Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I did read it. It was required reading at my church. Thats about the time churches started leaving here.

..really ? How odd. I don't really see it being any different than allowing Jewish/Hindu/whatever marriage services etc. It's not like it's being forced upon us heathens.

I think that was the exact point. That it would be forced upon you and Rowan was acquiescing to it. How unBritish!

I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon..... there's enough complaints when they put the price of a pint up let alone if they tried to ban it altogether.

sexiest_hero wrote:
Nature has gifted you with the worlds most complex brain.

So says my shrink but not for reasons that have to do with critical thinking

sexiest_hero wrote:


And another thing. There are many reasons to do something, but simply because you can is never a good thing.

Sure it is. I think it is good to rattle fashionably liberal, upper middle class kids who think they're making a real difference in the world who apparently really know all about the struggles of the disenfranchised in America.

sexiest_hero wrote:
First it shows a complete lack of understading consequences for your actions, what innocents might be harmed and so forth. What raises humans above other animals is their reasoning. Don't something that can have so much impact for no reason other than "I can" is a mark of a spoiled kid or a sure sign of Imaturity (Not saying you are any of those). A grown man or woman knows that something as important as a vote has long reaching world wide effects. How would the world react to this party? How would your Allies respond when their citizens come back with stories of opression.

Nah, it is a sure sign of almost two decades of cynicism.

We all know that one person pulling that voting lever ( button, etc) is pulling the lever that moves the world. Yep.

reds8n wrote: I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon..... there's enough complaints when they put the price of a pint up let alone if they tried to ban it altogether.

Step 1. the British lose their beer.

Step 2. The heads of the members of Parliament end up on pikes.

I think i have just figured out how to mobilize the public for war, say the enemy is going take their beer away.

BNP = British Nazi Party.

Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)

Gwar! wrote:BNP = British Nazi Party.

Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)

I don't think someone's political interests should cost them a job, no matter how distasteful or hateful you find it. It is just like membership in a communist party will disqualify you from certain US government jobs, still.

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:BNP = British Nazi Party.

Anyone with 3 Braincells is not a member, Police are banned from being a member, oh, and apparently they don't like it when member lists are leaked online (hmmm I wonder why?)

I don't think someone's political interests should cost them a job, no matter how distasteful or hateful you find it. It is just like membership in a communist party will disqualify you from certain US government jobs, still.

"Hi there Mr Muslim/Asian/Polish, I am a Policeman who Is a Member of the British National party. I, as a rule, hate Muslims, Asians, Poles or anyone else who isn't White and British. Oh look, you are looking at me funny! You're arrested! Resting Arrest? POLICE BRUTALITY YAY!"

Or are you saying that Members of Such radical and Racist groups should be allowed to Staff out (supposedly) Impartial Police and Armed Force?

No one cares if your a Jew or Muslim or Catholic or whatever, so Long as you are not a Nazi or go around Stoning People for working on the Sabbath, you wont have a Problem.

Gwar! wrote:


Or are you saying that Members of Such radical and Racist groups should be allowed to Staff out (supposedly) Impartial Police and Armed Force?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Their personal beliefs should have no bearing on their employment. I have no doubt that the guards transporting, say, Tim McVeigh, would have liked to take out their service weapon and put some lead in him. They didn't, however, because they had a job to do. Please note that I'm not trying to draw a moral comparison here, but rather point out that personal beliefs don't necessarily reflect how someone does a job.

But when you have the Public Second Guessing every single thing the Police does (as we Did with the Stephen Lawrance Case all those years back) the Police forces themselves decided that they needed some sort of safeguard, so they banned people from being a part of these racist groups. You don't like it? Don't be a Police officer, there are millions of other jobs who will let you be, just not this one.

Gwar! wrote:But when you have the Public Second Guessing every single thing the Police does (as we Did with the Stephen Lawrance Case all those years back) the Police forces themselves decided that they needed some sort of safeguard, so they banned people from being a part of these racist groups. You don't like it? Don't be a Police officer, there are millions of other jobs who will let you be, just not this one.

Devil's advocate here, but you're really saying Britain shouldn't have freedom of speech and association then?

There is a difference between freedom of speech and association and freedom to do or believe whatever you like and still be in a particular job.

The Police are supposed to uphold the law equally no matter the colour of your skin. I don't see how juries would accept that BNP party members would be capable of doing that.

It would be simple for the defence to destroy a lot of criminal cases against minorities by the simple means of showing that the arresting officer was a BNP member.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a difference between freedom of speech and association and freedom to do or believe whatever you like and still be in a particular job.

The Police are supposed to uphold the law equally no matter the colour of your skin. I don't see how juries would accept that BNP party members would be capable of doing that.

It would be simple for the defence to destroy a lot of criminal cases against minorities by the simple means of showing that the arresting officer was a BNP member.

Meh, whatever. I think that exclusionary things like that just make them feel justified in their position.

So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)

Yeah, Right.

The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.

Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.

Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)

Yeah, Right.

The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.

Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.

So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?

I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)

Yeah, Right.

The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.

Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.

So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?

I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.

I never intended to say they "never" happen, but I can see a good 2 or 3 Police abuse news stories coming from america recently, yet I see none from the UK in years.

Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets

Gwar! wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So If your arresting officer was Black and was a Member of a Black Supremacy Group, you wouldn't bring that up in your court case? (assuming you are white of course, I don't know you. You Could be a Galgameckian for all I freaking know)

Yeah, Right.

The fact is, in order for Police to function at all, they must remain impartial. Being a member of the BNP or some Radical Religious Sect damages that. That's why you don't get the situations here like you do in America of Cops Kicking already Submitted Suspects in the fact because they are Latino, or officers Beating Black Drivers when they fail to stop, being witnessed by OTHER officers, and not being reported for over a year.

Things like that no Longer happen in the UK because of these Laws and Restrictions.

So by that reasoning we should forbid anyone who believes strongly in a particular religion from being on the police force, because you assume that they'll abuse their position when confronted by someone of a different religion? What about atheists?

I don't understand how you can assert that the sort of events you describe happen in the United States but never in your country, or even if that were the case, that you can draw a causual relationship between "these Laws and Restrictions" and incidents of misconduct.

I never intended to say they "never" happen, but I can see a good 2 or 3 Police abuse news stories coming from america recently, yet I see none from the UK in years.

I don't really keep up with the news, but are you sure you're not seeing the stories you want to see, and perhaps not looking out for those that you do not? Even if this is true, it does not address my original point. Also, again assuming what you're saying is accurate, I don't think you've established a causual link between these two things. You're looking at fewer cases of misuse of police powers, and making the assumption that is because they don't allow BNP members to be officers. You're going to have to prove that there is a link there before you can convince me that is a good policy. Otherwise this sounds like a nationalistic jab at the US, and nothing more.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets

If you fund something you control something. first rule of the politician.

Sky? You have a network named Sky? Who do they compete with, Dirt?

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Lol.
Firstly: There are Multiple Networks, and 90% of the Population has access to Sky and the Like, so they have Many, many news Channels.
Secondly: The BBC is government funded, but they have no say as to what they do or don't do. The FCC is far more restrictive in your country about what private Networks do.
Thirdly: Internets

If you fund something you control something. first rule of the politician.

Sky? You have a network named Sky? Who do they compete with, Dirt?

I have to agree with Fraz here. If someone has something you want, and they provide it or provide the funds for it, there is a power inequity there. It doesn't matter how much someone says otherwise, there is always a potential for control when someone funds something.

Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Nope.

Firstly we have many channels other than the BBC.

Secondly the BBC is NOT funded by the Govt. but by the TV license that you pay for in the UK.

It is separate and not controlled by the Govt anymore than, say, the Judiciary. Of course the Govt. can, and do, make life awkward for the BBC, but they're no puppet masters telling them what to say and do.

The BBC has a long and established record of independence, to the extent that it's news broadcasts and webpages are even cited as a reference by many foreign Govts. as to being trustworthy and should be used as a safe and neutral POV.

Sky is part of News International and so is controlled by Murdoch. You know, the guy who owns Fox, the channel so beloved by rightwingers and generally viewed as a source of great amusement by those outside of the USA. Or those capable of independent thinking.

As to the other issues....

.... well.. I doubt there's much difference between the levels of racism between the two nations. As the BNP ban... well, all it does is prevent membership of the organisation, not the holding of views in agreement with said parties stupid policies.

Who collects the TV license fees? Who enforces the fees? Who appoints executive management? Who guards the guards?

Face it your BBC is no more free than Pravda (ducks under asbestos cover in back of bunker).

This is fun...tee hee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats because your TV consists of one network telling you what the government wants to tell you.

Nope.

Firstly we have many channels other than the BBC.

Secondly the BBC is NOT funded by the Govt. but by the TV license that you pay for in the UK.

It is separate and not controlled by the Govt anymore than, say, the Judiciary. Of course the Govt. can, and do, make life awkward for the BBC, but they're no puppet masters telling them what to say and do.

The BBC has a long and established record of independence, to the extent that it's news broadcasts and webpages are even cited as a reference by many foreign Govts. as to being trustworthy and should be used as a safe and neutral POV.

Sky is part of News International and so is controlled by Murdoch. You know, the guy who owns Fox, the channel so beloved by rightwingers and generally viewed as a source of great amusement by those outside of the USA. Or those capable of independent thinking.

As to the other issues....

.... well.. I doubt there's much difference between the levels of racism between the two nations. As the BNP ban... well, all it does is prevent membership of the organisation, not the holding of views in agreement with said parties stupid policies.

Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?

Frazzled wrote:Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?

Lol. because the Public Wont let it happen. You see, we English don't give a rats arse about the feelings of Racists. If they don't like it, we don't care, and No Judge in the Land will say otherwise.

And that is Why UK > US

Also the BNP is not recognised as a Legitimate Party in the UK. They try and Run in Elections, but they have to technically do it as Independents.

You really don't appreciate the constituitional set up of the UK.

The BBC holds a royal charter, this reviewed every 10 years ( around that anyway) and outside of that there's nothing really any sitting GOvt. can do-- subject to mahoosive THISISWAR etc, obviously.

BBC stuff

Whats to keep the party in power from saying members of their primary competition cannot be in the police then?

Aside from the impracticality of enforcing that you mean ? Unless something insane like the BNP or a similar fringe group coming to power then there's no way any of the main political parties would ever get something like that past the House of Commons. And then if they did the House of Lords would negate it. And so on and so forth.

You've got to do better than that. Remember our parlimentary democracy has run, quite successfully, for a few centuries now.

You can come back and moan when your entire country has that much history.

You see, we English don't give a rats arse about the feelings of Racists. If they don't like it, we don't care, and No Judge in the Land will say otherwise

..errmm I don't think so. They have as many rights as ...as.... ....normal people too.

Sure. You're a paragon of virtue. Just ask the Irish, Scots, and Indians how enlightened you have been. Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?

"You can take our lives, but you'll never take...our rrrrr's!" (or our Haggis)

Or as MD Grotsnik would say

"yyyooo kon take urrrrr lives, but yulll never take rrrr FREEDOM! Where's and English poof I can wail on..."



(I should prfeace I gave blood before this train of thought got going and am less lucid than even normal weeha!!!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK this is way more important... Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake? More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?

Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?

Not recently anyway.

.... Are Rangers playing Celtic again already ?

I would also point out the Scots and the Irish ( some of them anyway) are part of the UK anyway.

Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake?

...err..... que ? I think that's how she talks the whole time...?

More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?

Centuries of breeding old bean ! Sorry. Toodle pip. Luv a duck. Mary Poppins. etc etc.

..Or a good school.

Or get that Supernanny to come round ! Don't think we haven;t noticed your subconscious national desire to return to the comforting skirt and bosom of your mother nation. The firm "thwack" of proper discipline.

Frazzled wrote:Does the Elizabeth Hurley accent-is that normal or fake? More importantly how I can I get She Who Must Be Obeyed to talk with that accent?

It's not fake it's just posh. Try shoving a plumb down her throat, I'm told that's how it works.

Frazzled wrote:Sure. You're a paragon of virtue. Just ask the Irish, Scots, and Indians how enlightened you have been. Didn't you machine gun a soccer stadium full of Irish?

Only because they Bombed us first. (and it was a Crappy Gaelic Football Game, nothing Important)

-Still has Nightmares about the School lessons when 5 about running like your arse was on fire if you say a Bag Unattended-