There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

[quote]Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people perceive the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.

Which is it?

Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.

Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.

A hint: It can be both.

Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.

Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?

This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.

The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there. [/quote]

Very grown up Sifu. Name calling is all you can come up with?

If you truly think that you have an important message then yes, the way to get that message out is to hire some sort of publicist.

The things that I have the skills to do well, I do myself. When I am outside my area of expertise I call in an expert. The whole global economy is based on this simple concept. Even you Sifu need someone to make the tin foil for your helmet.

782

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Yes it is a gun but it wasn’t loaded. It was for some photos at work. I actually used to target shoot in competition when I was a kid and clay pigeon shoot at the weekends. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting and have no problem with sensible and controlled gun ownership. I just don’t equate liberty to guns in the same way as Sifu does.[/quote]

Since you are acquainted with fire arms would you change your position if the situation here got worse? It wasn’t long ago two young women went to prison for hiding their boyfriends guns - there is a campaign on this issue at this moment as the problem escalates.

Also consider that point Sifu made about being uncomfortable having crazy thoughts on how to use your fire arm, which I think I actually would - but ONLY because I have a deep respect for life. Do you think most would uphold this position or would guns be a tool for dealing with life as we are being constantly devalued such as a nations currency and not a people?

783

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Actually ,yes it is a real gun.

Hello Kitty AR-15 - evil black rifle meets cute and cuddly

Below is the result of my painstaking work to transform an Evil Black Rifle (EBR) into a Cute Pink RIfle (CPR). Introducing the Hello Kitty AR-15![/quote]

Thanks for that.

It does completely change the whole image of a fire arm as a weapon of destruction and free association with what is good and what is evil.
I wonder what would happen if guns were from now on produced in America only in white and pastel, soft colors. Colors we associate with peace and equilibrium. I wonder how many people would still be inclined to own them and /or use them. I know I would be more inclined to see it as a tool.[quote]

You would be surprised but when you actually have a gun in your hands thoughts of running wild and doing crazy things with it can make you feel very uncomfortable. The reality is you are no more likely to shoot one of the accursed traffic wardens than than you are to “accidently” park a car on top of one of them.[/quote]

LOL, don’t encourage me!
I like that ‘accidentally park on top of a warden’ part! You are correct and you make a valid point. I agree that a lot of it is impulse and free association because I watch movies where guns are used to exact vengeance and “deal with me” situations. It is, in my opinion, more than a tool. It is a symbol of justice, of leveling the score - and that is where I was coming from: putting people who have crossed my boundaries in their place.[quote]

A car is a tool to go from point a-b. But if you choose a route with people in the way it can be a lethal weapon too. People have cars zipping around them all day long but they don’t give it a second thought.[/quote]

I actually have used my car to ‘deal’ with people. Two small incidents:

I parked behind a car to go party in a busy small area of Central London. There was not sufficient space behind me for another without it blocking a garage. This person parked behind me, anyway and completely locked me in. I did not touch the car in front but I hit the car behind with my bumper several times until I was able to get out of that ‘hugging’ space. I left my mark on it on purpose. You don’t choke me in my space like this. It was like a pushing back to regain my boundaries.

The other was a young, punk styled female cyclist who felt in the right to ride in the middle of the street casually occupying car lane space as opposed to the left side reserved for what she was riding that moves at 3mph when cars are moving at 30mph.
I passed her at close range: if a car had done that to me whilst I was on a bicycle, that would have been my clue to get out of their way and ride closer to the curb. She punched my car instead. I then threw the car sideways to hit her as if to push her back. She moved away and slowed down and stayed behind me looking at my car with a mixture of surprise and fear.

My experience is that with the decline of mutual respect and an increase in a sense of entitlement both on the part of the Government and the younger generations of people, there is a break down in society where everyone feels they have a ‘right’.
With more and more people pushing to secure their ‘rights’ owning a gun might become tricky.

I never thought of using my car as a weapon. But if society becomes a dog eat dog world who knows what we will resort to. This is also why I am leaving. I will fight if I have to but I don’t want to live in contention with the world.[quote]

We all our pants on one leg at a time. I see no reason why the life of a Tony Blair should be significantly more worth saving than a convenience store clerk. When both are in a situation where they could get killed I think both deserve having protection. [/quote]

This is unrealistic. Life is not linear. And if it seems to be, these two men are living in a parallel universe: Double standards.
I don’t agree with it but it is the way it is because people have lost all sense of equity.
Human life no longer has intrinsic value.

[quote]

784

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Historically Britain has been quite crime free so they ave been able to get away with that. But times have changed and the British do not want to face up to it. The issue of not arming police shows just how unrealistic they are.

Actually the police have been broadly unarmed since their inception and it was a deliberate decision by Robert Peel in order to allay fears that they would be some sort of armed enforcers.

The system of an unarmed police force and a highly trained Armed Response unit works pretty well in the UK. Obviously in the US this would not work so well given the large numbers of firearms in the public domain. For the record there have only been 73 police officers killed by firearms in Britain in the last 109 years.[/quote]

It doesn’t work that well when just as many cops die from getting knifed or run over as die from getting shot. What good are the police at protecting the public when they can’t even protect themselves?

A police officer has been stabbed to death in Luton. Some 37 police officers have been murdered in the line of duty in the past two decades in England, Scotland and Wales.
Fatal stabbings of British police officers - the majority of whom are unarmed - are rare, but serve as a reminder of the dangers of the job.

Of the officers murdered in England, Scotland and Wales since 1985, 12 have been killed by vehicles, 12 shot, 11 stabbed and three died after being beaten, according to the Police Roll of Honour Trust.

Many more have been wounded as those they pursue increasingly carry weapons - typically a knife, rather than a gun. It is these deaths and injuries that have made wearing body armour a matter of routine for many officers.

I also came across this bit of information.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/NPM.htm

Also present was Anthony Rae, founder and director of the Police Roll of Honour Trust, which has provided, on behalf of the Police Memorial Trust, the book containing the inscribed Roll of Honour of names of police officers killed in their hazardous duty. This book, which is behind the glass panel in the memorial, is the product of 25 years research and starts with an unknown constable killed in 1680. There are nearly 1,600 names recorded, of those officers unlawfully killed while in the execution of their duty, or in the course of effecting an arrest or the performance of acts of gallantry or other hazardous duty, taken from the 4,000 names on the National Police Officers Roll of Honour of officers who have died in the line of duty.

785

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people perceive the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.

Which is it?

Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.

Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.

A hint: It can be both.

Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.

Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?

This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.

The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there.

Very grown up Sifu. Name calling is all you can come up with? [/quote]

You got me there. I’m sorry I made fun of your hobby.

[quote]
If you truly think that you have an important message then yes, the way to get that message out is to hire some sort of publicist. [/quote]

With the vast volume of negative and distorted news coverage it would cost a fortune to do what you are suggesting. Almost every TV owner in the country has to pay the BBC tax. Al beeb has billions to work with.

[quote]
The things that I have the skills to do well, I do myself. When I am outside my area of expertise I call in an expert. The whole global economy is based on this simple concept. Even you Sifu need someone to make the tin foil for your helmet. [/quote]

Ha Ha very funny. I would never trust someone else to do such a mission critical job for me.

786

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Of the officers murdered in England, Scotland and Wales since 1985, 12 have been killed by vehicles
[/quote]

It wasn’t me.

787

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Yes it is a gun but it wasn’t loaded. It was for some photos at work. I actually used to target shoot in competition when I was a kid and clay pigeon shoot at the weekends. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting and have no problem with sensible and controlled gun ownership. I just don’t equate liberty to guns in the same way as Sifu does.

Since you are acquainted with fire arms would you change your position if the situation here got worse? It wasn’t long ago two young women went to prison for hiding their boyfriends guns - there is a campaign on this issue at this moment as the problem escalates.

Also consider that point Sifu made about being uncomfortable having crazy thoughts on how to use your fire arm, which I think I actually would - but ONLY because I have a deep respect for life. Do you think most would uphold this position or would guns be a tool for dealing with life as we are being constantly devalued such as a nations currency and not a people?

[/quote]

As I have stated a few times, I have no issue with people having firearms for sports purposes or because they are farmers that need to control vermin population or whatever. I do however support the law that people should not own firearms for self defense. I believe that this creates an environment and attitude that I don’t want for the UK. I think that there are plenty of ways to combat crime in the UK that do not lead us to arming the citizens.

I do think that the situation in the US is different due to the fact that there is a long standing tradition of gun ownership. I can understand why someone living in the arse end of nowhere might feel a need to own a gun. Gun ownership within cities however just seems contrary to the kind of environment that I would want to live in and raise a family. If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live.

This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle. Obviously there are jobs that put you into situations like this (LEO, correctional officer, armed forces etc) but that is different.

This does not mean that it is not worth taking a course and learning about awareness avoiding dangerous situations, it just means that martial arts training for me is about doing something I enjoy.

788

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Historically Britain has been quite crime free so they ave been able to get away with that. But times have changed and the British do not want to face up to it. The issue of not arming police shows just how unrealistic they are.

Actually the police have been broadly unarmed since their inception and it was a deliberate decision by Robert Peel in order to allay fears that they would be some sort of armed enforcers.

The system of an unarmed police force and a highly trained Armed Response unit works pretty well in the UK. Obviously in the US this would not work so well given the large numbers of firearms in the public domain. For the record there have only been 73 police officers killed by firearms in Britain in the last 109 years.

It doesn’t work that well when just as many cops die from getting knifed or run over as die from getting shot. What good are the police at protecting the public when they can’t even protect themselves?

A police officer has been stabbed to death in Luton. Some 37 police officers have been murdered in the line of duty in the past two decades in England, Scotland and Wales.
Fatal stabbings of British police officers - the majority of whom are unarmed - are rare, but serve as a reminder of the dangers of the job.

Of the officers murdered in England, Scotland and Wales since 1985, 12 have been killed by vehicles, 12 shot, 11 stabbed and three died after being beaten, according to the Police Roll of Honour Trust.

Many more have been wounded as those they pursue increasingly carry weapons - typically a knife, rather than a gun. It is these deaths and injuries that have made wearing body armour a matter of routine for many officers.

I also came across this bit of information.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/NPM.htm

Also present was Anthony Rae, founder and director of the Police Roll of Honour Trust, which has provided, on behalf of the Police Memorial Trust, the book containing the inscribed Roll of Honour of names of police officers killed in their hazardous duty. This book, which is behind the glass panel in the memorial, is the product of 25 years research and starts with an unknown constable killed in 1680. There are nearly 1,600 names recorded, of those officers unlawfully killed while in the execution of their duty, or in the course of effecting an arrest or the performance of acts of gallantry or other hazardous duty, taken from the 4,000 names on the National Police Officers Roll of Honour of officers who have died in the line of duty.

[/quote]

So 1,600 deaths in over 300 years. I would bet that stacks up pretty well against a number of career options. I would also bet that the death rate would increase if they were all armed.

Also one minute you are saying that the public needs to be armed to protect them from the government. Now you are saying the government officials need to be armed to protect them from the public.

789

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people perceive the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.

Which is it?

Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.

Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.

A hint: It can be both.

Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.

Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?

This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.

The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there.

Very grown up Sifu. Name calling is all you can come up with?

You got me there. I’m sorry I made fun of your hobby.
[/quote]

I see it more as a calling than a hobby.

But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.

[quote]

The things that I have the skills to do well, I do myself. When I am outside my area of expertise I call in an expert. The whole global economy is based on this simple concept. Even you Sifu need someone to make the tin foil for your helmet.

Ha Ha very funny. I would never trust someone else to do such a mission critical job for me. [/quote]

Fair enough, you wouldn’t want it to slip so the mind control rays could get in.

791

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.
[/quote]

No somebody telling the truth wouldn’t stand out. That is what we have been trying to say all along. The truth doesn’t stand out because the people are easily led. They don’t have the critical reasoning skills to be able to work out what is true and what is false (or at least they don’t care enough to use them).

792

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply.

No somebody telling the truth wouldn’t stand out. That is what we have been trying to say all along. The truth doesn’t stand out because the people are easily led. They don’t have the critical reasoning skills to be able to work out what is true and what is false (or at least they don’t care enough to use them).[/quote]

In which case it is even easier to lead them because you don’t even need to be telling the truth. You just need to package and market your message in the right way. So why don’t you?

793

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live.

This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

Wow.

It must be wonderful to be able to change cities of residence so easily or to “re-evaluate your lifestyle” to make it less vulnerable to violence.

All those poor, working-class, inner-city folk in the US should just move! Or just “change their lifestyle!”

What a wonderful (if asinine) suggestion.

[/quote]

Not at all. There are lots of people in the Martial Arts community who talk about training for the streets and how many street fights they have been in.

The question I would ask them is why are they getting in all of these altercations? Typically they are the one instigating the situtions, or they are putting themselves into danger. Walking around with a bling watch in a dark part of town. Getting so drunk they are not in control or aware. Drawing out cash late at night at an isolated ATM. Hanging around with a group that goes looking for trouble.

For the second part, I was responding to a direct question and I responded. I would not put MYSELF and MY FAMILY in the situation of living somewhere so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in the house to protect us. Most people in the UK and the US are freely able to move to a different area if they so choose. The vast majority of the US is very safe and comfortable to live in. Increasing the numbers of guns in the most dangerous bits is not going to be the best way to cut violence.

794

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
In which case it is even easier to lead them because you don’t even need to be telling the truth. You just need to package and market your message in the right way. So why don’t you?[/quote]

No that doesn’t make it easier. It makes it 100x harder. Because the people saying gun control is awesome are more numerous and louder than those saying gun control is stupid.

They can happily spend 10 million on campaigning against gun ownership. I can spend maybe 5k on supporting gun ownership.

Now if gun ownership was handled at the local level I would be able to make a difference. But it isn’t.

795

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Yes it is a gun but it wasn’t loaded. It was for some photos at work. I actually used to target shoot in competition when I was a kid and clay pigeon shoot at the weekends. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting and have no problem with sensible and controlled gun ownership. I just don’t equate liberty to guns in the same way as Sifu does.

Since you are acquainted with fire arms would you change your position if the situation here got worse? It wasn’t long ago two young women went to prison for hiding their boyfriends guns - there is a campaign on this issue at this moment as the problem escalates.

Also consider that point Sifu made about being uncomfortable having crazy thoughts on how to use your fire arm, which I think I actually would - but ONLY because I have a deep respect for life. Do you think most would uphold this position or would guns be a tool for dealing with life as we are being constantly devalued such as a nations currency and not a people?

As I have stated a few times, I have no issue with people having firearms for sports purposes or because they are farmers that need to control vermin population or whatever. I do however support the law that people should not own firearms for self defense. I believe that this creates an environment and attitude that I don’t want for the UK. I think that there are plenty of ways to combat crime in the UK that do not lead us to arming the citizens. [/quote]

You have some serious issues if you think recreation is more important than peoples lives. The right to self defense is an essential liberty. That means it is far more important than sport and leisure activities. Your priorities are insane.

The environment that lunatics like you have created in the UK is an environment of increasing lawlessness and violence. When Gary Newlove was fataly assaulted by the youth gang that was getting drunk in front of his house his horrified wife and daughters could do nothing other than helplessly stand there and watch him get murdered. How can you defend the dangerous environment that has been created there?

Britain is not so different from America as you like to pretend. What works here would work there. What causes problems here also causes problems there. The most dangerous cities in America also have the strictest gun control laws. Gun control has been a disaster here and it is a disaster there.

Your last statement shows your liberal mentality of making people reliant on the governmet. No one has here has suggested arming people. All any of us have suggested is allowing people to arm themselves.

[quote]
I do think that the situation in the US is different due to the fact that there is a long standing tradition of gun ownership. I can understand why someone living in the arse end of nowhere might feel a need to own a gun. Gun ownership within cities however just seems contrary to the kind of environment that I would want to live in and raise a family. If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live. [/quote]

You are living in a fantasy world. I live in a city where things would be a lot worse if people didn’t have guns to defend their homes with. The police are over burdened and understaffed. Even under idea conditions the police have a limited ability to defend people. The time it takes for the police to drive somewhere is more than enough to break into someones house, kill them and escape. Therefore it makes a lot of sense that people should be able to defend themselves, it keeps a lid on crime.

Speaking of living environment don’t you live in Mexico city? Over here in America we don’t consider Mexico city to be a peaceful, safe environment. I certainly would not want to raise a family down there.

[quote]
This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle. Obviously there are jobs that put you into situations like this (LEO, correctional officer, armed forces etc) but that is different.[/quote]

You are absolutely clueless. A self defense situation could force itself upon anyone, anywhere, at anytime. If your martial arts teachers don’t know enough about self defense to teach that simple fact of life you should find a different teacher who knows what they are doing. Because it is quite obvious that the ones you have trained with haven’t taught you the first thing about self defense.

[quote]
This does not mean that it is not worth taking a course and learning about awareness avoiding dangerous situations, it just means that martial arts training for me is about doing something I enjoy. [/quote]

796

[quote]phaethon wrote:

No that doesn’t make it easier. It makes it 100x harder. Because the people saying gun control is awesome are more numerous and louder than those saying gun control is stupid.

They can happily spend 10 million on campaigning against gun ownership. I can spend maybe 5k on supporting gun ownership.

Now if gun ownership was handled at the local level I would be able to make a difference. But it isn’t.[/quote]

This is a very good and valid point.
I noticed for instance there is a campaign for every thing in Britain, including the ‘girlfriend hiding the boyfriend gun’ campaign.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda in the form of educational/awareness campaigns.
Whether it be a true or false cause these campaigns, like the gun, also prove to be a tool.
A weapon to ‘shoot’ the public with the desired message of whoever has got the money to campaign more impressively.

797

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I also came across this bit of information.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/Police_Memorial_Trust/NPM.htm

Also present was Anthony Rae, founder and director of the Police Roll of Honour Trust, which has provided, on behalf of the Police Memorial Trust, the book containing the inscribed Roll of Honour of names of police officers killed in their hazardous duty. This book, which is behind the glass panel in the memorial, is the product of 25 years research and starts with an unknown constable killed in 1680. There are nearly 1,600 names recorded, of those officers unlawfully killed while in the execution of their duty, or in the course of effecting an arrest or the performance of acts of gallantry or other hazardous duty, taken from the 4,000 names on the National Police Officers Roll of Honour of officers who have died in the line of duty.

So 1,600 deaths in over 300 years. I would bet that stacks up pretty well against a number of career options. I would also bet that the death rate would increase if they were all armed.[/quote]

You are always trying to minimize things aren’t you. If 1600 out of 4000 officers who have died in the line of duty have had their names recorded in a book, that does not mean that only 1600 of the 4000 who have died in the line of duty have died. It means that 4000 have died and only 1600 have been recorded

[quote]
Also one minute you are saying that the public needs to be armed to protect them from the government. Now you are saying the government officials need to be armed to protect them from the public.[/quote]

Again you are trying to twist and misrepresent my point of view. Just because I feel that in a democracy the people should be able to arm themselves so that they can have the ultimate means of control available, should it become neccessary. That is in no way contradicted by my view that the police should have the ability to defend themselves and the civilians they are supposed to protect.

798

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
This is a very good and valid point.
I noticed for instance there is a campaign for every thing in Britain, including the ‘girlfriend hiding the boyfriend gun’ campaign.
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda in the form of educational/awareness campaigns.
Whether it be a true or false cause these campaigns, like the gun, also prove to be a tool.
A weapon to ‘shoot’ the public with the desired message of whoever has got the money to campaign more impressively.
[/quote]

Yep. And yet if people weren’t easily led and could tell truth from fiction even a poor bloke like me could create a difference. I would but need to educate a person a week and within a year 52 people would understand. They then could educate others. Soon most people would support gun ownership.

The problem is you can convince a man of something today and then tomorrow the media will convince him otherwise.

Edit: Which is why, incidentally, I am not a libertarian. Whether they deserve it or not the lower classes must be educated. The very future of a nation depends on it.

799

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people perceive the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.

Which is it?

Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.

Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.

A hint: It can be both.

Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.

Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?

This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.

The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there.

Very grown up Sifu. Name calling is all you can come up with?

You got me there. I’m sorry I made fun of your hobby.

I see it more as a calling than a hobby.[/quote]

Ah yes the call.

[quote]
If you truly think that you have an important message then yes, the way to get that message out is to hire some sort of publicist.

With the vast volume of negative and distorted news coverage it would cost a fortune to do what you are suggesting. Almost every TV owner in the country has to pay the BBC tax. Al beeb has billions to work with.

But surely someone telling the truth would stand out and really get the nation behind them. These days with viral and gorilla marketing you could do it pretty cheaply. [/quote]

There always is the possibility that the truth will win in the end. However in Britain the truth has a serious uphill battle. The British have been so heavily indoctrinated to the point that they just shut out information that goes against their programming. You are a great example of what has to be overcome.

[quote]
The things that I have the skills to do well, I do myself. When I am outside my area of expertise I call in an expert. The whole global economy is based on this simple concept. Even you Sifu need someone to make the tin foil for your helmet.

Ha Ha very funny. I would never trust someone else to do such a mission critical job for me.

Fair enough, you wouldn’t want it to slip so the mind control rays could get in.[/quote]

Exactly.

800

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
If a city was so dangerous that I felt I needed guns in my property just to protect myself then I would have to evaluate whether that was a location where I really wanted to live.

This is very similar to my views on martial arts for self defence. If your lifestyle puts you regularly in situations where you feel you need to dedicate the time needed to be sufficiently good at martial arts to defend yourself on the streets then you really need to re-evaluate your lifestyle.

Wow.

It must be wonderful to be able to change cities of residence so easily or to “re-evaluate your lifestyle” to make it less vulnerable to violence.

All those poor, working-class, inner-city folk in the US should just move! Or just “change their lifestyle!”

What a wonderful (if asinine) suggestion.

[/quote]

LOL.