Student Jailed For Muamba Twitter Race Rant
By Isabel Webster, West of England correspondent | Sky News – 15 minutes agoRelated ContentView PhotoStudent Jailed For Muamba Twitter Race Rant
A man who mocked footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter after the Bolton player collapsed has been jailed for 56 days and kicked out of university for making racially offensive comments on the site.
Liam Stacey, 21, posted insulting remarks after the player fell on the pitch during Bolton Wanderers' FA Cup tie against Tottenham Hotspur on March 17, Swansea Magistrates Court heard.
The comments - which were made as the 23-year-old midfielder lay motionless on the ground - sparked outrage among other users of the social networking site.
The first of Stacey's messages began with "LOL (laugh out loud). **** Muamba. He's dead!!!"
Stacey went on to post further abusive messages, including racist posts directed to black users.
The police were inundated with complaints, including one from the former England footballer Stan Collymore who told his followers on Twitter that he had passed Stacey's messages to the authorities.
Stacey wept as he was handcuffed and led down to the cells.
District judge John Charles said the student had posted "vile and offensive" comments and that his sentence had to "reflect public abhorrence".
Swansea University has thrown Stacey off his biology course, saying he had brought the university into disrepute.
Stacey, who was told by the judge he had done "untold harm" to his future, had wanted to be a forensic scientist but will not be able to complete his degree.
Earlier, three of Muamba's Bolton teammates - Zat Knight, David Wheater and Jussi Jaaskelainen - were seen visiting London Chest Hospital, where the player remains in serious condition but is said to be making "encouraging progress".
Medics carried out CPR on the Congo-born player on the pitch at White Hart Lane and his heart did not start beating on its own again for nearly 80 minutes.
That's the pertinent point - he has the right to say whatever he wants but using racial slurs comes under the banner of inciting hatred via speech or some such. It's the same law used to lock up Muslim clerics that preach about Jihad and so forth.
Britain has a more sensible form of free speech. Its allowed as long a your not being directly offensive towards somebody/group of people and you have to back up public accusations: unlike in the US where you can saw anything no matter how ridiculous or wrong you are.
That's the pertinent point - he has the right to say whatever he wants but using racial slurs comes under the banner of inciting hatred via speech or some such. It's the same law used to lock up Muslim clerics that preach about Jihad and so forth.
So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:Britain has a more sensible form of free speech. Its allowed as long a your not being directly offensive towards somebody/group of people and you have to back up public accusations: unlike in the US where you can saw anything no matter how ridiculous or wrong you are.
I don't see the issue...? It should be legal to hurl racial abuse at strangers .....because... err....
Still, it doesn't matter because, as I'm sure everyone will recall, Frazzled has no business commenting on the issue as he's not from the country in question.
Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
I don't see the issue...? It should be legal to hurl racial abuse at strangers .....because... err....
Still, it doesn't matter because, as I'm sure everyone will recall, Frazzled has no business commenting on the issue as he's not from the country in question.
.. am I doing it right ?
Not really. You've almost made some sort of intelligible, if illogical, argument.
And you didn't even mention T-Bone or wiener dogs once, nor did you warn of the dangers/evils of spicy mexican foods.
I don't see the issue...? It should be legal to hurl racial abuse at strangers .....because... err....
Still, it doesn't matter because, as I'm sure everyone will recall, Frazzled has no business commenting on the issue as he's not from the country in question.
.. am I doing it right ?
Well as everyone comments on US items, turnabout is now fair play.
So the argument is that only approved speech is free speech? What the hell happened to wingnuts standing on soap boxes in Trafalgar Square? Does this mean I can't stand in the middle of Trafalgar Square, under the shadow of Nelson, and explain in detail why it is wrong to be French?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
reds8n wrote:
racist posts directed to black users.
And this is what he did wrong.
I don't see the issue...? It should be legal to hurl racial abuse at strangers .....because... err....
Still, it doesn't matter because, as I'm sure everyone will recall, Frazzled has no business commenting on the issue as he's not from the country in question.
.. am I doing it right ?
Not really. You've almost made some sort of intelligible, if illogical, argument.
And you didn't even mention T-Bone or wiener dogs once, nor did you warn of the dangers/evils of spicy mexican foods.
I tried to point wiener dogs are superior, but the cats filed a complaint.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
So does China.
Only if the laws made in China reflect what the chinese people believe as a whole think. Seeing as they don't really get much of a say in it I hardly think you're making a good point at all.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
So does China.
Here we go... unless you are allowed to do anything you want our cousins start screaming "reds under the bed!". Contrary to the belief in the US, not being allowed to abuse people verbally is not a sign of an oppressive government.
We are fully able to post comments and make speeches telling the powers at be to "go shove it", we just can't be specifically abusive to someone or make threats.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
So you can say "X party sucks! Down with X party!!!"
But you cannot say "So and so Sucks! He needs to feth off!" Youll get arrested?
Im not getting it. And Im still waiting for a rebuttal on my example of Saddam Hussein era Iraq. Pretty sure 90% of that country didnt share his views. But its ok, those people were just tortured and murdered for going against the laws of their country
I didn't like it because its lob sided application of law.
Many Islamic clerics had to go a long way before the law would take action, repeatedly calling for the deaths of infidels, whereas a student was jailed after a single tweet, and one that didn't call for the killing of anyone.
If equal opportunities and race relations dogma were applied evenly the jails would fuller sooner. One does not have to go far to find racism in the UK, but only some types of racist are formally unacceptable and some of those immediately actionable. Biggest problem is actually ethnic on ethnic, especially when you have two or more groups who come from mutually hostile countries. There is no beating about the bush regarding what they are saying about each other, but a blind eye is turned anyway. Furthermore some sorts of racism are actually endorsed, you can see that by taking a long look at the SNP. Over the last decade and a half a lot of English culture was suppressed as part of a wider new UK, Scottish culture was not, and a blind eye was turned to Anglophobia which has blossomed into very strongly Anglophobic sentiments.
I have friends and family in Scotland, while racism to to be 'expected' in Glasgow, but things are heating up for English born Scots in Aberdeen.
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
USA is not entirely about free speech either, Frazzie.
Dare you issue an opinion that Obama should be shot? If you did it would be a Federal crime, even if it remained only a sentiment.
KingCracker wrote:So you can say "X party sucks! Down with X party!!!"
But you cannot say "So and so Sucks! He needs to feth off!" Youll get arrested?
Not really.
"Politician X is a useless bugger, and should feth off!" won't get you arrested.
"Politician X is a dirty n****r and he and those dirty c****s like him should be put down!" will. Really, what is wrong with that?
Im not getting it. And Im still waiting for a rebuttal on my example of Saddam Hussein era Iraq. Pretty sure 90% of that country didnt share his views. But its ok, those people were just tortured and murdered for going against the laws of their country
Wolfstan's post addresses this. Just read it again.
Frazzled wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Wouldn't work at all, Frazz. Now if Wolfstan had said that you, your family and pet dog were all filthy animals (on account of your skin/religion) and should be burnt at the stake then you would have grounds to make a complaint.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then again, I'm going with Aus law here. I honestly don't know if UK law is far more extreme.
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
If stood in your face and abused you I'm sure I would get the "Texan" treatment, and quite rightly so. So what is the difference if I give you the same abuse / threats from over here?
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
USA is not entirely about free speech either, Frazzie.
Dare you issue an opinion that Obama should be shot? If you did it would be a Federal crime, even if it remained only a sentiment.
Actually thats not correct. You might get interviewed, but unless its a direct, actual threat you're ok.*
"Politician X is a dirty ****** and he and those dirty ****** like him should be put down!" will. Really, what is wrong with that?
Personally I find it offensive, as Im sure most people will. The problem with it being illegal, is that its someones opinion, which now makes opinions illegal. Making opinions illegal is just one step closer to communism or worse.
Orlanth
People say similar things about Obama all the time, they arnt arrested. It gets illegal when they say they are physically going to kill the president. See the difference there?
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
If stood in your face and abused you I'm sure I would get the "Texan" treatment, and quite rightly so. So what is the difference if I give you the same abuse / threats from over here?
You mean the government would challenge you to a duel, either on foot or horseback? Wow I didn't know Britain was that civilized. With some proper Tex Mex there is hope for you yet.
"Politician X is a dirty ****** and he and those dirty ****** like him should be put down!" will. Really, what is wrong with that?
Personally I find it offensive, as Im sure most people will. The problem with it being illegal, is that its someones opinion, which now makes opinions illegal. Making opinions illegal is just one step closer to communism or worse.
"I think every female should be raped at the age of 3. I also think that every muslim man woman and child should be round up and shot." I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a society where saying that kind of crap doesn't stand.
I get where you're coming from, but frankly you can have whatever opinion you want. It's mouthing off that kind of junk that isn't, and shouldn't be, allowed.
Pretty sure someone should address the fact that someone made these comments on Twitter.
Twitter can now get you arrested.
For serious?
Nobody has the right to not be offended. If you don't like what someone's saying, don't listen, don't read it. It really is that simple.
"I think every female should be raped at the age of 3. I also think that every muslim man woman and child should be round up and shot." I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a society where saying that kind of crap doesn't stand.
You just did say it. Hurray. You should be allowed to be cause they're just words.
Wolfstan wrote:Free speech, yes. Threaten and abuse people, no.
I feel abused by your words. Should I contact the police in London, or do they have a special unit to contact?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:If you listen to Radio 4 there is a list of approved topics read out at 6:30 every day, so people know what they are allowed to talk about that day.
If stood in your face and abused you I'm sure I would get the "Texan" treatment, and quite rightly so. So what is the difference if I give you the same abuse / threats from over here?
You mean the government would challenge you to a duel, either on foot or horseback? Wow I didn't know Britain was that civilized. With some proper Tex Mex there is hope for you yet.
Behave... it would have to be a Lamb Madras. No point invading the far east and not making the most of the food.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
"I think every female should be raped at the age of 3. I also think that every muslim man woman and child should be round up and shot." I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a society where saying that kind of crap doesn't stand.
You just did say it. Hurray. You should be allowed to be cause they're just words.
Sticks and stones and all that
If I can be arrested for giving an example like that then actors can be arrested anytime they play a villain. Get real.
Saying There are some people out there who think it is okay to rape children =/= I think it is okay to rape children.
Whoopty wrote:Pretty sure someone should address the fact that someone made these comments on Twitter.
Twitter can now get you arrested.
For serious?
Nobody has the right to not be offended. If you don't like what someone's saying, don't listen, don't read it. It really is that simple.
"I think every female should be raped at the age of 3. I also think that every muslim man woman and child should be round up and shot." I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a society where saying that kind of crap doesn't stand.
You just did say it. Hurray. You should be allowed to be cause they're just words.
Whoopty wrote:Pretty sure someone should address the fact that someone made these comments on Twitter.
Twitter can now get you arrested.
For serious?
Nobody has the right to not be offended. If you don't like what someone's saying, don't listen, don't read it. It really is that simple.
"I think every female should be raped at the age of 3. I also think that every muslim man woman and child should be round up and shot." I don't know about you, but I would prefer to live in a society where saying that kind of crap doesn't stand.
You just did say it. Hurray. You should be allowed to be cause they're just words.
Sticks and stones and all that
Not quite.
He was arrested for sending these messages to specific people. Which I really don't see is any different (speed aside ) from sending people abusive letters which has been illegal since verylongtimecan'tbearsedtocheckthedate.
If he'd just made the single, stupid and crude comment, he'd ( probably) be scot free. But as soon you start sending the messages to specific people then you cross a line and reap what you sow.
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
So does China.
They execute people too....
.. like America !
Oh snap!
You mean they stay on death row for years as appeal after appeal after appeal are made?
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
So does China.
They execute people too....
.. like America !
Oh snap!
You mean they stay on death row for years as appeal after appeal after appeal are made?
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
KingCracker wrote:The Death Sentence should go as follows.
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
If there is a chance that the accused could be innocent, how were they convicted in the first place? It's only reasonable doubt, not balance of evidence.
KingCracker wrote:The Death Sentence should go as follows.
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
i thought you were going to type, "in a slam dunk case, defendants should be slammed and dunked."
I dont think it would, our current, endless appeals hasnt really done that, so how would getting 1 appeal work better then a gak load exactly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
KingCracker wrote:The Death Sentence should go as follows.
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
i thought you were going to type, "in a slam dunk case, defendants should be slammed and dunked."
If I ever became a Politician, you would be my writer. Weather you wanted to or not
KingCracker wrote:I dont think it would, our current, endless appeals hasnt really done that, so how would getting 1 appeal work better then a gak load exactly?
I mean having the whole "You will be executed depending on how strong the evidence is against you." If you can argue it's not strong enough to be put on the fast route for execution, it could easily be stretched to an argument for reasonable doubt.
hadow Health Minister Diane Abbott has apologised for any offence caused by comments she made on Twitter, after claims they were racist.
She said she had not meant to generalise when she wrote: ''White people love playing 'divide & rule'".
It was a response to criticism of media use of "black community leaders" after the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
Labour's Chuka Umunna said party leader Ed Miliband had told Ms Abbott her remarks were "unacceptable".
In a statement, Ms Abbott said: "I apologise for any offence caused.
"I understand people have interpreted my comments as making generalisations about white people. I do not believe in doing that."
On topic, I agree with Frazzled, I don't think you should be able to send a bloke to prison for being a racist arsehole and I don't think the UK does have freedom of speech. Ive long complained that Muslims get away with saying far more offensive gak than white people do, and they blatantly do. Anjem Choudary has said time and time and time again that he supports the murder of our citizens, and he isn't in prison.
Im sure that there are numerous twitter users who daily post racially offensive gak, especially Scottish people.
This kid was unlucky plain and simple, said footballer got loads of headlines, but I guarantee that equally racist gak is said on twitter on a daily basis. There are millions of user and plenty of ignorant racists.
Score one to the USA on this one, because this lad being in prison and people like Anjem being free to walk the streets is a travesty of justice.
I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
TH3FALL3N wrote:I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
God i am proud to be British...
That might be more a case of the sentencing judge being an absolute idiot with regards to your caretaker. How did you know what evidence was being presented in the trial?
I don't know what's more terrifying: the fact that you can be arrested for saying dumb things in Britain or the fact that British people think this is okay.
Frazzled wrote:So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.
Which still, under your definition, only gives "freedom of approved speech". The first amendment allows for numerous strong restrictions on speech, which is why you can't slander or libel people without consequences, you can't threaten people, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc etc.
TH3FALL3N wrote:I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
Mercy for the drunk Muslim girl gang who attacked woman
A girl gang of Somali Muslims who repeatedly kicked a woman in the head during a drunken attack were spared jail after a judge heard that their religion meant they were not used to drinking.
The four defendants shouted “kill the white slag” as they attacked Rhea Page after dragging her to the ground.
Ambaro Maxamed, 24, her sisters Ayan, 28, and Hibo, 24, and their cousin Ifrah Nur, 28, faced up to five years in jail after admitting causing actual bodily harm.
But Judge Robert Brown gave them six-month suspended sentences after deciding that the attack in Leicester city centre was not racially motivated.
He heard in mitigation that the four were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it. Miss Page, 22, was so traumatised by the attack that she lost her job as an educational support worker after repeated absences due to stress. She described the sentence as “disgusting”.
Leicester Crown Court heard that Miss Page was attacked as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend Lewis Moore, 23, in June last year. James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said Ambaro Maxamed called Miss Page a “white bitch” and grabbed her hair, making her fall.
Miss Page, who needed hospital treatment after the attack, said outside court: “They were taking turns to kick me in the head and back over and over. I thought they were going to kill me. I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.”
Judge Brown, who also sentenced the three sisters to 150 hours of community work, said he accepted that they may have felt victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore. But Miss Page insisted her boyfriend had only been trying to protect her. “If he hadn’t been there, I’m sure they would have killed me,” she said.
Have you seen the video as well!?
They fully kick the gak out of her, attack lasts about.. I dunno, 3 minutes?
No jail though.
But calling people names over the internet? Rot in prison scumbag.
You couldnt make this gak up could you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I don't know what's more terrifying: the fact that you can be arrested for saying dumb things in Britain or the fact that British people think this is okay.
Only hippies think it's ok. The same liberal elite that are at odds with 90% of the nations inhabitants, and that think its ok for black people to be racist but not anybody else.
KingCracker wrote:The Death Sentence should go as follows.
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
I would go with the UK system used in the last century prior to abolition.
The condemned gets one appeal automatically heard, and it is fast tracked. The appeal may reduce the sentence uphold it without new evidence, or aquit if new evidence is found or old evidence is found unreliable.
This occurs within three weeks of sentencing.
If this appeal fails there is no further appeal. The issue now is to complete the process quickly to avoid undue distress. The condemned person is move to a special cell under individual 24 hour guard. They get access to outside food, newspapers, medical watch, family visits and a priest of any religion they choose. The parameters of the cell were at the time a closely guarded secret as the cell was located adjacent to the execution chamber, which was disguised and soundproofed.
The condemned would be given a minimum of two weeks in the condemned cell, this was in order for the condemned to get their personal affairs in order, and to fulfill religious requirement in good time.
On the day of the execution the executioner and a number of seconds would enter the cell unannounced and would immediately move the condemned person to the execution chamber next door. The gallows, which would be set for a prepared 'long drop' relative to the weight of the condemned, would be normally within 20 feet of the condemned cell sleeping area or the table where the condemned sits. The idea is that the condemned is executed before they have time to panic. Executions would be conducted at breakfast time, not at just after midnight, with a news blackout into the prison for the last 48 hours before execution to avoid undue distress. A good executioner will normally manage to kill the condemned man within half a minute of first entering the cell and almost always occurs by surprise. Long drop gallows are nearly always instantly successful, but do not disfigure the corpse.
'Lingering' last minute appeals are not permitted, the deadline for clemency is approx 24 hours earlier, so politicians, if they wish to have any input, cannot dither.
This advanced method is still in use in Singapore.
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
TH3FALL3N wrote:I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
Mercy for the drunk Muslim girl gang who attacked woman
A girl gang of Somali Muslims who repeatedly kicked a woman in the head during a drunken attack were spared jail after a judge heard that their religion meant they were not used to drinking.
The four defendants shouted “kill the white slag” as they attacked Rhea Page after dragging her to the ground.
Ambaro Maxamed, 24, her sisters Ayan, 28, and Hibo, 24, and their cousin Ifrah Nur, 28, faced up to five years in jail after admitting causing actual bodily harm.
But Judge Robert Brown gave them six-month suspended sentences after deciding that the attack in Leicester city centre was not racially motivated.
He heard in mitigation that the four were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it. Miss Page, 22, was so traumatised by the attack that she lost her job as an educational support worker after repeated absences due to stress. She described the sentence as “disgusting”.
Leicester Crown Court heard that Miss Page was attacked as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend Lewis Moore, 23, in June last year. James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said Ambaro Maxamed called Miss Page a “white bitch” and grabbed her hair, making her fall.
Miss Page, who needed hospital treatment after the attack, said outside court: “They were taking turns to kick me in the head and back over and over. I thought they were going to kill me. I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.”
Judge Brown, who also sentenced the three sisters to 150 hours of community work, said he accepted that they may have felt victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore. But Miss Page insisted her boyfriend had only been trying to protect her. “If he hadn’t been there, I’m sure they would have killed me,” she said.
Have you seen the video as well!?
They fully kick the gak out of her, attack lasts about.. I dunno, 3 minutes?
No jail though.
But calling people names over the internet? Rot in prison scumbag.
You couldnt make this gak up could you?
Wow, that's terrible. I can hardly believe the decisions being passed down here. Then again, this is the same system that condemned the police for saving and arresting the boy with autism.
Manchu wrote:I don't know what's more terrifying: the fact that you can be arrested for saying dumb things in Britain or the fact that British people think this is okay.
Neither. Whats truly terrifying is british food. Beans on eggs and toast? What are you trying to invoke the dark powers just by eating breakfast???
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.
Which still, under your definition, only gives "freedom of approved speech". The first amendment allows for numerous strong restrictions on speech, which is why you can't slander or libel people without consequences, you can't threaten people, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc etc.
You're right, if by numerous you mean extremely few.
TH3FALL3N wrote:I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
God i am proud to be British...
A nonce getting a light sentence (should have been stoned) doesn't negate the fact that a student got nicked for bing a dill weed. That is more a highlight of the mixed quality of judges and the sentances that are handed down by them.
Mercy for the drunk Muslim girl gang who attacked woman
A girl gang of Somali Muslims who repeatedly kicked a woman in the head during a drunken attack were spared jail after a judge heard that their religion meant they were not used to drinking.
The four defendants shouted “kill the white slag” as they attacked Rhea Page after dragging her to the ground.
Ambaro Maxamed, 24, her sisters Ayan, 28, and Hibo, 24, and their cousin Ifrah Nur, 28, faced up to five years in jail after admitting causing actual bodily harm.
But Judge Robert Brown gave them six-month suspended sentences after deciding that the attack in Leicester city centre was not racially motivated.
He heard in mitigation that the four were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it. Miss Page, 22, was so traumatised by the attack that she lost her job as an educational support worker after repeated absences due to stress. She described the sentence as “disgusting”.
Leicester Crown Court heard that Miss Page was attacked as she walked to a taxi rank with her boyfriend Lewis Moore, 23, in June last year. James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said Ambaro Maxamed called Miss Page a “white bitch” and grabbed her hair, making her fall.
Miss Page, who needed hospital treatment after the attack, said outside court: “They were taking turns to kick me in the head and back over and over. I thought they were going to kill me. I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.”
Judge Brown, who also sentenced the three sisters to 150 hours of community work, said he accepted that they may have felt victims of unreasonable force from Mr Moore. But Miss Page insisted her boyfriend had only been trying to protect her. “If he hadn’t been there, I’m sure they would have killed me,” she said.
Have you seen the video as well!?
They fully kick the gak out of her, attack lasts about.. I dunno, 3 minutes?
No jail though.
But calling people names over the internet? Rot in prison scumbag.
You couldnt make this gak up could you?
Again that is more about the poor quality of judges more than a problem of the actual Law. That fella should loose his wig over that peice of "justice", hopefully it will be referred to a higher authority for review.
As for Muslims not drinking, don't make me laugh. I used to work door at a bar that hald Bangra nights in London, you could always tell the Muslims, they would be the ones drinking Snakebite and invarably throwing up on themselves. Classy venue
Frazzled wrote:You're right, if by numerous you mean extremely few.
Now you're being needlessly pedantic. The thrust of your argument is that the US is superior to the UK because we have "free speech" as opposed to approved speech, my rebuttal was we have numerous checks on our freedoms just as they do, thereby we also have approved (but different) speech. Do you want to haggle over the steak or the peas?
Frazzled wrote:You're right, if by numerous you mean extremely few.
Now you're being needlessly pedantic. The thrust of your argument is that the US is superior to the UK because we have "free speech" as opposed to approved speech, my rebuttal was we have numerous checks on our freedoms just as they do, thereby we also have approved (but different) speech. Do you want to haggle over the steak or the peas?
Checks on free speech in the US are few. if its a public figure, effectively none.
Frazzled wrote:You're right, if by numerous you mean extremely few.
Now you're being needlessly pedantic. The thrust of your argument is that the US is superior to the UK because we have "free speech" as opposed to approved speech, my rebuttal was we have numerous checks on our freedoms just as they do, thereby we also have approved (but different) speech. Do you want to haggle over the steak or the peas?
Thats a topic we have had many many times before, Frazz is always involved by the way.
I think its because Frazz and some of our American cousins hear the "Best country on earth!" tag line a little too often. And there are also some British posters that try and say "Britain is better than America because of X Y and Z. Its a grand nonsense, and its childish argument obnviously.. not just because the entire "we R Best" arugment is inherantly childish, but because a) As anyone can see there is very little difference between not only the UK/US but any first world democracy, and b) None of us are actually free. Try to break some laws you happen to disagree with, or stop paying tax if you wish to see this demonstrated.
And as I said in the last thread, it all falls down to what you prefer. Me and my American missus have lived back here for 3 years, I lived in the US prior, and who knows where the feth the future will take us.. my missus is complaining about missing her family.
There is no "best" there is simply what you prefer. There is no true "Freedom" no matter how much some folk go on about it. There is only the freedom to do what you personally enjoy. The UK govt just released Abu Qatada thanks to the fact that unlike the US government, we don't have the right to hold him any longer. At what price freedom?! Id rather we be less free and that fether still be in prison.. when do you draw a line in the sand and say "we have best free"
I also disagree with the UK govts stance on this Twitter issue, but at the same time I can see the appeal of living in a nation where ridiculous racism and bigotry are punishable with jail, becuase then you have to spend less time around bigots with big mouths. Either you think total freedom of speech is preferable or it isn't, I can see both sides of the issue.
At the end of the day, its down to choice. I think the US has a (very slightly) less appealing society to me because British weather doesn't bother me, I don't care to own any guns (legal in the US) and I hate the fething traffic. But I DO enjoy drinking and gambling. Both of which are far easier here to do here than in California.
If I didn't drink or gamble, and I loved having loads of guns, I dare say I would be more comfortable living in the US. As I stated in the last thread, there is no such thing as freedom, there are thousands of rules we all have to follow, its simply a case of picking which ones you like the most. I pretty much only enjoy doing about ten things.. walking, working out, drinking, gambling, watching sports, reading, playing video games.. painting, warhammer, video games.. I think that's about it.
As long as I can still do all of these things, what do I care if the powers that be ban Mosques? Or ban gay porn? Neither of those would affect me. Or ban owning purple furniture? Or mankinis? (Oh no I think I still have one of those)
If it wont affect me, I don't rightly care enough to move, or do anything other than whinge about it a little in an amusing manner on facebook, and I think thats all this thread boils down to.
Oh and regards traffic.. If my missus demands I end up back in the States next year, can anyone recommend somewhere that's pretty empty?
KingCracker wrote:The Death Sentence should go as follows.
If its a slam dunk case, with no possible room for the guilty to not be guilty, the person in question should be executed as soon as the paper work is filled out. So, 20-and hour Id say?
I would go with the UK system used in the last century prior to abolition.
The condemned gets one appeal automatically heard, and it is fast tracked. The appeal may reduce the sentence uphold it without new evidence, or aquit if new evidence is found or old evidence is found unreliable. This occurs within three weeks of sentencing.
If this appeal fails there is no further appeal. The issue now is to complete the process quickly to avoid undue distress. The condemned person is move to a special cell under individual 24 hour guard. They get access to outside food, newspapers, medical watch, family visits and a priest of any religion they choose. The parameters of the cell were at the time a closely guarded secret as the cell was located adjacent to the execution chamber, which was disguised and soundproofed.
The condemned would be given a minimum of two weeks in the condemned cell, this was in order for the condemned to get their personal affairs in order, and to fulfill religious requirement in good time.
On the day of the execution the executioner and a number of seconds would enter the cell unannounced and would immediately move the condemned person to the execution chamber next door. The gallows, which would be set for a prepared 'long drop' relative to the weight of the condemned, would be normally within 20 feet of the condemned cell sleeping area or the table where the condemned sits. The idea is that the condemned is executed before they have time to panic. Executions would be conducted at breakfast time, not at just after midnight, with a news blackout into the prison for the last 48 hours before execution to avoid undue distress. A good executioner will normally manage to kill the condemned man within half a minute of first entering the cell and almost always occurs by surprise. Long drop gallows are nearly always instantly successful, but do not disfigure the corpse. 'Lingering' last minute appeals are not permitted, the deadline for clemency is approx 24 hours earlier, so politicians, if they wish to have any input, cannot dither.
This advanced method is still in use in Singapore.
If theres a chance that the accused could be innocent, then they should be allowed 1 well planned appeal, a year from then. If still found guilty, read #1
Well holy moly Orlanth, you posted something "political" and I actually found myself liking it. We really could be friends
That would work though, or some variation of it. But the noose is a very effective executioners tool when used correctly. Obviously there are formulas and such so you can pair the correct rope length/thickness to the height/weight of the offender. But once matched correctly, the death is carried out rather quickly. And whats cheaper then a fething rope?
mattyrm wrote:
Oh and regards traffic.. If my missus demands I end up back in the States next year, can anyone recommend somewhere that's pretty empty?
TH3FALL3N wrote:I think him being arrested for this is utterly outrageous. I am 17 and still at sixth form, we had a caretaker at our school that turned out to be a pedophile and had a couple of hundred images of kids on his computer. He received a 9 month suspended sentence. Yet a drunk student who writes a status on twitter (albeit racist) is imprisoned.
God i am proud to be British...
That might be more a case of the sentencing judge being an absolute idiot with regards to your caretaker. How did you know what evidence was being presented in the trial?
The teachers at our school were informed and had to do testimonies etc as he was an employe. He lived on the school grounds aswell which makes it pretty creepy.
I don't think it's okay for anyone to be racist...
The jail time is a bit much but him being booted from University is perfectly within their rights to do so...
You can be arrested/fined for spreading racial hatred however...
I'm not a constitutional lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe restrictions to free speech in the States all hinge on imminent threats of some sort - shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, threats of violence against another individual, etc. You're perfectly allowed to have racist views.
Free speech protections in the US exist specifically to protect unpopular speech. We believe in the marketplace of ideas determining what is and is not valid, not the government.
"Dangerous Thoughts Lead to dangerous movements with lead to deadly acts"
Hotsauceman1 2012
I think its great the britain locks up to morons so they dont breed their hatred.
I must say, if my opinion of GB was informed solely by posts by British users and articles found here on dakka, I would not have a very high opinion of GB. How on earth did you guys ever manage to mangle your justice system so badly?
rubiksnoob wrote:I must say, if my opinion of GB was informed solely by posts by British users and articles found here on dakka, I would not have a very high opinion of GB. How on earth did you guys ever manage to mangle your justice system so badly?
It went downhill after the pact with Satan in 1688.
That's the pertinent point - he has the right to say whatever he wants but using racial slurs comes under the banner of inciting hatred via speech or some such. It's the same law used to lock up Muslim clerics that preach about Jihad and so forth.
So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.
Offensiveness is in the eye of the beerholder.
I agree 100% with Frazzled (never thought I would post that)
Is it illegal in Britain to mock someone's religious beliefs because it constitutes hate speech?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Heh, no thanks. You guys can have your "Freedom of speech" Ill gladly keep mine. Sure it can be a pain in the ass at times, but at least I know I can freely say my opinions/views without being put in handcuffs for it.
Laws are (generally) designed to reflect what society does or does not find acceptable. Amazingly, we happen to find that saying such racist and offensive statements is not acceptable.
Ouch did you see where he was on his course, nearly three years in and about to sit his finals.
My thinking he was wrong to say what he did, and should be called out for it as a complete and utter gakend, not sure about prison time though, also I note he was fast tracked much like the rioters last year.
Now they deserved it for the civil disobience and damage caused, this guy, it seems a knee jerk reaction to media outrage. Which is a worrying trend if I ever saw one.
Certainly when you raise up other similar cases which ended in no jail time, or often not even a conviction, some of which Matty raised my eyebrow is raised.
Got to be a level playing field when it comes to this kind of thing, otherwise you'll end up doing the recruitment guys at the BNP's job for them and I hate that bunch of muppets.
hotsauceman1 wrote:"Dangerous Thoughts Lead to dangerous movements with lead to deadly acts"
Hotsauceman1 2012
I think its great the britain locks up to morons so they dont breed their hatred.
Your quote sounds like something they should put in the fluff section of a 40k rulebook, alongside the one that says "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
So, is 1984 actually a documentary? I always figured it was fiction. But, Britain does have cameras everywhere, constantly watching what you do, and they haul you away and lock you up if you say something the government doesn't like...
I do think the Yanks are blowing this out of proportion mind you, even though I am against the jail thing..
At the end of the day, its always an exceptional circumstance. Clearly you can espouse intolerance and racism without fearing prison, whenever you read about it, its always a particular case.
The point I'm making is, I don't fear the free speech police.
And on topic, an hour after Muamba collapsed I put on my facebook status "had Tottenham down for a draw on my football accumulator and the selfish bastard got the game called off" and suffered nothing more than a friend of a friend saying "your mate is an unfunny spanker"
You clearly can be crass, rude and intolerant in the UK without fearing the law.. I am regularly and I've never been arrested.
Oh and don't worry about the bet, I fethed up two other games as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:I always figured it was fiction. But, Britain does have cameras everywhere, constantly watching what you do, and they haul you away and lock you up if you say something the government doesn't like...
I recommend you visit, come stay with me in York. I doubt you will want to rush off home.
Life here in the UK is truly terrible, why just this morning i was stopped by the roving death squads, after the mind reading spy cameras picked up my one slightly prejudice thought of the day. Oh it's truly terrible here, everyone is so patriotic and no-one dares question the government, I am constantly beeing taught about creation in school, also never to question my Country, and if i do i must be an evil commy. We're also not big on sarcasm.
An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...
Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...
Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?
Frazz, ive mentioned this before, but seriously.. its 2012, why do a small percentage of Americans (You being one of them) still act like its 1775?
Whilst the British have long forgotten they had a war with their American cousins, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that we are still obsessed with invading the Americas?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else. I'm not sure that was ever the intent of the originators of the concept.. enshrining the right to be a bastard...
Well when the First Amendment reared its ugly head, there was plenty of yellow journalism and bad press. After all how do you think they stirred up people enough to start taking potshots at those jive talking friendly neighborhood redcoats?
Frazz, ive mentioned this before, but seriously.. its 2012, why do a small percentage of Americans (You being one of them) still act like its 1775?
Whilst the British have long forgotten they had a war with their American cousins, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that we are still obsessed with invading the Americas?
Its a direct response to the quote. He said it wasn't the intent of the originators of the concept, when you can bet your ass that was the intent. The guys were calling for tarring and feathering people they disagreed with. Thats hardcore.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else.
I've noticed in the US that people who never want to say anything nasty are still pretty committed to other people not being put in jail for saying nasty things.
Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?
Frazzled wrote:
So...I'm right. You don't have freedom of speech, only freedom of approved speech.
The founding fadas were right. We needed the First Amendment.
KingCracker wrote:Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?
That you seem to be ignoring the point that your defending people's right in the US to be offensive to people where none is due. Your saying that you should be allowed to be abusive to someone just because of the colour of their skin or some other stupid reason and get away with it under your laws of freedom of speech. Admitedly I thought these types of things were hate crimes in the US, but nonetheless I don't think someone should have any sort of government backed right to be able to say such things to someone and get away with it. Your coming across as defending these types of rubbish just because the catch all right of freedom of speech that the US has. and your blinding patriotism towards it. I donno, maybe its just us that are wierd, youknow not wanting scum like that in our society. =/
It's not like we ban/block/censor everything...
If someone is creating racist material then they get fined/imprisoned...
IIRC the BNP got into a lot of trouble a while back for this...
Americans seem to forget, when banging on about how much more 'free' they are than us, that the state in the US has the legal ability to take away your most fundamental right - the right to life. But hey, as least you're all free to say n***er as much as you like. I don't think that's much of a trade-off, to be honest.
The government's taking a hard stance against people breaking the law over the internet right now. I guess its to send out a message that it doesn't give people so much animnimoty any more (or at least make it so people percieve it as such). Meh, honestly if some people's heads have to be cracked to get it done and to make people a little less childish then I couldn't care less. Sure that's a pretty hardline view, and I don't totally agree with it, but I really can't be fecked with idiots that think they can be so flippant with racist speech. =/
ArbeitsSchu wrote:An observation: I've often found that the people who are most vocal about their right to 'Free Speech' are the people who really really really want to say something nasty about someone else.
I've noticed in the US that people who never want to say anything nasty are still pretty committed to other people not being put in jail for saying nasty things.
Its a lovely principle..in principle...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards. The problem is to create a balance. IMO the American principle tips it too far in the direction of allowing abuse to flow freely. At the moment there is a tendency in the UK to go too far in the opposite direction. Somewhere between the two should be a position where you have the right to state your opinion about me, but without being rude or abusive. Something like that.
Answers on the back of a stamped, self-addressed postcard...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.
W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.
Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
Sadly, Tottenham doesn't mean Death town.
Nor does Gravesend actually refer to Black Death burial pits.
Nor does Black Heath refer to Black Death burial pits.
I was quite impressed by a road around the corner from me called Ripon Close. I realised at quite an early age that it is an anagram of Necropolis. I am pretty much certain it was not built over an old burial site though. :-(
Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope. I know history is more complex than that but that's how it was articulated then and it's the frame for our political culture.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.
W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.
¬¬ Like's been said before, its not that people are being offensive, its why their being offensive. You shouldn't be allowed to insult someone just for what they are. If people think they can call someone a derrogitory name for no reason then that breeds a notion that those types of people can be treated like your lessers. In America someone from a non-European heritage is killed and its not even a foot note in the local papers, the opposite happens and its front line news and your all up in arms about it. When you can get away by preaching those kind of things then its not long before they actually happen (quicker still because in the case of the US you can buy a handgun in your local supermarket).
Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope.
Well, I'd counter that your country exists becuse of a wealthy merchant class based in the north-east that resented paying taxes on their goods, despite the British taxpayer footing the bill for the colonies' prior defence from the French. The freedom you currently enjoy is due to British sacrifice - if the French had overtaken the 13 colonies, your legal system would be completely different, and your constitution would be unrecognisable. Not that Yanks let any of that get in the way of a little brit-bashing of course.
Albatross wrote:There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
I'll overstate it for the sake of rhetoric, but our country exists because the Crown pushed us down a slippery slope. I know history is more complex than that but that's how it was articulated then and it's the frame for our political culture.
I don't exactly think that was his point, but then again I'll just refer you to a previous post noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way. Honestly we don't think of your war for Independance all the time we think of the US, its well in the past. We're allies now, don't let an old grudge that we're all since over feck with that. ¬¬
@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain? Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point.
Manchu wrote:Wyrmalla, your charactization of the American press is waaaaaaaaaaay off.
American Press? I was thinking more of close minded, overly patriotic conservatives that allow stupid issues cloud what the real issues are all the time. =P
Wyrmalla wrote:... noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way.
That's bizarre! I don't know how your way of doing things would affect ours. I just am glad that yours is yours and ours is ours, which I reckon is what you think, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote:American Press? I was thinking more of close minded, overly patriotic conservatives that allow stupid issues cloud what the real issues are all the time. =P
But what you mentioned was how American newspapers report the killing of minorities by whites and you could not have been more wrong.
Wyrmalla wrote:... noting how some people in the US just love to interpret every bloody British regulation as some way to usurp the US in some way.
That's bizarre! I don't know how your way of doing things would affect ours. I just am glad that yours is yours and ours is ours, which I reckon is what you think, too.
You seemed to be putting across that we were all really strung up about you becoming independant, which was inevitable, and like to get a little dig in against you whenever possible-ie the regulating of our rights rather than the free for all you have. =/
Anyhow, I'm just referring you to the stereotype that the rest of the world gets clued into. Hey internet bloggers over there mention it all the time, so I would assume its an issue. Then again, I doubt that the death of one kid of african descent would lead to riots across half your country like it did ours (okay, there was more to the riots in England than that, but biased references seem to be the in thing), but youknow different cultures.
This country has gone PC mad. Yeah its not nice to have ago at some one for race or sex or whatever cos they all get offended. If some one calls me something and i get offended no one cares. So why should other people be able to do it and what really bugs me is that if a white guy was being slated by a black guy feth all would be done about it. Im not racist I will point out its just the lop sided crap that fills this hole that annoys me.
It isn't free in an absolute sense. Certain levels of vulgarity, "fighting words", and other exceptions have been carved out over the years. That said, I prefer to hear things that I might rather not hear, than to have some "enlightened" group of souls given authority to decide that for me.
I'll quote one of my favorite Englishmen.
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." - GK Chesterton
One might say that the United States is immature socially to allow horrible words and ideas to be flung about by deplorable people. I would reply that we are simply mature enough to handle it. Does that incur a cost? Yes. Nearly everything has a cost of some sort. But, since I am quoting Chesterton already,
"There are no wise few. Every aristrocracy that has existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob."
While a republic, as a form of government, essentially chooses "wise few" to lead, I feel great pains should be taken to ensure that such elected souls are restricted as much as can be without impeding the purpose of the government unduly. Certainly, I will take a system that allows both Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Madow to stomp and fume and say what they please, over one that would gag one, the other, or both. Because in the latter, a judgement call will be made at some point, and such calls can easily be, in the wrong hands, used to control open debate and narrative.
It is a system of personal responsibility. For the assurance of truly unimpeded ideas, we bear the burden of having to navigate through dangerous waters. The results, however, will ever be worth it to me.
Manchu wrote:@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain?
Actually, yes, as you currently experience it. English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA. There are some Americans who like to indulge in this fantasy that because of the war between Britain and its erstwhile colony the USA is a cultural entity completely distinct from Britain, but that's all it is: A fantasy. The 'founding fathers' were Anglos, an inescapable fact, and one which informs the life you currently live and enjoy.
Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point
So your propaganda trumps mine, correct? Can you refute what I posted or is it just that it's too uncomfortable to admit?
Incidentally, we're drifting way off-topic. PM me to continue this if you like. Or not, I won't be offended.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:...but there is a conflict between the right of the bastard to be rude, and the right of the average joe to not be abused by bastards.
W're not convinced that being offended is enough of a harm to pack someone of to jail for inflicting.
Goes a little bit further than 'offended' though. For example, hate speech is considered to be inciting others to engage in 'racist' (or whatever ism applies.) speech or acts, which can result in all manner of deeper nastiness. Likewise, its entirely possible to assault someone with words and be nearly as damaging to that person as if one had actually attacked them, psychologically speaking. Verbal abuse is still abuse.
If anything, powerful oration can do substantially more damage than a kick in the face, because powerful oratory can spread an idea or suggestion to a much larger group, who in turn can act upon that suggestion.
This is where "Free Speech" meets 'Libel and Slander'. And I don't necessarily support jail sentences for 'Word-crime' either, for the record.
Also, it seems odd to argue for freedom of speech on a site that is regularly 'censored' via moderation, and uses word filters. What about my 'right' to tell someone to feth off without it filtering to a different word I did not write? (I'm being rhetorical, I'm well aware of all the reasons why 'Free Speech' doesn't count on the internerd. I used to Op IRC. I still have the preset messages about it somewhere.)
Albatross wrote:English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA.
So what? You know if we follow this sort of thinking, shouldn't you be lauding Germany and France?
So your propaganda trumps mine, correct?
That's right -- because the point I am referring to is the actual concern that inspired the Bill of Rights, rather than some grand conspiracy planned out according to a Marxist critique of society.
Manchu wrote:@Albatross: So the existence of the U.S. as an independent country is owed to Great Britain?
Actually, yes, as you currently experience it. English political and legal culture is fundamental to the cultural identity of the USA. There are some Americans who like to indulge in this fantasy that because of the war between Britain and its erstwhile colony the USA is a cultural entity completely distinct from Britain, but that's all it is: A fantasy. The 'founding fathers' were Anglos, an inescapable fact, and one which informs the life you currently live and enjoy.
Also, your account of the revolution is a nice piece of Howard Zinn inspired proaganda but doesn't quite account for reality -- at least I acknowledge overstating a thing for the sake of making a point
So your propaganda trumps mine, correct? Can you refute what I posted or is it just that it's too uncomfortable to admit?
Incidentally, we're drifting way off-topic. PM me to continue this if you like. Or not, I won't be offended.
This reminds me of a quote from a friend and Dakkite. "There were no Americans in the AWI. Only British people." *rage ensues*. "No, its true. Loyalists and Traitors."
Um, personal freedom's a pivotal thing, but its bad when it infringes on someone elses. You shouldn't allowed to have the freedom to steal someone's things (nope on that one), take there life (nope too), or offend them just because of the way they look (......yeah, about that). Its a person's freedom to defend themselves that are unjustly offending them....youknow with their freedom of speech? If you punch a guy because of the colour of their skin then its a crime, why no if you just belittle them for it? Eugh, calling someone names can do just the same amount of mental damage. Its stupid that people are defending someone's right to be racist, sexist or any other other isms (^^), that again the bill of rights card is being used as the primary argument is getting repetative (guns, freedom to defend yourself,getting off over pictures of representations of naked kids, hell that's in there too apparently). ¬¬
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Goes a little bit further than 'offended' though. For example, hate speech is considered to be inciting others to engage in 'racist' (or whatever ism applies.)
Verbal abuse is still abuse.
Those are two different things. I've already addressed the second one (hurt feelings don't merit jail) but as to the second -- I agree that people are morally responsible for others who carry out their rhetorical orders. But I don't think they're legally responsible. Why? Because absent some inducement, the killer's own will is the only fulcrum on which the issue of intent turns.
And I don't necessarily support jail sentences for 'Word-crime' either, for the record.
Then we agree!
Also, it seems odd to argue for freedom of speech on a site that is regularly 'censored' via moderation, and uses word filters. What about my 'right' to tell someone to feth off without it filtering to a different word I did not write?
Well, besides one of the two site owners being British, you see here practiced the American way of dealing with free speech. You can be fired for telling a racist joke at work and you can be banned from telling one here on Dakka. But neither me nor your boss can have you arrested for it. Well, maybe a British mod could have you arrested for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:@Manchu - I just had to google Howard Zinn. He looks like a hoot.
It's quite worth reading! I read it as a young man and it did its radicalizing work, to be sure. Took me a long time to wipe the crocodile tears out of my eyes.
On the point that words apparently don't hurt as much as physical violence, hell that maybe just you. There's plenty of people who have taken to self harm because of stupid names that idiots have called them.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:'Hurt Feelings; is still massively underplaying what can be done to a person by verbal means alone, in a variety of ways.
Not really. If you systematically verbally abuse someone, it's called harassment and that is a crime. EDIT: Well, it's a bit more fact-specific than that, TBH. Calling someone fat three times isn't enough, certainly.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:'Hurt Feelings; is still massively underplaying what can be done to a person by verbal means alone, in a variety of ways.
Not really. If you systematically verbally abuse someone, it's called harassment and that is a crime.
....So what your ignorant that people can feel hurt because of one slur thrown at them? You don't know what mental state their in. It doesn't matter if you would care if someone bellitled you for who you are no reason other than that, its if someone else would. Maybe you have a more dog eat dog society, youknow if you "weak" enough to feel bad about a slur being thrown at you then your not fit enough, I donno, but I really don't want to live in one where people can think they can get away with that kind of thing. Hey we're taught from primary school that that kind of thing is wrong, and kids that racially abuse another are reprimended worse than those that just get into fights (hell I know, I've did it to kids that acted like that when I was a temp).
Edit: Oddly the BBC is showing a program on this very issue right now, queer.
Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.
@Manchu - Once again, I'm more than willing to discuss stuff with you via PM should you wish.
Eugh, whatever man, its a neat to discuss points with people with opossing views and all, but this one seems to have stagnated a little into circular arguments (youknow its there right not to be hurt - they shouldn't feel hurt from a little thing like that - but what if they are?). ^^
Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.
KingCracker wrote:Agreed. Im all for free speech in America. Id fight for it tooth and nail, same with the 2nd amendment. But I dont go around saying horrible things to people nor am I a racist. So......your point was what again?
Kingcracker, the finest First Amendment Ork in town.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
Also no legitimate reason to attack a person because of their religion, or ethnicity, or weight, or physical ability, or political persuasion, or economic means. I guess everyone better start lining up now. Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.
Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Incidentally, I'm done with this thread. It's a troll thread, posted by a dakka user with a history of persistently trolling and flamebaiting users of other nationalities.
Just you. In the words of the immortal bard: Vive Le France!
Albatross wrote:Well, I think we should be allowed to be rude to each other, and we are. However, that rudeness shouldn't extend to abusing people based on the colour of their skin. There's absolutely no justification for it, and as a nation we can come together and agree a position on the matter that is in the best interests of the public. That's what nations do. That's what nations are for. We agree to restrict the rights of people to steal from one another, or defraud each other - that's based upon a national consensus on what we, as a people, consider to be undesirable behaviour. There is almost universal agreement that subjecting someone to racial abuse is undesirable, so we're entitled to take steps that curb such behaviour. Anything else is just wishy-washy idealism. There is no legitimate reason to racially abuse someone, there are legitimate reasons to criticise the government. There's a difference, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand that, and just engage in infantile slippery-slope arguments.
Frazzled wrote:Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.
Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.
First you need to have a dictator and, more importantly, people willing to go along with him. What any silly little document says is irrelevant if it isn't vested with any significance by the people in power.
Its not a slippery slope, not really, because ultimately individual decisions stand in isolation from one another. Prohibiting one type of speech doesn't implicitly mean that other types of speech will be prohibited. If it did, then the US was bound and destined to become tyrannical when incitement to violence ceased to be protected speech. Conversely, there are plenty of places in the world where the only type of prohibited speech is political speech.
Frazzled wrote:Protections for speech are designed to protect loathsome speech, so that political speech may be protected. Otherwise the dictator will eventually use your laws to destroy opponents.
Slippery slope? Only if you don't look at the tyrannies controlling much of the world.
First you need to have a dictator and, more importantly, people willing to go along with him. What any silly little document says is irrelevant if it isn't vested with any significance by the people in power.
Its not a slippery slope, not really, because ultimately individual decisions stand in isolation from one another. Prohibiting one type of speech doesn't implicitly mean that other types of speech will be prohibited. If it did, then the US was bound and destined to become tyrannical when incitement to violence ceased to be protected speech. Conversely, there are plenty of places in the world where the only type of prohibited speech is political speech.
I'd posit the founding fathers (ok the rich white guys in the various state assemblies who pushed the Bill of Rights) would disagree with you strongly.
Name me a dictatorship with freedom of speech.
Frazzled wrote:
I'd posit the founding fathers (ok the rich white guys in the various state assemblies who pushed the Bill of Rights) would disagree with you strongly.
They probably would, but they would be wrong.
Its also worth noting that when the Bill of Rights was drawn up it only applied to the federal government, the states could oppress speech all they wanted.
Frazzled wrote:
Name me a dictatorship with freedom of speech.
Why? Whether or not dictatorships have freedom of speech has no bearing on whether or not prohibiting certain types of speech is a slippery slope. In general, dictatorships that actively prohibit the freedom of speech became dictatorships first, and prohibited speech second. There aren't many (if any) examples of stable democracies sliding slowly into tyranny. Those few that do exist were generally created whole cloth from the ashes of dictatorships, and the slide generally wasn't all that slow or much of a slide. More like "Well, I'm in power now, and I'm not leaving."
Which, really, was the point of my comment. Freedom of speech exists because no one is willing, or able, to take it away; where willingness and ability have virtually nothing to do what is written on a silly little piece of paper.
Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?
Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.
Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?
Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.
Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran
You haven't named a dictatorship with relatively free speech.
Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?
Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.
Weimar republic.
Not because of free speech
Argentina
Not because of free speech
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Stable democracy? Please.
Iran
Not becuase of free speech.
Try harder.
You haven't named a dictatorship with relatively free speech.
The point isn't that dictatorships have free speech, it's that the nation first comes under the rule of a dictatorship, then free speech is revoked to keep said dictator in power. Read dogma's post.
Frazzled wrote:They go hand in hand. You still haven't given me some examples. man up!
You're ignoring everything I'm saying Frazz. I'm not saying that there are dictatorships which have freedom of speech (to criticise the government at least), I'm saying that the restrictions on free speech come after the dictatorship has established itself.
Frazzled wrote:
Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran
None of those are examples of the slow erosion of freedom.
In the case of Weimar the state effectively collapsed and was superseded by a new government that basically stripped away many freedoms immediately.
In Argentina Peron took power, and decided he was going to socialize the state. He was able to do this because he had generated massive political support for himself. Unfortunately, as is generally the case in South America, this lead to his removal by the military, and a resulting dictatorship.
If Russia was a functioning democracy before, then it still is. Not much has changed since the 90's.
Iran was a revolution that, interestingly enough, ended in the ascension of a more democratic, but more repressive, state. All of this, of course, after we helped overthrow a democratically elected PM.
KingCracker wrote:So you can say "X party sucks! Down with X party!!!"
But you cannot say "So and so Sucks! He needs to feth off!" Youll get arrested?
Im not getting it. And Im still waiting for a rebuttal on my example of Saddam Hussein era Iraq. Pretty sure 90% of that country didnt share his views. But its ok, those people were just tortured and murdered for going against the laws of their country
And we here in the UK don't do torture or murder. That's what we send prisoners to you guys in the US for
You could say "So and so sucks! He needs to feth off!"
You couldn't say "So and so is a fething N*****r and should be strung up from a tree, YEE-HAW!"
We do have free speech. We just hold people accountable for what they say. Responsibility and all that.
Freedom of speech is a sticky subject on one hand total freedom of speech leads to donkey-caves like westboro baptist church getting away with spreading a message of pure hate and evil.
On the other hand its a slippery slope when you start to impose limits on what peeps can say.
As someone who is not likely to go out of his way to spread a message of hate the regulations of Britain would not affect me in the slightest so zero feths would be given.
Jubear wrote:Freedom of speech is a sticky subject on one hand total freedom of speech leads to donkey-caves like westboro baptist church getting away with spreading a message of pure hate and evil.
In the case of a group like Westboro Baptist Church, does it really count as "spreading" a message when basically everyone hates them and nobody listens to them or thinks their ideas have merit?
Personally, I think that is one of the strengths of allowing speech like that of WBC. That is, when they put their hateful message on display without worry of legal consequences, everyone can really see it for what it is, and realize how moronic they are. If they were not allowed to publicly demonstrate or speak their admittedly hateful opinions, many people might not realize how horrible a group they actually are, and they could potentially begin to gain public support that they would otherwise never have by portraying themselves as martyrs facing criminal charges for their religious beliefs.
I like it as it is now. They can "spread" their message as much as they want and it doesn't do dick for their cause.
Frazzled wrote:And why are dictatorships afraid of free speech?
Still waiting on those examples, or are you just admitting you can't come up with some.
Hazardous Harry wrote:
Frazzled wrote:They go hand in hand. You still haven't given me some examples. man up!
You're ignoring everything I'm saying Frazz. I'm not saying that there are dictatorships which have freedom of speech (to criticise the government at least), I'm saying that the restrictions on free speech come after the dictatorship has established itself.
It's almost like you're not actually reading my posts.
Freedom of speech is a great theory, but its not practiced anywhere.
anywhere in Europe its illegal to deny the holocaust. In the states racial slurs are a hate crime. Then in the states, they slipped in the patriot act, Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.
Freedom of speech had a great run, just don't speak out against your governments. I'd miss you guys
So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.
I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.
sebster wrote:So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.
I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.
Yes, but in the US if you do say rude words on television, or show pictures of boobs, you can't be imprisoned. I'm not really trying to argue who's got more freedom, but that is a key difference.
Frazzled wrote:Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran
None of those describe a country where a decline in democracy was preceded by a decline in free speech. You don't get to just make things up.
Meanwhile, there are actually troublesome 'racially offensive' clauses inroduced in Australia, that actually threaten to limit political discussion on an important subject - Aboriginal rights. That is, mentioning that a lot of the leaders of various Aboriginal groups have very little Aboriginal blood can and has been found by the courts to be racially offensive, resulting in a hefty fine. Which means addressing other issues, like the high rates of joblessness and high rates of crime among Aboriginal groups becomes a very dodgy proposition.
This limit on free speach is a serious thing, because it limits debate on an important issue. Trying to trump it up into something that leads to dictatorship is just crude, lazy and ultimately empty rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:Yes, but in the US if you do say rude words on television, or show pictures of boobs, you can't be imprisoned. I'm not really trying to argue who's got more freedom, but that is a key difference.
True, but the penalty is enough that people won't do it (or even if they want to, the corporation broadcasting their content won't let them), resulting in speach that would otherwise happen being prevented.
And that's not the only example, the US is far more supportive of non-disclosure clauses in employee contracts, meaning that an employee who learns his company is doing something really dodgy is much more limited in speaking out for the public good.
The point is that ultimately free speach is a complex matter, and different countries are going to balance competing interests in different ways. Making declarations about who is more free, or how some other country's decision to openly limit a specific form of speach will inevitably lead to the collapse of democracy is just nonsense.
The only place I can think of where a dictatorship had happened when civil liberties were suspended was Germany.
Following his appointment as chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler began laying the foundations of the Nazi state.
The Reichstag Fire Decree on February 28, 1933, permitted the suspension of basic civil rights--rights that had been guaranteed by the democratic Weimar Constitution. The Third Reich became a police state in which Germans enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police. Political opponents, especially those in the Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, along with Jews, were subject to intimidation, persecution, and discriminatory legislation.
It was was because of the Reichstag fire that Hitler was able to seize civil liberties and plunge the country in a police state. If the fire didn't happen people wouldn't have given up there civil liberties, (at least not that quickly) and without people giving up there civil liberties a police state wouldn't have taken hold so easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, there are actually troublesome 'racially offensive' clauses inroduced in Australia, that actually threaten to limit political discussion on an important subject - Aboriginal rights. That is, mentioning that a lot of the leaders of various Aboriginal groups have very little Aboriginal blood can and has been found by the courts to be racially offensive, resulting in a hefty fine. Which means addressing other issues, like the high rates of joblessness and high rates of crime among Aboriginal groups becomes a very dodgy proposition.
Aboriginals they're like the Australian "Native Americans". I hope you guys find a better solution than we did on how to treat them. Because I don't hear so much for crime, but joblessness and medical problem like diabetes is ramped in the Tribes.
broodstar wrote:The only place I can think of where a dictatorship had happened when civil liberties were suspended was Germany.
There are many more. The point is that it wasn't the gradual erosion of liberty that led to dictatorship, but the sudden deprivation of liberties backed by a mass of well organized support.
Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.
So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?
NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.
broodstar wrote:
NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.
Subtitle D wrote:Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
broodstar wrote:Aboriginals they're like the Australian "Native Americans". I hope you guys find a better solution than we did on how to treat them. Because I don't hear so much for crime, but joblessness and medical problem like diabetes is ramped in the Tribes.
In a lot of ways the treatment of Native Americans looks pretty good compared to what's happened to the Aboriginals. Not to say that what happened to the Native Americans wasn't bad, but just to say how much of a clusterfeth the situation with aboriginals has been, and still is today.
Subtitle D wrote:Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
there it is in sec.1022 but that's enough. I withdraw my statement.
That must have been restored after this conversation.
Grats to Senator Levin
but, what you are showing me is from the GPO, so it must be the final draft of the bill.
There is two different types of "Freedoms of Speech". The American one, where racial sler can be said all whilly nilly, And then there's the rest of the worlds Freedom of Speech, where you can still say what you want, but silly things such as Neo Nazi's wondering around screaming "HEIL HITLER" are not put up with and people who say things like this deserve to be shot. Which in some cases they are.
A Town Called Malus wrote:
And we here in the UK don't do torture or murder.
You could say "So and so sucks! He needs to feth off!"
You couldn't say "So and so is a fething N*****r and should be strung up from a tree, YEE-HAW!"
We do have free speech. We just hold people accountable for what they say. Responsibility and all that.
First off we Americans say YEE-HAW? Secondly you are telling me you have never mouthed off to someone and had them know it is just plain BS with no weight at all?
Poppabear wrote:\silly things such as Neo Nazi's wondering around screaming "HEIL HITLER" are not put up with and people who say things like this deserve to be shot. Which in some cases they are.
So, "Freedom of Speech" is "Freedom of Death"? Wow!!!! (sings) And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Johnny-Crass wrote:
First off we Americans say YEE-HAW?
I've made a noise similar to YEE-HAW, but I live in the south, and I was drunk.
Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.
So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?
NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.
I would have said not but the example of McArthyism in the 1950s could be taken to argue otherwise. It was illegal to be a communist and people even suspected of it were hounded out of their jobs.
McArthyism was defeated by the social and political structure that existed at the time, though.
t just shows that even in the US you can have remarkable restrictions on free speech and political action being created and then defeated within the same society.
Poppabear wrote:\silly things such as Neo Nazi's wondering around screaming "HEIL HITLER" are not put up with and people who say things like this deserve to be shot. Which in some cases they are.
So, "Freedom of Speech" is "Freedom of Death"? Wow!!!! (sings) And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free....
Or at least not aware/watched enough to think you can do anything. The chap we are discussing posted something on the biggest public forum about a huge issue. He got noticed and since the news providers here scour the Internet for content it got put in front of the beak. An idiot gets nicked is not news to me, I think that Facebook did noting about it (to the extent that its action would actually protected its user, said idiot) was actually the real story. No wonder offensive trolling is so common there.
This also comes off the back of any Internet based communication being pretty much permanent written record. You write some thing offensive about someone then it's not just a bit of name calling, it will hang there as a reminder pretty much forever.
This thread makes me think that many Americans seem to be terrified of their government?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Johnny-Crass wrote:
First off we Americans say YEE-HAW?
I've made a noise similar to YEE-HAW, but I live in the south, and I was drunk.
At this point I just think you don't realise you are doing it, pard-ner.
notprop wrote:
This thread makes me think that many Americans seem to be terrified of their government.
To understand America... America is a little psychotic.
There was a guy that tried to run for a local office in my town that described himself as an anarchist. An anarchist running for a government office, does anyone else see something wrong there!?
It depends on what region the the guy your talking to is from. We have people that don't like the government and we have people that run up and give the government a big hug.
I've seen it in both liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives say to Uncle Sam "hands off my medical decisions!" and sees a woman walking into an abortion clinic, "you should be making her decisions." Liberals say to Uncle Sam "Don't tell me how I should medicate myself but I want you to pay for my healthcare"
America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.
Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.
I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, and the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.
Sturmtruppen wrote:Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.
There are white power movements in the US, too. In fact, you may have heard of one of them. They wear white hoods.
I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, and the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.
That's nonsense. The Republicans are not fascists by any stretch of the imagination - it's just name-calling, pure and simple.
Specifically "Paternalistic Justification for Limiting Speech"
You should never start talking about things you have no idea about, and 99.9% of people have no idea what Free Speech actually means, they use it as "I Win" button in an argument and are absolutely wrong. Equally people who say I am entitled to an opinion, No you are not, you can give an opinion but by what "Title" do you hold an opinion, as a Citizen. A Doctor can give a "Medical Opinion" because he is entitled too the clue is in the title DOCTOR, same with an Engineer, or Any Professional position that would be admissable in a court of law. You can give an Opinion as a Citizen or are not entitled to one.
John Adams would be turning in his grave if people believe that Free speech means the right to abuse, denigrate and say all manner of offensive material to anyone for any reason. Everyone is responsible for what they say. Otherwise Jihadist Terrorists could justify "Death to the West", Racist People could justify their racism, Sexist People could justify sexism.
There is no such thing as Free speech as a Layman would understand it. It is a complete fallacy and is used by pseudo intellectuals to defend, undefendable positions. It's the same when people say British Constitution or Rights? There is no such thing, it is a loose affiliation of documents, rulings, case law, not a codified (though amended) single document like the United States.
Sturmtruppen wrote:Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.
you have EDL we have KKK
you have Combat 18 we have AB
I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.
executions...right? so what do you do with your serial killers?
Guantanamo Bay...so, what do you do with your POWs?
Republicans = Fascist...ooooh, I could start an international incident over that. But for the sake of the forum, I wont.
broodstar wrote:
executions...right? so what do you do with your serial killers?
Guantanamo Bay...so, what do you do with your POWs?
Republicans = Fascist...ooooh, I could start an international incident over that. But for the sake of the forum, I wont.
While not condoning sturmtruppens comments;
Serial Killers - Secure mental facilities
PoWs - PoW camps and facilities conforming to Queens regulations and international law. I thought Gitmo prisoners were Illegal Combatants ergo storing them off shore under questionable rules?
Republican - British ones, traitors to her Majesty; American ones a slightly differant type from the other lot you have but broadly similar.
Publicans - salt of the earth types that sell you beer.
notprop wrote:[I thought Gitmo prisoners were Illegal Combatants ergo storing them off shore under questionable rules?
If your a normal guy, you sit in your cell, get a meal maybe 2 a day, the library cart comes around once a week. If we think you have information we want, that's a different story. Don't knock torture that's how Bin Laden is dead.
Republican - British ones, traitors to her Majesty;
sebster wrote:So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.
I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.
get off your high horse. You're not British either.
I don't know why I bothered posting the above. This is turning into a Brit vs Yank Fratricide, will everyone stop with the half formed opinions and the my cock is bigger than your cock infantile arguments (Britains Great vs America's Awesome) it's pointless and detracts from the central issue which is Free Speech in the UK. See my previous post,
sebster wrote:So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.
I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.
get off your high horse. You're not British either.
No, but like all non-Brits he wants to be. He is entitled to his frustration.
broodstar wrote:What do you think Gitmo looks like? What does that gak hole look like?
Does it look any worse than your countries prisons? and that's the guys we don't give a F about.
I need to point this out, because you are not listening. The Prisoners in British Prisons are there because they have been to trail and found guilty by a British Jury (the one exception was Abu Hamza who was awaiting deportation to Jordan). Last I checked no one at GITMO had a trial. Please do not confuse your Detention Facilities with a Prison.
sebster wrote:So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.
I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.
get off your high horse. You're not British either.
Frazz, dude, Let it go the dude can say what he wants.
Have you heard about the Marmite famine in New Zealand?
I have actually. New Zealand is making prepartions for invasion of Australia to procure enugh of this vital natural resource. They are arming their sheep bombers as we speak.
Drop bears vs. killer sheep, no matter who wins, we lose.
broodstar wrote:Actually getting back on topic, I have question for all the "polite societies".
If a comedian is telling joke, and that audience is laughing except for that one guy, did the comedian create a public nuisance?
I believe the performing arts are exempt from such liabilities. Otherwise my case for damages from the makers of the Green Lantern would have netted me a cool million by now!
Depends entirely on the content and situation. A famous British Comedian "Roy Chubby Brown" was an uber offensive comedian, and would literally say anything. He has often been boo'd off stage or had things thrown at him. But because he is a Performer, this is a persona and he is playing a role. It does not reflect his personality. So therefore no, in the same way that actors who act even an abhorent character (Ed Norton, American History X) aren't prosecuted.
If he differentiated and said this is my personal opinion he may leave himself open.
Frankie is clever with it, he is offensive without resorting to swearing (too often!). The other thing is that it's very risky in the UK to start going for people in the public eye. You can find yourself in court. I'm pretty sure this is the same in the US.
mwnciboo wrote:Frankie is clever with it, he is offensive without resorting to swearing (too often!). The other thing is that it's very risky in the UK to start going for people in the public eye. You can find yourself in court. I'm pretty sure this is the same in the US.
We do have a guy named Bill Cosby that didn't swear, but you can read a book and be better entertained.
Really you can't talk mess about the queen, prime minister or athletes and such? We attack each other all the time. Why? it's entertainment.
broodstar wrote:
Really you can't talk mess about the queen, prime minister or athletes and such? We attack each other all the time. Why? it's entertainment.
I'd imagine there's a stark difference between having a joke at their expense, and actually claiming something to be true, which might be considered libel.
I'm not aware of any such claims or cases. Perhaps you could shed a little light Melissa?
Back to Broodstar - yes you can make jokes about anyone and anything here. Frankie Boyle is pretty well know for making some rather crude jokes at the Queens expense (amoungst others).
Allot of the comedy is irreverant and sureal so most topucs are okay as it is obviously comedy.
If your routine consisted of
"knock, knock"
"Who's there?"
"XXXX is a Peado!"
Even if everyone in the room laughed XXXX would be consulting the lawyers unless it was already proven XXXX was a nonce.
Not to mention super injunctions because you don't want the public to know what you've actually been doing so you try and get a court gagging order on the media. It gets granted so the if you break it you are in contempt of court, but it doesn't matter because everyone on the internet and even Politicians using the Parliamentary priviledge can break it.
On the other side of the coin if someone like a Lord or Politician gets convicted for something its open season, you can literally rip them a new a-hole and no one will bat an eyelid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:Frankie is clever with it, he is offensive without resorting to swearing (too often!). The other thing is that it's very risky in the UK to start going for people in the public eye. You can find yourself in court. I'm pretty sure this is the same in the US.
We do have a guy named Bill Cosby that didn't swear, but you can read a book and be better entertained. Really you can't talk mess about the queen, prime minister or athletes and such? We attack each other all the time. Why? it's entertainment.
Don't confuse swearing with comedy, it can be done well, but humour can come from different things. A child can swear, doesn't make them funny. The best TV Comedy I have ever seen is "In the Thick of it" about a Political spin doctor and his reign of fear over politicians. Made a good film too, superbly written very funny.
Yes, you can talk about them and make fun of them but you cannot say " That Queen eh? What a C*%t." Like a re-tarded child with tourettes.
Off topic, Carlos Mencia is the worst comedian ever, and he steals all his jokes off other people. I heard that on the radio when I was in CA, and apparently he has been caught doing it several times.
On topic, yeah its a troll topic. Why is it still open? I'm aggressively pro American of course so I wouldn't personally, but if someone made a thread called "So Americans can just /insert enmasse statement due to gak news story" its pretty much just an obvious troll isn't it?
Frankly I admire our British sense of fair play for even debating in this thread when the initial premise is so ridiculous.
mwnciboo wrote:Not to mention super injunctions because you don't want the public to know what you've actually been doing so you try and get a court gagging order on the media. It gets granted so the if you break it you are in contempt of court, but it doesn't matter because everyone on the internet and even Politicians using the Parliamentary priviledge can break it.
On the other side of the coin if someone like a Lord or Politician gets convicted for something its open season, you can literally rip them a new a-hole and no one will bat an eyelid.
A seperate issue, but super injunctions are something that I really do have a major problem with.
mattyrm wrote: Off topic, Carlos Mencia is the worst comedian ever, and he steals all his jokes off other people. I heard that on the radio when I was in CA, and apparently he has been caught doing it several times.
On topic, yeah its a troll topic. Why is it still open? I'm aggressively pro American of course so I wouldn't personally, but if someone made a thread called "So Americans can just /insert enmasse statement due to gak news story" its pretty much just an obvious troll isn't it?
Frankly I admire our British sense of fair play for even debating in this thread when the initial premise is so ridiculous.
And the guy who asked knows it as well!
A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.
This all goes back to a simple difference that started back in the 1600's the people who stayed in Britain were always more of a toe the line mentality on average.
American were the loners and the rough edged individuals who wanted to have more freedom from restraint.
Our justice systems are different our cultures are different our view of free speech is different but that does not mean either way is wrong it is just different.
I prefer our verision of Free Speech because it is part of what makes this country great ( a spirited debate of the facts) BUT this also means we must let the idiots who spew hatred speak.
For the Brits there system doesn't tolerate this kind of hatred. so your life can be ruined. Then again they have some laws that make us look like a bunch of Wild eyed Zealots.
In short differenty strokes for different folks the only difference is here in american its on your social group to give you hell. In england if you cross a certain line the police will do it.
AustonT wrote:
A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.
Mate Dane Cook is fething awful as well.. and Joe Rogan! They are both worse than Mencia, your correct and I take it back.
I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment.
The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment. The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
Hardly. I view British opinion of the US just above how I view any other country's opinion of the US, which means its about equivalent in concern to a bucket of warm spit. Be glad if it were not the UK, Canada, or Australia I'd consider it equal to a bucket of room temperature spit.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!
It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.
That's one reason why kids pledge at school.. my missus said she did it at school and they all stood and saluted the flag, I thought she was winding me up, and her state is liberal! Can you imagine us singing the national anthem in primary school? I cant blame them, and I cant even say if its a bad thing or not. Maybe if we were the colony and not the motherland I would feel the same way. In the US, a place I would happily live by the way, these are tiny flaws, but you really do get TV show hosts and radio DJs and commercials regularly (at least once a week I hear it) saying "greatest country on earth!" all the time. And Freedom everything.. Freedom fries, Freedom FM, Freedom this and Freedom that. "GREATEST NATION ON EARTH" is something you might expect in China, but its a common statement in the USA.
It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
Bill Bryson touched on that in one of his books about the USA.
Of course everyone probably prefers their own native country.
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment.
The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.
And TV. They regulate what you can put through the air waves. They impose fines, y'know punishment. Punishment for doing something that is guranteed by the first amendment.
mattyrm wrote: As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
Your use of facts, logic, and considered moderation have no place in this forum!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment. The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.
And TV. They regulate what you can put through the air waves. They impose fines, y'know punishment. Punishment for doing something that is guranteed by the first amendment.
See what happens when you don't have free speech? * *outside of 3 minutes in the morning to check on traffic I haven't atched network TV in years.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And we here in the UK don't do torture or murder.
You could say "So and so sucks! He needs to feth off!"
You couldn't say "So and so is a fething N*****r and should be strung up from a tree, YEE-HAW!"
We do have free speech. We just hold people accountable for what they say. Responsibility and all that.
First off we Americans say YEE-HAW? Secondly you are telling me you have never mouthed off to someone and had them know it is just plain BS with no weight at all?
I was using an exaggeration to highlight the fundamental difference in what can get you arrested and what can't. A stereotype the entire world knows is the racist, redneck cowboy who likes to watch the lynchings on a sunday afternoon. It helps him relax after the cross burnings of the previous night.
To answer your second question, no I generally don't mouth off to someone if I don't have a reason to. What's the point? There's plenty of things I can whine about with actual evidence to back up my opinions. Such as all our politicians being lying, thieving scumbags.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
It's because the US is pretty much a teenager bragging about it's sexual conquests. It has to be loud and brash to hide its insecurities about itself and its worth.... Britain went through that phase when we had our Empire. We're like "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and diamond mines". Now we've reached the other side where we can all sit and grumble happily. We feel best when we have something to moan about.
The school appears no longer to be speaking publicly, on the advice of its attorney. Meanwhile, some of the students threatened a protest on Friday, so much so that police were called.
Also not how American aren't saying "people have the right not to be offended by seeing the F-Word in other in tweets" or otherwise supporting this idiocy ...
Sturmtruppen wrote:Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.
There are white power movements in the US, too. In fact, you may have heard of one of them. They wear white hoods.
I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, and the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.
That's nonsense. The Republicans are not fascists by any stretch of the imagination - it's just name-calling, pure and simple.
It IS name-calling, isn't it? And name-calling simply on the basis of who someone is! He didn't take into account what kind of emotional state Republicans who read that might have been in, or how the normal response among freedom-loving people to fascism is to go to war to end it. By Jove, I think he just incited to violence based on identity! Someone get the British police to put on those cute round hats and go lock him up.
This thread is a fascinating study in the age old "Freedom To versus Freedom From" debate.
For the record, I come down on the "Freedom To" side. Do I like what some racist schmuck has to say? Absolutely not. Does that mean he should be jailed for saying it? Absolutely not.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!
It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.
That's one reason why kids pledge at school.. my missus said she did it at school and they all stood and saluted the flag, I thought she was winding me up, and her state is liberal! Can you imagine us singing the national anthem in primary school? I cant blame them, and I cant even say if its a bad thing or not. Maybe if we were the colony and not the motherland I would feel the same way. In the US, a place I would happily live by the way, these are tiny flaws, but you really do get TV show hosts and radio DJs and commercials regularly (at least once a week I hear it) saying "greatest country on earth!" all the time. And Freedom everything.. Freedom fries, Freedom FM, Freedom this and Freedom that. "GREATEST NATION ON EARTH" is something you might expect in China, but its a common statement in the USA.
It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
I think its specifically that they can't understand why we don't agree with them that USA RULES! In the face of all the 'evidence' of how great it is, we still won't agree, and this frustrates them. Something like that, anyway.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!
It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.
That's one reason why kids pledge at school.. my missus said she did it at school and they all stood and saluted the flag, I thought she was winding me up, and her state is liberal! Can you imagine us singing the national anthem in primary school? I cant blame them, and I cant even say if its a bad thing or not. Maybe if we were the colony and not the motherland I would feel the same way. In the US, a place I would happily live by the way, these are tiny flaws, but you really do get TV show hosts and radio DJs and commercials regularly (at least once a week I hear it) saying "greatest country on earth!" all the time. And Freedom everything.. Freedom fries, Freedom FM, Freedom this and Freedom that. "GREATEST NATION ON EARTH" is something you might expect in China, but its a common statement in the USA.
It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
I think its specifically that they can't understand why we don't agree with them that USA RULES! In the face of all the 'evidence' of how great it is, we still won't agree, and this frustrates them. Something like that, anyway.
You're presuming too much. That whole scheme requires caring, requires effort. Unless its about the benjamins Americans aren't goning to put that kid of effort into anything.
mattyrm wrote:
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
Your use of facts, logic, and considered moderation have no place in this forum!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment.
The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.
And TV. They regulate what you can put through the air waves. They impose fines, y'know punishment. Punishment for doing something that is guranteed by the first amendment.
See what happens when you don't have free speech? *
*outside of 3 minutes in the morning to check on traffic I haven't atched network TV in years.
Then, MAybe we shouldnt point fingers and look internally at america. As much as the right wing love to say this is a perfect country its not. It is still very much " Land of the FREEE, to do i want you to"
I would point out the poor kid (that the US president got involved) after being shot by some neighbourhood watchman in Self-Defence (Stand your ground law?) not even being arrested. As a neutral party, that Trayvonne deserves justice.
This wouldn't happen in the UK, if you killed someone even inself defence (even if an Armed Police Officer) you will be arrested pending investigation. The shooting of a man in London last year starting the riots is still being investigated and when this comes back unlawful killing the Police unit that did it will be in the dock defending themselves from a murder or manslaughter charge.
@Mattrym, there is a few good things that come out of being whingers/ negative, we are dour pragmatists. We are cynical and not guillable, if someone says "I'm going to make a Million pounds" yeah whatever bell end. In the US it would be "If you want it, you can achieve it".
But you know what, we are cut from the same cloth, the older, smaller more serious Brother, and the younger, bigger brasher go getting brother. I can criticise my Brother and he can criticise me and we will smack each other around, but no one repeat no one f8ck's with my brother. Red White & Blue, Christian, English speaking democracy's with a shared heritage. Yeah that's probably the best summation of it.
mattyrm wrote:
As I said a few threads back.. and my American missus says regularly. Somewhere in the middle of where Britain and America currently stand, would result in the best place to be, not so jingoistic and desperate to be top cat all the time, not so dour, filled with pessimism, and a contentment with always being the underdog.
Your use of facts, logic, and considered moderation have no place in this forum!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:The U.S doesnt have free speech. Look at the FCC. there existence violates the first amendment.
The Brits are doing the same thing. Just with hate crimes.
Thats so wrong its not funny. The FCC regulates radio frequencies only. You can't go to jail.
And TV. They regulate what you can put through the air waves. They impose fines, y'know punishment. Punishment for doing something that is guranteed by the first amendment.
See what happens when you don't have free speech? *
*outside of 3 minutes in the morning to check on traffic I haven't atched network TV in years.
Then, MAybe we shouldnt point fingers and look internally at america. As much as the right wing love to say this is a perfect country its not. It is still very much " Land of the FREEE, to do i want you to"
Not seeing where the3 fact I can't stand network TV matters other than...I have taste.
mwnciboo wrote:I would point out the poor kid that the US president named after being shot by someone in Self-Defence (Stand your ground law?) not even being arrested. As a neutral party, that Trayvonne deserves justice.
This wouldn't happen in the UK, if you killed someone even inself defence (even if an Armed Police Officer) you will be arrested pending investigation.
Fellow Americans, ignore this post! It's a British plot to weaken our unity and divide us before they swoop in to conquer us.
Stay strong! Stay on the topic of the Freedom of Speech. Do not let them derail us by bringing up gun control a totally reasonable and responsible issue.
Concerning freedom of speech...
We do have freedom of speech but if someone goes out of their way to spread vile and hateful messages about a certain ethnic or racial group that is illegal. Especially so if it starts causing violence.
purplefood wrote:Concerning freedom of speech...
We do have freedom of speech but if someone goes out of their way to spread vile and hateful messages about a certain ethnic or racial group that is illegal. Especially so if it starts causing violence.
It's pretty much this. Plus to the Americans saying that they have more freedom of speech than us, try standing outside the white house with a beard and turban and shout "allahu ackbar!" and "death to the infidels!"
AustonT wrote:
A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.
Mate Dane Cook is fething awful as well.. and Joe Rogan! They are both worse than Mencia, your correct and I take it back.
Well TBH I like both Mencia and Cook...I guess that says something about my standards. I also have LPs of Bill Cosby from my youth.
You don't and shouldn't take it back, it's just part of the stand up scene that jokes are frequently lifted or "shared".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw KilKrazy...well played in the Spike Lee thread. Well played.
So you know that there is an angry mob out there but think the way you reveal the address will have some bearing on their reaction. It is reasonable to presume that an angry mob will react angrily in a mob-type fashion.
In this case I think Spike would have to prove medically he was that stupid to avoid censure no mater what country.
Sturmtruppen wrote:Maybe what you Americans don't understand is that here in the UK, we have the EDL and Combat 18.
There are white power movements in the US, too. In fact, you may have heard of one of them. They wear white hoods.
I also find it very ironic that you Americans have the audacity to preach 'freedom' to the rest of the world. America, the country that still has executions, Guantanamo Bay, and the Republican party that by our standards are, frankly, fascists.
That's nonsense. The Republicans are not fascists by any stretch of the imagination - it's just name-calling, pure and simple.
It IS name-calling, isn't it? And name-calling simply on the basis of who someone is! He didn't take into account what kind of emotional state Republicans who read that might have been in, or how the normal response among freedom-loving people to fascism is to go to war to end it. By Jove, I think he just incited to violence based on identity! Someone get the British police to put on those cute round hats and go lock him up.
You are terrible at sarcasm. I mean, let's just get that out of the way first.
Race and political affilition are not even remotely the same thing. You are free to attack a person's political choices, you can't choose to be a particular skin colour, and that skin colour doesn't really say anything about what type of person you are, what choices you make, or what you believe in.
I said it was 'just name-calling' because the person I quoted was using the word 'fascist' euphemistically to mean 'something I don't like'. The Republican party is not a fascist organsation. That is just a false statement.
Nah just mention Ireland and Albatross will go into a flaming tizzy. Its fun to watch, like TBone getting wound up about squirrel just out of his reach.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!
It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.
And proceeded to create the largest empire the world has ever seen. Yeah, gonna have to disagree most strongly with that. You're talking about people who built a railway across India, for feth's sake! That takes get-up-and-go. Hell, the Empire only existed because millions of Brits 'got up and went' to all four corners of the globe.
It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...
You're wrong Matt. It's just a massive generalisation. How many Americans use therapists compared to here? And I disagree that we're a nation of losers - British culture isn't about winning OR losing, it's about doing both with elan. It's about how you play the game, and how you conduct yourself at the outcome. People always bang on about us loving a 'valiant loser', but it's the 'valiant' part that counts, because that's the measure of a man, not 'WOOO!! YEAH!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! IN YOUR FACE!!! I would much rather see us lose with dignity than win like that. It's crass and boorish. Of course winning valiantly is preferable, but as we say, 'you can't win 'em all'. You can always conduct yourself with decorum, however. This is often misinterpreted, particularly by our American cousins.
I think Kipling puts it best:
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
mattyrm wrote:It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
Well, the American alternative is to cling to the notion that this country is exceptional, the best, or some other nonsense. Plus we have our fair share of people hearkening for the days of the Founders, or the days before the 60's, or some other crap they idealize.
Oh, and the "I'm awesome!" syndrome is perhaps more prevalent here than anywhere else.
Frazzled wrote:
Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi
Of course when you lose, and you will, the ego doesn't take it well.
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.
In regards to "losing.'
Here's ours. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. " Vince Lombardi
The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest
As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?
Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...
Actually, they kind of make sense taken in the context of what you posted - the whole 'well, we could win, easily, but if we give up and go home we haven't 'lost'...' thing. And that's basically a manifestation of the problem dogma highlighted.
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.
In regards to "losing.'
Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi
The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest
The British Empire was a sham. It was colour on a map. The only places it had success was where the inhabitants were primative and the climate was tolerable to Europeans, i.e. The Americas, South-East Australia. Any country can be successful if it has a quarter of the globe in its trading sphere.
Wikipedia wrote:The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. It originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
Albatross wrote:Race and political affilition are not even remotely the same thing. You are free to attack a person's political choices, you can't choose to be a particular skin colour, and that skin colour doesn't really say anything about what type of person you are, what choices you make, or what you believe in.
They don't, that's correct. I think it's extremely naive to believe you can pick and choose what makes up an individual's identity, however. By your logic, I should be perfectly free to head across the pond and say exactly the same thing this kid said, only about Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, and I'd be perfectly fine, right? After all, someone's not inherently Christian, and if the characteristics you're born with are the ONLY ones that are protected under this law of Great Britain's, then I can be as much of a douchebag as I want to Catholics without fear of getting thrown in jail. If I can attack their political choices, I should be free to attack their religious choices, because they're both choices.
And now you're going to assure me that it does, in fact, work that way.
It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...
purplefood wrote:It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.
In regards to "losing.'
Here's ours.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. "
Vince Lombardi
The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest
As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?
I'm sorry, come again? Is that figure in land mass or counting all the ground between the various Britannic possessions?
purplefood wrote:It does...
The law regarding the spread of racial hatred doesn't cover spreading hatred against religion...
Though you may be charged with other things...
Such as?
Well if you focused on 1 person it would be harassment.
Probably provocation of violence if they actually hit you.
Though they would probably result in a fine/restraining order...
Frazzled wrote:I'd say the old USSR was the largest empire ever, dwarfing pretty much everything else, except the Mongol Empire. But I'll grant you, it was big.
In regards to "losing.'
Here's ours. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. " Vince Lombardi
The Soviet Union covered a total of 22,402,200 square kilometres. The Mongol Empire was 24,000,000 square kilometres. The British Empire covered 33,700,000 square kilometres (around a quarter of the total land on Earth). So us Brits had the biggest
As for that "winning isn't everything" thing, how was Vietnam?
I'm sorry, come again? Is that figure in land mass or counting all the ground between the various Britannic possessions?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've found that often Americans become quite upset simply because the British refuse to believe that their country is all that great. Its OK, I suppose. Passable even. Occasionally it can be quite interesting. But its not super-awesome-wintastic. For some reason that really twists their nipples?
I told you, I've lived in both, and I understand both extremely well. Britain loves a loser. Tim Henman would have been a bus boy if he was American!
It think its due to many things, partially because of the war and a lingering paranoia, also an enforced feeling of unity taken after the collapse of the USSR. I also once saw a programme about it that said Britian and America are inherently the way they are because the people that had that entrepreneurial spirit and get up and go and positive outlook buggerd off to the US in search of their fortune. The "Its never gonna work" crowd stayed home.
And proceeded to create the largest empire the world has ever seen. Yeah, gonna have to disagree most strongly with that. You're talking about people who built a railway across India, for feth's sake! That takes get-up-and-go. Hell, the Empire only existed because millions of Brits 'got up and went' to all four corners of the globe.
It sounds totally bizarre, but the USA to this day has something of a chip on its shoulder. Britain being the place that started it all is the opposite, and folk here regularly say how terrible they are at everything, complain incessently, lack drive, and say "back in the good old days" and "my grandad said..."
America is a nation with a winners, Britain is a nation of whiners. These might be hard things for people of both countries to hear, but trust me on this...
You're wrong Matt. It's just a massive generalisation. How many Americans use therapists compared to here? And I disagree that we're a nation of losers - British culture isn't about winning OR losing, it's about doing both with elan. It's about how you play the game, and how you conduct yourself at the outcome. People always bang on about us loving a 'valiant loser', but it's the 'valiant' part that counts, because that's the measure of a man, not 'WOOO!! YEAH!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!! IN YOUR FACE!!! I would much rather see us lose with dignity than win like that. It's crass and boorish. Of course winning valiantly is preferable, but as we say, 'you can't win 'em all'. You can always conduct yourself with decorum, however. This is often misinterpreted, particularly by our American cousins.
I think Kipling puts it best:
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!
Damn right.
Goddamnit Albatross, you're giving me these tingly feelings.
Joey wrote:
The British Empire was a sham. It was colour on a map. The only places it had success was where the inhabitants were primative and the climate was tolerable to Europeans, i.e. The Americas, South-East Australia. Any country can be successful if it has a quarter of the globe in its trading sphere.
The British Empire is the largest ever in most ways. The idea any current person who considers them self British should be proud of that fact is moronic however. Not only are you sending up a bunch of absoloute c***s but unless you are heir to a lordship your ancestors were probably the guys who got treated like gak by said c***s not the c***s themselves. Leave the meaningless patriotism to the Americans.
In my opinion if John Harrison could have lived to see the devastation the BE wrought, he like Robert Oppenheimer would have regreted the technological revolutions he gave birth to.
No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.
The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.
Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"
So this empire size thing isn't the Empires at thier hieght but any territory they ever claimed? I guess I could see the British Empire as being the largest then.
AustonT wrote:So this empire size thing isn't the Empires at thier hieght but any territory they ever claimed? I guess I could see the British Empire as being the largest then.
Exactly, territory has nothing to do with an empire, you measured an empire by it's territory back in the 1600's, that's pirate bs. And this maybe some hippie gak but, As long as the Star Spangled Banner, or the Union Jack or whatever you call your country's flag flies, it is flying the pride of your people. Because the empire is you my friend. Your not some 3rd world country are you? Your able to keep pace with us militarily and technologically, and we have states that are bigger than your whole country.
broodstar wrote:No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.
The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.
Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"
Yup, that's what we do best, be stubborn.
Occasionally we also do suicidal missions well, too. The St Nazaire raid in WW2 is one of my favourites. Ramming a destroyer filled with explosives into a German controlled drydock and having a small contingent of Commandos completely wreck the rest of the docks with explosives. Pretty much all the Commandos were captured or killed after their planned escape route was cut off (5 managed to fight their way out of the town then run through half of France to reach Spain) and only after having ran out of ammunition did they surrender.
broodstar wrote:No, no, no your Brits have had other thing to be proud of.
The Battle of Brittan went on 5 motha Fing weeks. The Fascists dumped everything they on you, and it didn't brake your resolve. The Nazi's poured all their military and industrial might onto this Island off the coast of France, and that Islands people wouldn't budge. Bombs rained on your head for 5 weeks and it didn't brake your spirit. There are stories of British doggedness all over WW2. That's what I admire about Brits, how stubborn they are.
Hey, look we may have different views on Democratic philosophy, and civil rights. But our friendship was forged in blood over 2 wars. And I say this because I don't think our politicians are saying it loud enough. Americans and Brits are homies.
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"
thats the one thing that is always true England is the mother of our country and no matter how we disagree we will always fight together.
broodstar wrote:
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"
...do you read what you write at all before hitting submit?
broodstar wrote:
Margret Thatcher was a woman you might not have wanted to F, but that was definitely a woman you didn't want to F with. If your doubting me, ask the Argentinians how they fell about Thatcher. "I will sink your Battlegak right now!"
...do you read what you write at all before hitting submit?
Was making a joke man lighten up.
And actually that joke was written by Robin Williams.
The British Empire is the largest ever in most ways. The idea any current person who considers them self British should be proud of that fact is moronic however. Not only are you sending up a bunch of absoloute c***s but unless you are heir to a lordship your ancestors were probably the guys who got treated like gak by said c***s not the c***s themselves. Leave the meaningless patriotism to the Americans.
In my opinion if John Harrison could have lived to see the devastation the BE wrought, he like Robert Oppenheimer would have regreted the technological revolutions he gave birth to.
Be aware, the Empire was not built by chinless and inbred aristos, it was built by the British Working Class, the most formidable and resolute and hardnosed bastards on the face of the earth.
We, the working class of Britain, should take pride in the empire that we built and the British sense of fair play, decency and honour kept in good order. I've watched footage of village elders in Zimbabwe calling for the British to return and overthrow Mugabe, who is committing genocide there. We ruled, for the most part, fairly and should have a lot less of a hangup about our Empire than we do. Many European nations were carving up empires when we did, very few if any made as fair and decent a job of it as we, just look at who remained in the Commonwealth.
If you want to know what an evil empire looks like, take a serious look at what the Belgians did in the Congo... Vicious and horrific. Leopold II treated it as his private torture garden.
broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.
There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:get off your high horse. You're not British either.
But I think a person is capable of gaining a decent amount of knowledge about another country's politics without living there. You're the one that claimed that wasn't possible, and yet here you are sounding off about British politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Frazz, dude, Let it go the dude can say what he wants.
The point is apparently we can't. We are not supposed to say anything about anyone else's politics.
Unless Fraz reads an article and wants to sound off about it. Then you don't even have to know what the hell you're talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Really you can't talk mess about the queen, prime minister or athletes and such? We attack each other all the time. Why? it's entertainment.
It's not like that at all. Taking the piss out of celebrities, particularly politicians and royalty happens constantly in the UK. There are shows dedicating to doing that and nothing else.
The point is there's a difference between having a laugh about a public figure and abusing an entire ethnic group. Whether the latter should be a crime or not, the difference between the two is pretty clear.
Comes to mind. As does the case of Simon Singh, though he was eventually (after a long and expensive court battle) victorious.
Which would be telling, if either case were about direct criticism of the quackery involved (homeopathic medicine and chiropractic medicine), but they weren't. The libel case against Singh hinged around his claim that a chirpractic body "happily promotes bogus treatments", which is a charge of dishonest behaviour, not one of a type of medical practice being dodgy. The libel case against Paul Offit was dependant on whether Richard Barr funded a study specifically for the purposes of subsequent legal action.
Both are things that its entirely sensible to hear argued in court, regardless of the standing of the types of medicine behind them. Dressing it up as an issue of good, true science vs quackery is ignoring the actual substance of the cases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:A lot of comics steal jokes. Dane Cooks routine is very reminiscent of Louis K, Joe Rogan called him on it and drama ensued. I happen to like mind of Mencia. I could do without his actual comedy sets.
I have no idea how "Dane Cook does it too" could ever be used as a defence.
broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.
There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.
You know, that's always one of the things they get me. For all the gak that goes on in our country, we have had the longest running 'regime' in recent history.
broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.
There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.
Country / First acquisition of sovereignty / Date of last subordination / Previous governing power / Notes
Vietnam / 2879 BC / 1954 / France / Văn Lang confederacy arose 2879 BC according to legend. Several periods of Chinese domination. French occupation from 1887 until Geneva Conference (1954), interrupted by Japanese occupation (1940–1945). While not an occupation, the United States gave military support to the South Vietnam government until the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.
United States of America / July 4, 1776 / October 19, 1781 / United Kingdom / Independence declared 1776; British surrender 1781; U.S. recognized by Treaty of Paris 1783.
United Kingdom / 843 / (none) / (none) / Kingdom of Scotland unified 843; Kingdom of England unified 927. Tender of Union 1657–1660, Acts of Union 1707, adding Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 (only Northern Ireland from 1922). Partial occupations by Normans, Vikings, Romans.
France / 843 / 1945 / Germany / 843 Treaty of Verdun established West Francia.
Australia / October 9, 1942 / October 9, 1942 / United Kingdom Dominion status 1902, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.
You're right but, America is a college kid Australia is a infant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:get off your high horse. You're not British either.
But I think a person is capable of gaining a decent amount of knowledge about another country's politics without living there. You're the one that claimed that wasn't possible, and yet here you are sounding off about British politics.
My point with this is, if we want to be able to talk gak able other people's politics we should allow other people to talk gak about American politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote:
sebster wrote:
broodstar wrote:America is only 236 years old, we are like a college kid. It may take us a while to make up our minds, but when we do, we can do some amazing things.
There is no government in the world as old as yours. Seriously, look it up if you want. This thing where Americans think they're oh so young just doesn't make any sense.
You know, that's always one of the things they get me. For all the gak that goes on in our country, we have had the longest running 'regime' in recent history.
There are so many countries that have been conquered and liberated and conquered and liberated. There are also countries that haven't been conquered and among those, we are among the young.
broodstar wrote:Country / First acquisition of sovereignty / Date of last subordination / Previous governing power / Notes
Vietnam / 2879 BC / 1954 / France / Văn Lang confederacy arose 2879 BC according to legend. Several periods of Chinese domination. French occupation from 1887 until Geneva Conference (1954), interrupted by Japanese occupation (1940–1945). While not an occupation, the United States gave military support to the South Vietnam government until the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.
Notice I used the word government in my post.
Vietnam merged the South and North in 1976, making it much, much younger than the United States.
United Kingdom / 843 / (none) / (none) / Kingdom of Scotland unified 843; Kingdom of England unified 927. Tender of Union 1657–1660, Acts of Union 1707, adding Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 (only Northern Ireland from 1922). Partial occupations by Normans, Vikings, Romans.
The United Kingdom could be considered as existing in it's current form from the act of union in 1800, making it just slightly younger than your own.
France / 843 / 1945 / Germany / 843 Treaty of Verdun established West Francia.
The French Revolution was 1789. Then that government lost power to Napoleon's coup in 1799, which in turn collapsed, was replaced by the Bourbon King, who fled when Napoleon returned, who once again lost power, leading to the restoration of monarchy for the next 15 years, which was overthrown for another monarchy, which lasted until it was overthrown for the Second Republic, which lasted until it's president (Napoleon's nephew) claimed himself as dictator, he was overthrown, leading to the third Republic, which lasted until the Nazis took over the country and the Vichy government was formed. Following their defeat by the Allies, France formed the Fourth Republic.
The upshot of that is that in the time you've had one government, France has had 11.
You're right but, America is a college kid Australia is a infant.
What? Dude, seriously, there's no point in "nuh uh" "is too" here. You have the oldest continuous government in the world. That's just how it is. It's something to be proud of.
It means that when you look at the problems of how political power operates in your country, they become an issue of having a very old system, not the result of having a very young system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point with this is, if we want to be able to talk gak able other people's politics we should allow other people to talk gak about American politics.
Which is fair enough. I'd argue that there should be a minimum standard, but that standard should be "has some idea what they're talking about", which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their country of origin.
There are so many countries that have been conquered and liberated and conquered and liberated. There are also countries that haven't been conquered and among those, we are among the young.
No, seriously, there just aren't countries with governments stretching back past 1776.
sebster wrote:Which is fair enough. I'd argue that there should be a minimum standard, but that standard should be "has some idea what they're talking about", which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their country of origin.
I don't know about that, I would after they are done talking point out where their facts are wrong, but I would not stop anyone from speaking. I don't believe in censoring anyone or any ideology.
Last summer I went to a KKK rally (with all the 500 people from 3 states) and they were there in the full robes in August in Alabama, (where the temperature is 600 degrees and the humidity is about 6000%) so not only are they racist, they're idiots. But, I listened to what the had to say, because I believe that if someone has something to say it should be heard and evaluated.
Free Speech does not really exist. I don't care what Liberals and Communists think of me but when others try to censor my views it is kinda stupid. Gay Marriage activists want freedom of speech but want to censor anyone whos against it for example saying it is hate speech.
Check this out for example:
Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?
Bit like supporting National Socialism really.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mind you, ridiculous ideas should always be allowed some public viewing, if only so they can be properly ridiculed...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?
Bit like supporting National Socialism really.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mind you, ridiculous ideas should always be allowed some public viewing, if only so they can be properly ridiculed...
If they they can be allowed public viewing they can be ridiclued. The people who raise the ideas should be able to commit suicide without the law stopping them. I oppose gay marriage because the LGBT attitude towards it if you don't care about it you must be against it. I have negative opinion towards many things like the Mental Health service for example.
Two people getting married happens all the time with zero impact on my life. It makes no difference if they are gay or straight, it still has no effect on my life, nor on most of the rest of the world. Thus its pointless making a fuss about it. Just let then get on with it.
Opposing a concept because you have made a vast unfounded generalization about some of the people who support it is ridiculous by the way.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I don't know how you're linking gay marriage to laws against inciting racial hatred and the like.
Saying "I oppose gay marriage because etc" is vastly different from saying "Gays should be strung up."
It started with me and Sab's conversation on the censorship of ideologies. From there he posted a video of a woman against gay marriage's voice being drowned out and the camera being covered up by gay marriage supporters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Maybe because opposing Gay marriage is ridiculous and bigoted, unjustifiable, small-minded and a pointless waste of resources?
Bit like supporting National Socialism really.
Then defeat it on the battlefield of debate and the ballot box, not by name calling. But, let the thought be heard.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Two people getting married happens all the time with zero impact on my life. It makes no difference if they are gay or straight, it still has no effect on my life, nor on most of the rest of the world. Thus its pointless making a fuss about it. Just let then get on with it.
Opposing a concept because you have made a vast unfounded generalization about some of the people who support it is ridiculous by the way.
There is a major difference between having a shaky, silly argument that might be bigoted and the call for persecuting people on the base of their race/colour/creed/sexual-orientation.
