement culture" is simply a paradigm of the lower classes then take a look at the top of the social spectrum). Her reforms, although increasing social mobility for some, decreased social mobility for the majority. Her abolition of the student grant system and replacing it with the student loan began the long process of closing off higher education for the many, a process eccentuated under Blair and now reaching its climax under Cameron, May and Clegg. Her actions increased the discrepancy in wealth in this country and, despite professing to live by Victoria values, her tenure saw drug abuse, crime, divorce and abortion levels increase. Nor can I support her opposition to the gay community and feminism.

Her actions in Northern Ireland, although presenting a hard line to the PIRA and her signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, were worse for Northern Ireland than the preceding governments. As early as 1971 the IRA and Sinn Fein had been willing to negotiate with the British government, it was Unionist opposition which prevented peace at this time. Her actions merely extended the period of unnecessary slaughter. By allowing the hunger strikers like, Bobby Sands, to starve themselves to death she merely created martyrs (who to this day can be seen on murals and tops of tower blocks in West Belfast). Likewise using Scotland as a test bed for the Poll Tax was hardly in the spirit of unionism which the Victorians would have professed.

Finally, her foreign policy was hardly the paragon of justice her supporters may claim. Yes she retained the Falklands for Britain, against a dictatorial, militarist regime. But she also supported the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s (for the sole reason of preventing the Soviet aligned Cambodian government for being recognised as the legitimate government) resulting in an unnecessary loss of life. She supported Augusto Pinochet in Chile, whose facist regime killed people as young as 3. Her alignment with Ronald Reagan makes her culpable for the loss of life in Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Angola, Mozambique and Guatamala. Also, if she was such a patriot why did she not oppose the US led invasion of Grenada or why did she, for such an Iron Lady as one Soviet official termed her, fail to prevent Hong Kong from being subsumed into the totalitarian maw that is the PRC. She supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, groups who would go on to destroy much of Afghanistans cultural heritage and enact atrocities against the Afghan and Pakistani people. She supported Saddam Hussein, supplying his army with weapons to use against Iranian and Kurdish civilians (although the Iranian government is hardly an innocent party). Finally there is the myth that her, and Reagans, approach brought an end to the Cold War. This is a myth, as early as 1982 the USSR was seeking to decrease its nuclear stockpile, it was Reagan and Thatcher who sought to increase theirs. The reforms, and ultimate collapse, of the USSR were the work of Gorbachev, they had nothing to do with the neo-conservative governments of the special relationship.

Thus, to sum up. Britain in the late 1970s was in much need of reform. Thatcher provided many of the reforms which were required, and for that we should be grateful. However, she ultimately built a Britain which was economically fragile in the long run, increasing apathetic and socially divided, dominated by a small elite, and her foreign policy, although standing up to some tyrants, was perfectly happy to support others.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-01-2013, 17:05

...With regards to the first point NATO was created to oppose the Axis Powers, later it was adapted to deal with the Warsaw Pact. Argentina was an ally of the USA and other members of NATO, her invasion of the Falklands was not a threat to the alliance, only one of her members. For the same reason the alliance did not intervene in Suez, or Algeria, or Vietnam....

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, after the conclusion of WW2. It's antecedent was the Treaty of Belgium in 1947/1948, again, post WW2. It was a defense pact which was, in function if not technically by wording, a mutual defense treaty designed to resist potential Soviet aggression.

The NATO treaty also specifies that its members will assist in defending against aggression occurring to one of the other member states but within a fixed --"north atlantic" -- geographic area. All of the conflicts you note above were outside the geographic scope of the agreement.

Conradus

05-01-2013, 18:01

Treaty of Brussels/ Treaty of Dunkirk in 1948/1947 is what you're looking at?

Brennus

05-01-2013, 18:54

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, after the conclusion of WW2. It's antecedent was the Treaty of Belgium in 1947/1948, again, post WW2. It was a defense pact which was, in function if not technically by wording, a mutual defense treaty designed to resist potential Soviet aggression.

The NATO treaty also specifies that its members will assist in defending against aggression occurring to one of the other member states but within a fixed --"north atlantic" -- geographic area. All of the conflicts you note above were outside the geographic scope of the agreement.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

InsaneApache

05-03-2013, 00:43

Now you lefties, tell me now that I'm a looney, fruitcake racist;

Labour have won the South Shields parliamentary by-election, retaining a seat they have held since 1935.

Labour saw their majority halved to under 5,000 in Thursday's poll as The UK Independence Party finished second, with a 24% share of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22393094

You know it makes sense. Kick the cretins in politics where it hurts.

She said she was "absolutely ecstatic" and the result showed that the coalition government was taking the country in the "wrong direction".

No. You're the wrong direction. Another deluded MP.

Next year and the general election will be mould breaking. Not like that damp squid I supported in 81.

That is all.

Fragony

05-03-2013, 07:24

I feel it's my duty to inform you that you are loony racist fruitcake sir ;)

Labour sucks bowlingballs through a straw, that hard. They are like our pvda, they only represent those that feed on welfare and what we call salon-socialists, self-congratulating ivory-tower assholes. The actual workers have long walked of to socialist or the freedom party. Where it is going next election I don't know, freedom party looks to become the largest because of it's anti-eu stance. That would be a mess as nobody wants to work with them, they have a lot of common ground with the socialists but they couldn't be more opposed to eachother on foreign policy. No idea how a government could be formated, but leading pro-eu parties are going to be hurt really badly

Brennus

05-03-2013, 10:07

I take it when you say Freedom Party you mean UKIP and not the actual Freedom Party (UK)?

InsaneApache I was rather hoping you would respond to my earlier lengthy post regarding my assessment of Thatcher.

Sir Moody

05-03-2013, 11:52

Now you lefties, tell me now that I'm a looney, fruitcake racist;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22393094

You know it makes sense. Kick the cretins in politics where it hurts.

No. You're the wrong direction. Another deluded MP.

Next year and the general election will be mould breaking. Not like that damp squid I supported in 81.

That is all.

I think the phrase "Dont count your Chickens before they hatch" would be appropriate here

UKIP is receiving the "protest" vote which traditionally would go to the Lib Dems but wont right now because the Lib Dems are in power - we wont really know if the UKIP star is in accession until the general election

this wouldn't be the first time a non governing party did well in local elections and then failed to make a dent in the general

InsaneApache

05-03-2013, 13:11

InsaneApache I was rather hoping you would respond to my earlier lengthy post regarding my assessment of Thatcher.

She did what had to be done, no question about that. Was she right? Most of the time. Sometimes she got it horribly wrong but on balance what she did was correct for the UK.

this wouldn't be the first time a non governing party did well in local elections and then failed to make a dent in the general

I see. That would normally be Her Majesties Opposition.

I've just been watching the election analysis on BBC news and Vince Cable, Sadique Khan and Grant Shapps were sat there with faces like slapped arses. No, scrub that. They looked scared. Good. They bloody well should be.

Politicians* are the problem not the solution and at last people are waking up to that fact.

*The professional ones who know bugger all about how the world actually works. That's all three of the party leaders.

Rhyfelwyr

05-03-2013, 13:49

While UKIP did impressively well, if I'm reading the stats right, they still didn't make as many gains as Labour did. Not at this stage, anyway.

I don't see how UKIP can have a mass appeal. It's good that they challenge the existing political class and have some common sense/anti-red tape policies, but the small government approach doesn't really have any foundation for a lot of British society, especially the less well off that traditionally might be willing to vote for more radical/anti-establishment parties.

I would never vote UKIP personally since I see them as ultra-Tories, but it's nice to see them shaking things up a bit.

Idaho

05-03-2013, 16:33

I'm happy to offer anyone 2/1 on ukip not getting a single seat at the next general election.

Fragony

05-03-2013, 16:37

Brennus

05-03-2013, 16:46

No the Dutch one, Geert Wilders

Ah, I see. The PVV.

Beskar

05-03-2013, 16:48

I don't mind people voting UKIP, they are not that bad compared to other parties who shall not be named.

InsaneApache

05-03-2013, 17:08

I'm happy to offer anyone 2/1 on ukip not getting a single seat at the next general election.

You're on mate.

BTW did you dig out the Tull last night? ;)

Fragony

05-03-2013, 17:20

I don't mind people voting UKIP, they are not that bad compared to other parties who shall not be named.

Why so shy, call it as it is, BNP and the EDL are scum, simple as that

Brennus

05-03-2013, 17:36

I was gonna call them the SNP.

Rhyfelwyr

05-03-2013, 18:55

Why so shy, call it as it is, BNP and the EDL are scum, simple as that

Don't demonize them, a lot of their support comes from disaffected Labour voters. Just ordinary people, not extremists or anything like that. Although bad guys are of course in their ranks.

EDIT: And lol at the Lib Dems, finishing 7th in one contest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22393094):

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour) 12,493 votes
Richard Elvin (UK Independence Party) 5,988 votes
Karen Allen (Conservatives) 2,857 votes
Ahmed Khan (Independent) 1,331 votes
Phil Brown (Independent Socialist Party) 750 votes
Lady Dorothy Macbeth Brookes (BNP) 711 votes
Hugh Annand (Liberal Democrats) 352 votes
Howling Laud Hope (The Official Monster Raving Loony Party) 197 votes
Thomas Faithful Darwood (Independent) 57 votes

Idaho

05-03-2013, 20:22

You're on mate.

BTW did you dig out the Tull last night? ;)

Ok, how much do you want to stake?

Gonna put the Tull on a bit later when I've put the kids to bed ~:cool:

InsaneApache

05-03-2013, 23:06

LittleGrizzly

05-03-2013, 23:10

Rhyf TBH I am delighted to see them finishing so low after they jumped in bed with the Conservatives.

Independent Socialist Party

That is where my vote would have gone.

Rhyfelwyr

05-04-2013, 00:37

Rhyf TBH I am delighted to see them finishing so low after they jumped in bed with the Conservatives.

Absolutely, it was the worse sort of opportunism and careerism.

Independent Socialist Party

That is where my vote would have gone.[/I]

Strangely I can't find any info on them. You need to watch with these far left parties. They might seem appealing but they can actually be a bit bizarre at times. I wonder if this Independent Socialist Party has something to do with the split over this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html).

LittleGrizzly

05-04-2013, 01:03

It could well be the SWP I was thinking off...

Last time I got a leaflet through my door is contained the words coalition and socialist (maybe parties as well)

Unless they are hiding some really freaky stuff they are closer to my views than the rest though. If there was ever a risk of them actually getting into power I would probably do a little research before I cast my vote for them...

InsaneApache

05-04-2013, 09:47

It could well be the SWP I was thinking off...

Ahh the rapists party. You should look a little closer mate.

Fragony

05-04-2013, 10:01

Don't demonize them, a lot of their support comes from disaffected Labour voters. Just ordinary people, not extremists or anything like that. Although bad guys are of course in their ranks.

EDIT: And lol at the Lib Dems, finishing 7th in one contest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22393094):

Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour) 12,493 votes
Richard Elvin (UK Independence Party) 5,988 votes
Karen Allen (Conservatives) 2,857 votes
Ahmed Khan (Independent) 1,331 votes
Phil Brown (Independent Socialist Party) 750 votes
Lady Dorothy Macbeth Brookes (BNP) 711 votes
Hugh Annand (Liberal Democrats) 352 votes
Howling Laud Hope (The Official Monster Raving Loony Party) 197 votes
Thomas Faithful Darwood (Independent) 57 votes

ok, was a bit too much perhaps. The BNP has been normalised somewhat but they do have an openly racist past, and your average BNP voter I wouldn't buy a beer. EDL also are a bit thuggish. I don't like islam either but I wouldn't to be seen with them. I am all for harsh discussion and calling a spade a spade, but being too loud just makes you stupid

Rhyfelwyr

05-04-2013, 13:37

ok, was a bit too much perhaps. The BNP has been normalised somewhat but they do have an openly racist past, and your average BNP voter I wouldn't buy a beer. EDL also are a bit thuggish. I don't like islam either but I wouldn't to be seen with them. I am all for harsh discussion and calling a spade a spade, but being too loud just makes you stupid

EDL are different, they really are by and large football hooligans. BNP obviously were, and are, a racist party, but people vote for them out of frustration/disillusionment more than anything else.

Who else does a working-class person vote for if they want to make a protest vote? It's hardly going to be UKIP, the other options are the BNP, or if you want the radical left, then you have, as IA called them, the "rapists party". (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html)

Idaho

05-04-2013, 17:10

Blimey you're young enough to put the kids to bed! I'm impressed.

OK let's have a forfeit.

If I lose, I have to 'thanks' all your posts for a month, plus agree and compliment you on all your posts in that time.

If, however, I win.

Then guess what?

Up for it?

If you win then we ask the mods to change my name to Nigel Farange and I have to defend earnestly all Ukip public statements for a month and like all your posts.

Fragony

05-04-2013, 17:41

EDL are different, they really are by and large football hooligans. BNP obviously were, and are, a racist party, but people vote for them out of frustration/disillusionment more than anything else.

Who else does a working-class person vote for if they want to make a protest vote? It's hardly going to be UKIP, the other options are the BNP, or if you want the radical left, then you have, as IA called them, the "rapists party". (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html)

I have no idea really. But I would never vote on the BNP

InsaneApache

05-04-2013, 22:28

If you win then we ask the mods to change my name to Nigel Farange and I have to defend earnestly all Ukip public statements for a month and like all your posts.

LMFAO.

OK then; in the same spirit I shall agree like 'Wedgie' pipe an' awl! So Lord Stansgate it is then.

The game is afoot.

Brennus

05-05-2013, 00:42

Idaho, if InsaneApache does win, can you also change your avatar to a picture of Farage... Just to increase the level of immersion and amusement for the rest of us?

LittleGrizzly

05-05-2013, 03:34

Ahh the rapists party. You should look a little closer mate.
......................................

Is that the story from Rhyfelwyr's link?

It is only that I have read so this is based on very little knowledge of the event and is just a first impression. If anyone has any further facts which contradict this then fair enough.

Firstly the woman should have gone to the police. Even if we assume politicians to be some of the most honourable people around they are (AFAIK) completely unequipped to investigate a rape case.

From what I could tell it was one of their main leaders accused and the other leaders (basically people who worked with him day in day out) that decided on guilt who voted him innocent with a 7-1 majority....

I imagine these 8 would have at least some evidence or statements from both sides...

Mostly good intentioned people I imagine but they were investigating something I imagine they are ill equipped to investigate to the point where I don't imagine it came down to much more than his word versus hers. With them knowing and presumably thinking fairly highly of the defendant that result isn't particularly surprising.

There seems to be a wider vote that was much closer but I do wonder what kind of evidence was presented for the wider vote?

Would they really spread the lurid details to that wide a group of people?

Lastly is the woman still that committed to the party that she still hasn't gone to the police?

I mean surely even if you were committed to the party you would want that party to continue without this leader in place, rather than not report it and have a party you believe in continue but with a rapist as one of its leaders?

As I said only going off what I read in that little article and I cannot make any definite conclusions either way from it but as it stands it wouldn't be a great reason alone not to vote for them.

InsaneApache

05-05-2013, 11:26

Fragony

05-05-2013, 12:01

[QUOTE]
Are you mad?

She could have gone to the police, just because someone tells you to shut your mouth doesn't mean you have to. But how this went kinda shows why we rightfully call it the leftist church here

Beskar

05-05-2013, 13:18

Why so shy, call it as it is, BNP and the EDL are scum, simple as that

You forgot George Galloway's "Respect party" too. A party which some how tries to tie red-faction communists with hardline Islam. Surprised you haven't brought them up before.

Greyblades

05-05-2013, 13:28

She could have gone to the police, just because someone tells you to shut your mouth doesn't mean you have to. But how this went kinda shows why we rightfully call it the leftist church here

Just you, frags, just you.

Fragony

05-05-2013, 13:49

Just you, frags, just you.

With here I mean the Netherlands

Rhyfelwyr

05-05-2013, 13:49

As I said only going off what I read in that little article and I cannot make any definite conclusions either way from it but as it stands it wouldn't be a great reason alone not to vote for them.

I'm with IA here - although I respect socialist parties, I would never vote for a party that conducted itself the way the SWP did over that matter. We're not talking about the actions of a rogue member, what that case showed was them acting as a party in failing to report a rape case to the police - that is not OK on any level.

Idaho

05-05-2013, 19:09

You forgot George Galloway's "Respect party" too. A party which some how tries to tie red-faction communists with hardline Islam. Surprised you haven't brought them up before.
I'm happy to see you mock respect. However I don't think it's fair to suggest that the Islamic wing is hardcore. More traditional conservative immigrants really.

Fragony

05-05-2013, 19:21

I'm happy to see you mock respect. However I don't think it's fair to suggest that the Islamic wing is hardcore. More traditional conservative immigrants really.

Pretty much true I'm not worried about these. Conservative muslims are usually really nice people.

Beskar

05-05-2013, 20:20

LittleGrizzly

05-05-2013, 22:12

I'm with IA here - although I respect socialist parties, I would never vote for a party that conducted itself the way the SWP did over that matter. We're not talking about the actions of a rogue member, what that case showed was them acting as a party in failing to report a rape case to the police - that is not OK on any level.
..................................................

How does the actually work?

Can you go to the police and get charges pressed even if the victim doesn't want to go to the police?

Rape cases are difficult enough to prove as it is if you make the victim uncooperative then it just isn't ever going to work without some pretty convincing CCTV footage.

As I said I have very little information on this and if the party actively discouraged her from going to the police that is on a different level.

As far as I can tell though she asked the party to deal with it and he was found innocent by a bunch of his friends and the wider party seemed fairly split on the issue...

This tells me absolutely nothing...

Just out of interest what is the actual problem though....

A) They dealt with the allegation themselves as the alleged victim requested

B) They found him innocent

If there is some solid evidence out there that proves B) is wrong then forgive me but without any of us knowing or seeing the evidence we haven't got a clue so I am guessing the problem is A)

Which brings me back to my earlier question

_____________________________________
How does the actually work?

Can you go to the police and get charges pressed even if the victim doesn't want to go to the police?
_____________________________________

Rhyfelwyr

05-06-2013, 00:49

Just out of interest what is the actual problem though....

A) They dealt with the allegation themselves as the alleged victim requested

B) They found him innocent

Probably both.

A, because they do not have the resources to carry out such an investigation - or more importantly, give the victim the support they need.

And B, because the potential for abuse through self-interest is obvious. We keep the legal branch separate for a reason.

Only party I would actively support would be my ideal hypothetical party, the "Initiative" party.

I prefer the "Rhyfelwyr" party, which is based around a well-meaning and radical cause that is ultimately doomed according to its own basic tenets. As separating themselves from the corrupt world around them is in a sense part of their beliefs, its followers fail to capitalise on what could have been a populist message, instead isolating themselves and losing any mainstream support. It causes complete chaos and destruction as it loses any practical value and instead runs itself into the ground, continuing to function purely on emotion and nostalgia, fuelled themselves by its own semi-self-fulfilling prophecy of being a romantic yet ultimately hopeless cause. As this process of romanticization and self-destruction continues, the followers become increasingly isolated and radicalised until the whole thing implodes in a flurry of desperation, nostalgia and idealism.

Having proved the most bizarrely self-destructive and counter-productive movement in history, it somewhat fittingly continues to live on in the form of mythology - preserving the purity of an idea that was too pure to change itself to ever function in the world it was meant for.

Seriously, if I ever run for office, do not vote for me. :no:

Husar

05-06-2013, 01:11

Last time I looked upon Respect were pre-big brother, and there were big divides on many issues due to conflict of interests. If it has changed since then, I was never encouraged to challenge the held belief.

Only party I would actively support would be my ideal hypothetical party, the "Initiative" party. Instead of casually going around following public mood and trends, it would simply work to produce the best policy. It would clearly outline what it goals would be, then it would look at many approaches which bring about the results. Ultimately, it is more a goal-directed approached opposed to an ideological one, though it would have some certain ideological tenets it would be guided by. In many ways, it would allow those from left and right to take part and it wouldn't be ashamed to ask questions to Furunculus on military policy whilst talking to HoreTore on education and giving a phone call to PVC on religious matters. By this, it would actually listen (but doesn't mean it will take that particular suggestion) on what is best. Though, it would probably end up in a mix of socialism (collective policies: NHS for example), libertarianism (freedoms on personal level, such as personal use of currently illegal substances), with a few straying influences depending on what people want.

But isn't the root of ideology a goal?
I think every ideology has a goal and in many cases the goals overlap but there is no consensus on how to get there and both/all sides will bring up relatively valid arguments depending on the problem.
I wouldn't be so sure that the party can easily find the one solution to all these problems without tearing itself apart in the discussions preceding that.
Surely a new approach or a new mix of ideas wouldn't hurt though.

And Rhyfelwyr, at least you're funny if you want to be, so don't be so hard on yourself. :yes: