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.
2015/05/13 09:45:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.
First that wasn't my angry face, please do not assume overly emotional attachment.
Second The ECHR has not yet stopped life tariffs, it might decide not to, but then again it might rule against the UK.
What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.
However our society has the right to impose a life tariff in lieu of a death penalty on some cases, without interference from a foreign court.
What it has said is that you cannot AUTOMATICALLY ban prisoners from voting. You can remove that right as part of a sentence, but you should not do it automatically.
Again our national custom is that people in prison forfeit some liberties common to the law abiding populace, the vote is one of those liberties. Again we do not want interference in our culture by a foreign court. If the British public decided prisoners should get the vote, and petition parliament is one thing, but to have the condition imposed by a foreign court with no accountability to the UK is something else.
What is unreasonable about that? I honestly can't see what is wrong with judges deciding to impose removal of voting as part of sentencing guidelines where appropriate or every prisoner having the right to have their case reviewed eventually. If anything the possibility of parole will make our prisons safer as no prisoner has nothing to lose.
You seem to forget that rights are subjective, not an absolute, the ECHR thinks otherwise. Our society does not consider votes for convicted criminals a basic right.
It also adds to the legal burden, currently the forfeiture of liberties includes the vote. We do not want to have to review every single case currently resulting in a custodial sentence just to satisfy Strasbourg. Our own culture is perfectly logical in this regards, commit a crime and go to prison, some freedoms are removed. In the UK this includes the vote, and that is hardly a unique position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/13 09:48:13
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/13 09:55:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Orlanth wrote: As a political stink Brady has potential...
Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.
I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question. The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so. Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere. However should Strassbourg rule agaijnst life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.
What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.
This. It's like the maximum sentence in Norway thing which people banged on about after the conviction of Breivik. He received a sentence of 21 years, with a minimum of 10 after which he is eligible to petition for parole, which is the longest sentence in Norway. Now, then you got loads of people saying he should've been locked up for life instead of 21 years, without actually bothering to look into Norways justice system and Breiviks sentence within that.
If, when the 21 years is up, he is still considered dangerous then the sentence can be extended by 5 years. Repeat at the end of those 5 years and so on. So, it is very likely that Breivik will never get out. However, if he were to actually reform, however unlikely that may be, he will have the possibility of leaving.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/13 09:58:24
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/05/13 11:09:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
reds8n wrote: You already have been rude to several users throughout this thread.
So if User A on Dakka is rude to another then the forums rules are suspended and it is fair game to be rude back to User A? This seems a strange position, and likely to cause more problems than it solves.
To lose these protections then who gets to judge if another user was rude?
2015/05/13 11:36:50
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
I am not clear what you are asking about but it seems off topic and should be taken to a separate thread. We have gone some months without a thread commenting on moderation and this would be a good opportunity to review the situation.
Back on topic, the ECHR is not a foreign court, it is the court of the EU alliance that the UK is a member of. UK judges are invited to sit in this court. If this court invites the UK to consider its position on some aspect of human rights I think that should be given proper consideration. No-one would claim the UK to be a perfect polity and culture. We should be able to stand a bit of self-examination prompted by criticism by our allies without throwing our toys out the pram, grabbing the football and taking it home to sulk.
A cursory examination of the state of the EU shows that the UK is one of the most important and successful countries in it. The rest of the EU does not want to do without us unless we make such ghastly nuisances of ourself by continual petty whinging that their patience snaps and they tell us to just feth off.
Orlanth wrote: I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule against life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
And all of them would be reviewed on the merits of each individual case. Any outrage would be caused by the press and merit-less.
Now Daily Express is the UKIP rag it wants what is best for UKIP. The proportional representation argument has always been partisan rather than based on voting ethics. Does it help my party? If yes, holler for, if no holler against.
It is both partisan and based on ethics as all electoral reform has been. What has happened recently with the SNP and the UKIPs is that it has now become an issue that has united both the British left and the right.
Kilkrazy wrote: ....A cursory examination of the state of the EU shows that the UK is one of the most important and successful countries in it. The rest of the EU does not want to do without us unless we make such ghastly nuisances of ourself by continual petty whinging that theirMerkel's patience snaps and theyshe tells us to just feth off.
There I got that for you.
Junckers bluff has been called and he's peddling a new line
Eastern Europe will try to block any British changes, particularly to welfare reform that unfairly (haha) affect their citizens but have little power to influence much.
France will be to scared of losing the funding the UK provides, so they're in the bag after much playing to Le Gallery.
No one else has the balls to be so Black and White in Europe to be so stark as to draw a definite line but Angela, she's a different kettle of Bratwurst. I don't doubt that she wants Britain involved but will have to limit our power to effect change or everyone will be at it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/13 12:34:05
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
2015/05/13 12:58:44
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
The UK is the second or third largest country in the EU in terms of population and economy, and punches well above its weight in terms of cultural inflence and military power due to historical reasons.
If the fething government of the UK would pick its fights on what is important rather than what bee the Daily Mail has got in its bonnet this week, we would be kicking arse and taking names all around Europe.
Being a thought leader in Europe would also enhance the UK's influence around the rest of the world, a virtuous circle and a win-win for us.
But Cameron would rather suck up to that paragon of modernity, cultural congeniality and human rights that is the People's Republic of China.
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
Order-order is saying that "UKIP sources" say the complaint isn't from them.
...
strange times indeed.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2015/05/13 13:25:34
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
And all of them would be reviewed on the merits of each individual case. Any outrage would be caused by the press and merit-less.
Au contraire, there would be enough merit because the cases would have to be reviewed, and the press triggered outrage is a normal use of popular democracy.
Public is outraged, we demand this, and some politicians say OK, because its what they wanted to do anyway, or because it will net them votes. It's standard politics 101, it can be horribly misused usually when half the story is D-noticed and half left to run and run, Blair was notorious for doing that.
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
It looked a tad suspicious to me at the time, worth a second look, but nothing to formally say the vote was rigged.
South Thanet results were very late and the final declaration was pulled on the postal votes. Tories might have pulled off a 'miracle'.
It's a more feasible challenge than Galloway's to be sure, and worth looking into.
'Making inquiries' is however double checking, not confirmation of fraud. The postal vote system in the UK is wide open to abuse and double checking the postal vote is a reasonable idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Good grief .
Order-order is saying that "UKIP sources" say the complaint isn't from them.
... strange times indeed.
That can be believed. UKIP might have looked into the result and chased up postal voters listed.
If it was an addition fraud it would not take much for some of the voters who had postal votes redirected to make a complaint.
It would be in UKIP's interest for the people whose votes were allegedly stolen to contact the police rather than UKIP.
This also might not help Farage long term. If there was vote theft and if the standard patterns emerge the votes may not have been redirected to the Tories. McKinlay's majority may well be genuine.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/13 13:53:42
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/13 13:56:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Looks like Farage and Carswell are both digging in. A UKIP spokesman confirms Guido’s story that the two have met, but:
“Nigel Farage met with Douglas Carswell this afternoon and there’s ongoing discussion about how best to represent four million UKIP voters in a way that is sensible and correct.”
So it didn’t go well then…
so .. one wonders if this, perhaps, a person/persons trying to force Farage out ?
Of course the complaint might be entirely unrelated to Farage/UKIP anyway ...
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2015/05/13 14:34:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/05/13 15:28:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
See, you're trying to use people logic. DM uses Mandelogic, which we've established has 2+2=quack. - Aerethan
Putin.....would make a Vulcan Intelligence officer cry. - Jihadin
AFAIK, there is only one world, and it is the real world. - Iron_Captain
DakkaRank Comment: I sound like a Power Ranger.
TFOL and proud. Also a Forge World Fan.
I should really paint some of my models instead of browsing forums.
2015/05/13 15:32:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/05/13 15:56:51
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
And besides, my tax money will soon be going to the Scottish Parliament, free from the clutches of Dave
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/05/13 19:56:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
Nice see that one trotted out. His personal lands income goes to the Treasury, out of which he gets an allowance.
To personalise this for the average man,
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/13 20:12:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
Nice see that one trotted out. His personal lands income goes to the Treasury, out of which he gets an allowance.
To personalise this for the average man,
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/13 20:14:32
2015/05/13 20:52:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
"No evidence" of electoral fraud has been found in the Thanet South seat contested in the general election by Nigel Farage, police have said.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Kent Police said initial investigations were prompted by contact from outside the county expressing concerns over social media speculation.
Thanet District Council said it was not under investigation for fraud.
In a statement it said police had an obligation to follow up the complaint.
"The council's returning officer is satisfied that the correct processes were followed and a member of the Electoral Commission was present at the election in Thanet," it said.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2015/05/13 21:05:22
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
motyak wrote: That's clearly not the position, nor the topic of the thread. Consider your next post
My apologies, it seemed like a strange position to take and I just wanted to clarify the matter. You are correct that this is not the topic of the thread. I should have raised this in a more appropriate forum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
This appears to be a problem that afflicts both sides of the Atlantic. Given the differences in how the US and UK are politically constituted I wonder is there a root cause that afflicts both systems.
2015/05/13 23:17:36
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
motyak wrote: That's clearly not the position, nor the topic of the thread. Consider your next post
My apologies, it seemed like a strange position to take and I just wanted to clarify the matter. You are correct that this is not the topic of the thread. I should have raised this in a more appropriate forum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
This appears to be a problem that afflicts both sides of the Atlantic. Given the differences in how the US and UK are politically constituted I wonder is there a root cause that afflicts both systems.
Its easier to believe a easy lie over the hard truth.
It politicians told the honest truth all the time, no one would vote for them.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
2015/05/14 08:28:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
First. This takes the entirely insulting but unsurprising view of the progressive left that they alone can determine who is deserving of inheritance. And based on that arbitrary and self imposed criteria judge people who inherit, people who by definition are not responsible for the actions of their forebears.
Second. Almost all land is stolen, and the odd thing is the land least questionable ownership, is often the same land most criticised as stolen. Case in point, the entire New World was stolen, the only exception being the Falkland Islands because they were completely uninhabited. Yet see how this is panning out.
Third. Who do you give land back to? "The people" calls the left wing. But the people are the descendants of people who came in longships sword in hand to take the land, they are no less responsible than the kings and lords who led them.
Let is summise this principle with a favorite quote, a bastardisation of the call of the Far Right.
Britain for the British........................................................................................Saxons and Normans go home.
The ridicule of the position of criticising the legitimacy of the land ownership of the British Monarchy is that to recede the ownership beyond lawful inheritance, with the consent of the majority of the people at the time I might add, to an actual crime. You would have to predate to a time before and thus logically negating the legality of the conquest of the New World.
Prince charles has MORE right to own half of Cornwall than Frazzie does to live in Texas.
The complete illogic of the position does not stop the progressive left, or republican nitwits from howling ;'stolen land stolen land'.
Fourth. At the time land conquest was legal. Depending on where you go conquest still is.
Fifth. Something to put bee in bonnet of the progressive left, if ever they could be honest enough to look at the issue clearly.
YOU (and I) are all living on taken land, no matter how we paid for it, we are dealing in taken property, going back from owner to owner right back to the last person who was driven off and had the land seized. How far back this goes varies from place to place. In the UK the Enclosure Act and the Highland seizures were the last major land grabs, and that was 'legal' in that laws were past to allow them.
Rectifying this with any semblance is justice is not only impossible but also undesirable, as it would involve the undoing of most if not all nation states.
To accuse the Prince, who is a rather harmless chap of ruling the lands he owns by inherited oppression is ridiculous, as to make a case against him you have to go back enough centuries to cover most land exchanges on the planet. and requires a complete selective revisionist approach to world history, that airbrushes out pretty much all of the movement of human history except the ones you want to condemn. It's doctrinarian, unjustifiable and yet purported with sanctimonious authority to selectively judge which to the progressive left is all in a days work.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/14 08:33:39
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
I don't see why that would allow Prince Charles to violate the constitution by writing letters to the cabinet on political matters and then make it fine for Cameron to go back on his word and conceal the contents.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why that would allow Prince Charles to violate the constitution by writing letters to the cabinet on political matters and then make it fine for Cameron to go back on his word and conceal the contents.
Prince Charles can write letter who whoever he wishes, so long as that is all he does.
Also the Prince's opinions on planning and the environment are not party political, they do not endorse one party over another just an issue, and thus fall under impartiality.
The only reason at all this because an issue was because the letters were written to New Labour, who abhored accountability of any kind, or being asked to do anything other than what they wanted to do for themselves.
Also which word is Cameron going back on? AFAIK he was against exposure of the Princes private letters from the start.
A champion of accountability and good government demanding that letters sent to him (but not from all sources, and not those he sent) be made public domain.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/14 11:12:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
First. This takes the entirely insulting but unsurprising view of the progressive left that they alone can determine who is deserving of inheritance. And based on that arbitrary and self imposed criteria judge people who inherit, people who by definition are not responsible for the actions of their forebears.
Oh dear. You might want to think before ascribing political positions to people, it might make your assumptions more accurate. Because practically every point you've said is in in response to an argument I never made. Nobody accused the prince of 'inherited oppression', and nobody is playing squash in the 'all land is ultimately stolen court.' Relax.
I said:-
Ketara wrote:
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
in response to
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
Your line I am quoting works on the premise that someobody's rightful income has been taken away and replaced with a lesser income, and that this is something the Royal Family should be aggrieved over.
I hold no grudge against our 'Liz, and I fully accept that as things stand, they legally own what they do in terms of land. I do believe however, that their ownership is a leftover relic from a feudal system that only acquired it by exploiting others. And that's fine, everyone did that back then. But pointing at something and saying, 'It's been that way for a few hundred years' is not necessarily a good reason for keeping it that way.
I am of the personal belief that anything in excess of a few million pounds should be taken by the Government as inheritance tax. I do not believe that people should be able to leave vast, vast sums of wealth/land to their children, as it tends to lead to new systems of social elite/oppressors forming, and those children have done nothing to earn such lucre. Sure, leave them a house. Leave them an expensive house. Heck, leave them a decent five bedroom house, and a few hundred thousand pounds in the bank, plus mummy's jewellery. Nothing necessarily wrong with the middle class leg up for your kids.
But I believe that the days of leaving vast sweeping estates to your children have long since come and gone, be it in the name of the Crown, an Earl, or the CEO of a FT 500 company. So yes. If the government takes your estates, inherited from forebears who acquired that wealth by keeping others in servitude with the sword, and leaves you a nice lump sum, or indeed, a livable portion of that wealth, I have little time for listening to complaints. You're still getting a lot more than many others who are undoubtedly more deserving, so stop complaining, take the nice little feathered nest that many others would still kill to have, and move on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/14 11:13:10
