There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
901

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is another example of the ridiculous nature ot Britains human rights act. One of the more idiotic of the human rights act laws is the right to a family life.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bolivian-invader-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-because-he-has-a-pet-cat/

An invader from far off Bolivia has won an appeal against deportation from Britain because he has a �¢??settled family life�¢?? here. Part of the �¢??proof�¢?? he provided was the fact that he co-owned a cat in this country.

This outrage was revealed in one of the latest rulings by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to come to public attention.

The tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a �¢??private and family life.�¢??

Doesn’t take long to find some more info about this case:

[i]But the solicitor insisted that his client had “never” argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.

The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O’Leary said: "We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple’s relationship.

[/i]

So when you have finished being mock outraged possibly you could give your learned legal argument as to why this man should be deported. Given that you don’t know anything about him other than that he is Bolivian, has a British Girlfriend and a Cat.[/quote]

The cat was accepted as proof of his having a home and family life that would be disrupted by his deportation. Because the British really are that insane.

The right to a home and family life has to be one of the stupidest laws in human history. What gets me is idiots like you who can’t see anything wrong with a law which makes it impossible to remove violent gang members from the country after they commit murder.

This is typical of the British. They put stupid ideas into law and cause problems for themselves. But they don’t protect important rights like freedom of speech, because the importance of freedom of speech to a democracy is self evident.

902

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yes you are right, it is exactly the same.

It is the same mentality.

The problem is you think nothing of taking away a persons ability to defend themselves.

Nothing is being taken away though there is no desire in the UK for people to have guns. You guys are just projecting your feelings onto the British.[/quote]

That is simply not true. People have had the ability to defend themselves from violent criminals taken away. This has caused a free for all mentality with the criminals because they now have nothing to fear from their victims and very little to fear from the authorities.

There are people in Britain who feel the government has betrayed them with the gun ban.

UK Protests Gun Ban - Banning Guns Only Disarms Law Abiding Citizens

Gun Control is a Myth UK

Here are some examples of how well Britain’s law is working in the real world…

The first convenience store vitim in this video has been robbed over 200 times, there have been 8 arrests and 4 convictions. Shit like that does not happen to Iraqi party store owners in Detroit!

Armed Vs Unarmed Victims

Here they shoot one victim and hack another one with an ax.

Armed Robbers Attack Unarmed Victims

903

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is an example of the wonderful response time of police answering 999 calls in the UK. They are called to deal with a man who has a prior conviction for murder and they don’t respond. This is why alowing people in Brtain to own guns for self defense would make a difference. In many parts of America a woman in those circumstances would be able to buy a gun and be able to defend herself. The only thing she would need to call the cops for is to come pick up the perps body.

A grieving family have accused the police of a catalogue of errors over the murder of a mother-of-two by a convicted killer.

Maria Stubbings, 50, was strangled with a dog lead by her ex-boyfriend days after she had called 999 fearing he had broken into her house.

When officers visited her home eight days after the emergency call they were greeted by Marc Chivers, who told them she had gone away.

At that moment her body was just feet away from the front door - hidden in a downstairs toilet by Chivers.
He is believed to have killed her three days earlier.

It was only the day after their call that police finally conducted a search of the house and found Mrs Stubbings’s body under a pile of coats.

Chivers, 42, had previously served 15 years for strangling another former girlfriend.

Mrs Stubbings’s family are furious that, despite the previous murder and his history of violence, police did not fully follow up her complaint against Chivers in the days before her death in Chelmsford, Essex, last December. They are planning to sue Essex police.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating Essex Police’s handling of the case.
Chivers was sentenced to life in prison in September 1993 for strangling his ex-girlfriend in Germany and dumping her body in woodland when in his 20s.

He was deported from Stuttgart to the UK in January 2008 after serving 15 years.

A few months later he met Mrs Stubbings in a park, and the pair embarked on a whirlwind romance.

But their relationship turned sour within a few months, and last July jobless Chivers, from Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, was arrested for assaulting her after a night out.

An argument broke out at her home and Mrs Stubbings fled to a neighbour’s home.

Chivers dragged her back by her hair. In October 2008 he pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to battery. He was sentenced to serve four months in prison minus time spent on remand.

After he was arrested for attacking Mrs Stubbings, she discovered his murderous past and, fearing for her safety, was given a panic alarm by police.

But her family claim this panic alarm was broken - leaving her with no protection from her aggressive ex-boyfriend.

Once out of jail Chivers is understood to have tried to rekindle their romance.

She called police when she returned home late on December 11 last year to find someone had broken in. She feared it was Chivers.

Essex Police claim they visited her the next day, but despite his previous two convictions did not follow-up with another visit in the days after this.

Her 16-year-old son Richard visited the house to look for her, but Chivers followed him around to make sure he didn’t discover his mother.

s Stubbings made further calls to the police and friends also called the police repeatedly to raise concerns, but no one went to see her until eight days after the original call, when they were sent away by Chivers with the body lying within feet of the front door.

The following day her body was discovered during a police search of the house.

At Chelmsford Crown Court on October 9 Chivers pleaded guilty to murdering Mrs Stubbings between December 15 and 20 2008. Mrs Stubbings, who had been married three times, also has a daughter Celia, 29.

The victim’s younger brother Manuel Fernandez, 41, said: 'They failed miserably. It is a catalogue of serious errors; total neglect. They didn’t even get there a bit too late, they got there four days too late.

'Maria was someone who was known by the police to be at high risk having been attacked previously by a convicted murderer and had gone missing, she had called the police and told them her concerns.

‘They turn up and the murderer is there, her mobile phone is in the house, her car is in the drive, but they don’t realise something is up. It is just ridiculous.’

He added: 'I can’t blame them for her death, but they could have stopped it.

'The fact she could have been helped and that she wasn’t is just awful. I feel like I will never call the police again for anything.

‘There was just too much negligence on their part. In this incident they were just absolutely useless.’

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=59614543&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

2-year-old Calif. girl dies in accidental shooting

Police say 2-year-old California girl killed after 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her

Staff
AP News

Sep 23, 2009 23:30 EST

Police say a 2-year-old Northern California girl is dead after her 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her.

Police say the boy was playing with the gun Wednesday afternoon at the family home in Vacaville when it discharged, shooting the toddler in the head.

The girl was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Vacaville police Lt. Craig Courtemanche says the children’s parents were home at the time of the shooting. Both the parents and the boy were being questioned, with investigators hoping to determine how the boy got his hands on the weapon.

The girl’s name has not been released.

and

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2009/10/10/news/news358.txt

Accidental Shooting: Incident claims life of 17-year-old
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Friday, October 9, 2009 12:42 PM CDT

A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.

Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.

Teague was reportedly dead at the scene when officers arrived.

According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an â??accidental shootingâ?? and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage. The scene was reportedly a residence in the 6200 block of Sawgrass in northeastern Bartlesville.

The BPD Investigation Division later took charge of the scene, although BPD Chief Tom Holland said today the shooting is believed to be accidental.

â??When we left last night, detectives were convinced that it was a tragic accident,â?? Holland told the E-E today. â??Barring any new information, this will be treated as such.â??

Holland said no one else was injured and was not sure exactly how many people were present in the home at the time of the incident.

â??There were several young guys in the garage â?? I get the impression like three or four â?? and there were several people in the house,â?? he said.

â??We had to work with the young man who reported it, he was so frantic,â?? Holland said.

According to Bartlesville Public School District officials, there were to be a couple of adjustments to todayâ??s schedule following the accident.

â??The pep assembly at the high school that was supposed to be at 2:20 p.m. was canceled in lieu of the incident. We are still going ahead with the other homecoming activities,â?? said BPSD community relations coordinator David Austin.

â??We had counselors come in to the high school for students who need to talk to them. Thatâ??s what we typically do for tragic incidents such as this.â??

Witnesses are being interviewed at the Bartlesville Police Department, officials said.

â??It was a long hard night for everyone,â?? Holland said.
[/quote]

Wow! You really are a piece of work. A young woman makes repeated calls to the police about her violent former boyfriend who has already committed one murder and they do nothing. The law rendered her defenseless so that all she had to rely upon was the police who did NOTHING! So what do you come back with?

Accidents. And not just any accidents either. You come back with acidents involving a child and a teenager so you can go for the tear jerk effect. Thank you for showing the showing your tactics. When you can’t appeal to reason so you resort to manipulativeness.

There was a time in this country where it was quite common for children to own guns and they didn’t have many accidents. The reason why is because the kids were taught safe firearm handling practices. Both those accidents you posted could have been avoided just by giving the 8 year old and 17 year old proper training.

There is no need to make an entire society defenseless and create a lawless free for all just to try and avoid accidents which could easily be avoided through other means that would not cause major problems for the entire society.

Accidents are not a reason for gun control they are an excuse.

904

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (
[/quote]

No it is because the British do not have the same love affair with guns that the Americans have.

The standard British position is that guns are dangerous and evil and nobody but the army should be trusted with them. The standard American position is that there is no liberty without guns and more guns is the solution to gun violence.

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two positions (doesn’t it always.)

905

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is another example of the ridiculous nature ot Britains human rights act. One of the more idiotic of the human rights act laws is the right to a family life.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bolivian-invader-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-because-he-has-a-pet-cat/

An invader from far off Bolivia has won an appeal against deportation from Britain because he has a �??�?�¢??settled family life�??�?�¢?? here. Part of the �??�?�¢??proof�??�?�¢?? he provided was the fact that he co-owned a cat in this country.

This outrage was revealed in one of the latest rulings by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to come to public attention.

The tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a �??�?�¢??private and family life.�??�?�¢??

Doesn’t take long to find some more info about this case:

[i]But the solicitor insisted that his client had “never” argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.

The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O’Leary said: "We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple’s relationship.

[/i]

So when you have finished being mock outraged possibly you could give your learned legal argument as to why this man should be deported. Given that you don’t know anything about him other than that he is Bolivian, has a British Girlfriend and a Cat.

The cat was accepted as proof of his having a home and family life that would be disrupted by his deportation. Because the British really are that insane.
[/quote]

No it wasn’t, that is clearly stated even in the BNP article. Read any of the dozens of availaible reports from other sources and it is clear enough even for you.

[quote]
The right to a home and family life has to be one of the stupidest laws in human history. What gets me is idiots like you who can’t see anything wrong with a law which makes it impossible to remove violent gang members from the country after they commit murder.

This is typical of the British. They put stupid ideas into law and cause problems for themselves. But they don’t protect important rights like freedom of speech, because the importance of freedom of speech to a democracy is self evident. [/quote]

So this guy was a violent gang member was he? Where did you get that from given that all information about him was blanked out from the court reports.

Incidentally it is a European Ruling that leads to this. The situation is the same in all European member states but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical story?

906

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is an example of the wonderful response time of police answering 999 calls in the UK. They are called to deal with a man who has a prior conviction for murder and they don’t respond. This is why alowing people in Brtain to own guns for self defense would make a difference. In many parts of America a woman in those circumstances would be able to buy a gun and be able to defend herself. The only thing she would need to call the cops for is to come pick up the perps body.

A grieving family have accused the police of a catalogue of errors over the murder of a mother-of-two by a convicted killer.

Maria Stubbings, 50, was strangled with a dog lead by her ex-boyfriend days after she had called 999 fearing he had broken into her house.

When officers visited her home eight days after the emergency call they were greeted by Marc Chivers, who told them she had gone away.

At that moment her body was just feet away from the front door - hidden in a downstairs toilet by Chivers.
He is believed to have killed her three days earlier.

It was only the day after their call that police finally conducted a search of the house and found Mrs Stubbings’s body under a pile of coats.

Chivers, 42, had previously served 15 years for strangling another former girlfriend.

Mrs Stubbings’s family are furious that, despite the previous murder and his history of violence, police did not fully follow up her complaint against Chivers in the days before her death in Chelmsford, Essex, last December. They are planning to sue Essex police.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating Essex Police’s handling of the case.
Chivers was sentenced to life in prison in September 1993 for strangling his ex-girlfriend in Germany and dumping her body in woodland when in his 20s.

He was deported from Stuttgart to the UK in January 2008 after serving 15 years.

A few months later he met Mrs Stubbings in a park, and the pair embarked on a whirlwind romance.

But their relationship turned sour within a few months, and last July jobless Chivers, from Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, was arrested for assaulting her after a night out.

An argument broke out at her home and Mrs Stubbings fled to a neighbour’s home.

Chivers dragged her back by her hair. In October 2008 he pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to battery. He was sentenced to serve four months in prison minus time spent on remand.

After he was arrested for attacking Mrs Stubbings, she discovered his murderous past and, fearing for her safety, was given a panic alarm by police.

But her family claim this panic alarm was broken - leaving her with no protection from her aggressive ex-boyfriend.

Once out of jail Chivers is understood to have tried to rekindle their romance.

She called police when she returned home late on December 11 last year to find someone had broken in. She feared it was Chivers.

Essex Police claim they visited her the next day, but despite his previous two convictions did not follow-up with another visit in the days after this.

Her 16-year-old son Richard visited the house to look for her, but Chivers followed him around to make sure he didn’t discover his mother.

s Stubbings made further calls to the police and friends also called the police repeatedly to raise concerns, but no one went to see her until eight days after the original call, when they were sent away by Chivers with the body lying within feet of the front door.

The following day her body was discovered during a police search of the house.

At Chelmsford Crown Court on October 9 Chivers pleaded guilty to murdering Mrs Stubbings between December 15 and 20 2008. Mrs Stubbings, who had been married three times, also has a daughter Celia, 29.

The victim’s younger brother Manuel Fernandez, 41, said: 'They failed miserably. It is a catalogue of serious errors; total neglect. They didn’t even get there a bit too late, they got there four days too late.

'Maria was someone who was known by the police to be at high risk having been attacked previously by a convicted murderer and had gone missing, she had called the police and told them her concerns.

‘They turn up and the murderer is there, her mobile phone is in the house, her car is in the drive, but they don’t realise something is up. It is just ridiculous.’

He added: 'I can’t blame them for her death, but they could have stopped it.

'The fact she could have been helped and that she wasn’t is just awful. I feel like I will never call the police again for anything.

‘There was just too much negligence on their part. In this incident they were just absolutely useless.’

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=59614543&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

2-year-old Calif. girl dies in accidental shooting

Police say 2-year-old California girl killed after 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her

Staff
AP News

Sep 23, 2009 23:30 EST

Police say a 2-year-old Northern California girl is dead after her 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her.

Police say the boy was playing with the gun Wednesday afternoon at the family home in Vacaville when it discharged, shooting the toddler in the head.

The girl was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Vacaville police Lt. Craig Courtemanche says the children’s parents were home at the time of the shooting. Both the parents and the boy were being questioned, with investigators hoping to determine how the boy got his hands on the weapon.

The girl’s name has not been released.

and

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2009/10/10/news/news358.txt

Accidental Shooting: Incident claims life of 17-year-old
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Friday, October 9, 2009 12:42 PM CDT

A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.

Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.

Teague was reportedly dead at the scene when officers arrived.

According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an �¢??accidental shooting�¢?? and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage. The scene was reportedly a residence in the 6200 block of Sawgrass in northeastern Bartlesville.

The BPD Investigation Division later took charge of the scene, although BPD Chief Tom Holland said today the shooting is believed to be accidental.

�¢??When we left last night, detectives were convinced that it was a tragic accident,�¢?? Holland told the E-E today. �¢??Barring any new information, this will be treated as such.�¢??

Holland said no one else was injured and was not sure exactly how many people were present in the home at the time of the incident.

�¢??There were several young guys in the garage �¢?? I get the impression like three or four �¢?? and there were several people in the house,�¢?? he said.

�¢??We had to work with the young man who reported it, he was so frantic,�¢?? Holland said.

According to Bartlesville Public School District officials, there were to be a couple of adjustments to today�¢??s schedule following the accident.

�¢??The pep assembly at the high school that was supposed to be at 2:20 p.m. was canceled in lieu of the incident. We are still going ahead with the other homecoming activities,�¢?? said BPSD community relations coordinator David Austin.

�¢??We had counselors come in to the high school for students who need to talk to them. That�¢??s what we typically do for tragic incidents such as this.�¢??

Witnesses are being interviewed at the Bartlesville Police Department, officials said.

�¢??It was a long hard night for everyone,�¢?? Holland said.

Wow! You really are a piece of work. A young woman makes repeated calls to the police about her violent former boyfriend who has already committed one murder and they do nothing. The law rendered her defenseless so that all she had to rely upon was the police who did NOTHING! So what do you come back with?

Accidents. And not just any accidents either. You come back with acidents involving a child and a teenager so you can go for the tear jerk effect. Thank you for showing the showing your tactics. When you can’t appeal to reason so you resort to manipulativeness.

There was a time in this country where it was quite common for children to own guns and they didn’t have many accidents. The reason why is because the kids were taught safe firearm handling practices. Both those accidents you posted could have been avoided just by giving the 8 year old and 17 year old proper training.

There is no need to make an entire society defenseless and create a lawless free for all just to try and avoid accidents which could easily be avoided through other means that would not cause major problems for the entire society.

Accidents are not a reason for gun control they are an excuse.

[/quote]

Sifu I just decided to respond in kind. Every time you post a wall of text cut and pasted claiming that isolated incidents that make the news exactly because they are rare and shocking somehow back up your argument, I will do exactly the same.

907

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (
[/quote]

Perhaps it is because you getting to see a whole other side of things that you would not see or hear in Britain because people are afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out.

A large segment of British society have been molded into sheeple by a steady stream of one sided information from the media.

In Britain there is a whole army of sheep who if you suggest that the gun ban is a mistake will start bleeting that you are a “nutter”. They won’t even listen to you after that.

In Britain if you suggest that immigration on such a massive scale that the traditional tolerant culture and society are being washed out, that people who have lived in the country their whole lives are being disenfranchised and put on welfare, the sheeple will lable you a xenophobe and a racist.

In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.

The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain.

908

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

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (

Perhaps it is because you getting to see a whole other side of things that you would not see or hear in Britain because people are afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out.

A large segment of British society have been molded into sheeple by a steady stream of one sided information from the media.

In Britain there is a whole army of sheep who if you suggest that the gun ban is a mistake will start bleeting that you are a “nutter”. They won’t even listen to you after that.

In Britain if you suggest that immigration on such a massive scale that the traditional tolerant culture and society are being washed out, that people who have lived in the country their whole lives are being disenfranchised and put on welfare, the sheeple will lable you a xenophobe and a racist.

In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.

The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain. [/quote]

Utter bollocks. People are not afraid to speak out in the UK. The UK has a fantastic tradition of debate. Just watch British Parlimentary debate and compare it to the US, just go to Speakers Corner, just read books by modern British Authors.

Yes the Labour party has been a clusterfuck from start to finish, yes there are issues in the UK but no more so than any other modern democracy.
Sifu repeatedly tries to trot out a line that Britain is so much worse than anywhere else. He has nothing to back this up and I am not sure that he even believes it himself. It almost seems as if he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

909

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

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (

No it is because the British do not have the same love affair with guns that the Americans have. [/quote]

You are so wrong in your views and again misrepresenting the truth. What Americans have a love affair with is their freedom! Something for which they fought a long, hard, bloody war against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND ARMY! The same British government that you now defend.

[quote]
The standard British position is that guns are dangerous and evil and nobody but the army should be trusted with them. The standard American position is that there is no liberty without guns and more guns is the solution to gun violence. [/quote]

It is only the brain washed sheeple who think that guns are dangerous and evil. Guns in evil hands are dangerous and they are made more so when the right hands are not allowed to have them balance things out.

The American position is when we were British subjects we had to answer to a government where our views and wishes were not respected. With the British government the will of the people has no representation. Something which was true then and is still very true today. The British government engages in policies which do not represent the views of the British people.

The British Army is controlled by politicians who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Whio do things that the British people did not approve. Why the British would implicitly trust an army that is controlled by people who are untrustworthy defies all logic.

Again you are terribly misrepresenting the American position. The American position is that the war of Independence was a close run affair. Where our victory was devine providence as much as anything else. It is not forgotten that we had to send ambassadors to France to beg the monarchy there to give us weapons. The American position is never again should our people have to beg foreigners to defend us from our government.

The American postiion on gun violence is the best way to deal with it is to allow people to be able to defend themselves. A sitting duck is a tempting target. When people are armed it is a lot less tempting to try and attack them. A lesson which the British are stubbornly learning the hard way.

[quote]
The truth probably lies somewhere between the two positions (doesn’t it always.) [/quote]

The truth is you are a cluless idiot who has never been on the wrong end of a gun wishing the law would have allowed you to have one of your own, arguing with someone who has been in that predicament.

910

[quote]Sifu wrote:
No it is because the British do not have the same love affair with guns that the Americans have.

You are so wrong in your views and again misrepresenting the truth. What Americans have a love affair with is their freedom! Something for which they fought a long, hard, bloody war against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND ARMY! The same British government that you now defend.

[/quote]

So again you equate guns with freedom, proving my point.

Whereas the US army is controlled by a government that fully represents the will of the people.

[quote]

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two positions (doesn’t it always.)

The truth is you are a cluless idiot who has never been on the wrong end of a gun wishing the law would have allowed you to have one of your own, arguing with someone who has been in that predicament. [/quote]

What makes you think I have never had a gun pulled on me? Obviously with you the result was to turn you into some sort of conspiracy believing shadow jumping wreck. For me, it shit me up for a few days, then I got on with my life. Had there been a gun behind the bar, me reaching for it would most likely have got me shot.

911

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is another example of the ridiculous nature ot Britains human rights act. One of the more idiotic of the human rights act laws is the right to a family life.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/bolivian-invader-allowed-to-stay-in-britain-because-he-has-a-pet-cat/

An invader from far off Bolivia has won an appeal against deportation from Britain because he has a �??�??�?�¢??settled family life�??�??�?�¢?? here. Part of the �??�??�?�¢??proof�??�??�?�¢?? he provided was the fact that he co-owned a cat in this country.

This outrage was revealed in one of the latest rulings by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to come to public attention.

The tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a �??�??�?�¢??private and family life.�??�??�?�¢??

Doesn’t take long to find some more info about this case:

[i]But the solicitor insisted that his client had “never” argued that he should be allowed to stay on the grounds of the cat. Nor had he been allowed to stay because of this, he said.

The Home Office had appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against a judgment allowing the man to stay in the country.

Mr O’Leary said: "We were never arguing on the basis that the cat was material. We argued that there is a Home Office policy they should have applied in this case because of the long term nature of the couple’s relationship.

[/i]

So when you have finished being mock outraged possibly you could give your learned legal argument as to why this man should be deported. Given that you don’t know anything about him other than that he is Bolivian, has a British Girlfriend and a Cat.

The cat was accepted as proof of his having a home and family life that would be disrupted by his deportation. Because the British really are that insane.

No it wasn’t, that is clearly stated even in the BNP article. Read any of the dozens of availaible reports from other sources and it is clear enough even for you.[/quote]

A girlfriend is not family. So what was offered up as his familial relationship is he and his girlfriend had a cat together. Which is damn ridiculous.

[quote]
The right to a home and family life has to be one of the stupidest laws in human history. What gets me is idiots like you who can’t see anything wrong with a law which makes it impossible to remove violent gang members from the country after they commit murder.

This is typical of the British. They put stupid ideas into law and cause problems for themselves. But they don’t protect important rights like freedom of speech, because the importance of freedom of speech to a democracy is self evident.

So this guy was a violent gang member was he? Where did you get that from given that all information about him was blanked out from the court reports. [/quote]

Maybe I should have worded that better to compensate for your lack of reading comprehension. The right to a home and family life has prevented the British government from deporting dangerous criminals even ones who have committed murder. ie Learco Chindamo.

The murder of Philip Lawrence was an event that took place on 8 December 1995. Philip Ambrose Lawrence QGM, a London-based headmaster, was stabbed to death outside the gates of his school when he went to the aid of a pupil who was being attacked by a gang.

Murder
The Wo Shing Wo gang, which was mainly Filipino, aspired to be a junior version of the Triads. Twelve of the gang’s members, led by 15-year old Learco Chindamo, a pupil at another school who claimed to be a Triad member, went to St. George’s school on 8 December 1995, to “punish” a 13-year old black student named William Njoh, who had quarrelled with a Filipino pupil. Lawrence saw them attack the boy with an iron bar and went outside to remonstrate with the gang. Chindamo punched him and then stabbed him in the chest, and he died in hospital that evening.

Chindamo was convicted of murder at the Old Bailey in October 1996, after a unanimous decision by the jury, and jailed indefinitely (as he was a juvenile at the time). The trial judge recommended that a minimum of 12 years should be served.[1] He has always claimed that he was the victim of mistaken identity, and that the real killer was another boy who had borrowed his jacket, although he does not deny that he was present. During the trial it was shown that Chindamo’s claim of links to Chinese Triad society was pure fantasy.

On 10 October 1997, however, he lost his appeal. He was also a suspect in the non-fatal stabbing of a man named John Mills (not the actor) during a mugging in Camden several months before Lawrence’s death. Chindamo was born in Italy to an Italian father and Filipino mother.

Chindamo deportation controversy
In August 2007, an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that Chindamo could not be deported to his home country of Italy on completion of his prison sentence, as doing so would allegedly breach his human rights.[4] Although the Home Office argued that Chindamo presented a “present and serious threat” to society, the tribunal disagreed; they also argued that Chindamo had a right to a “family life” under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998.[5] The decision was severely criticised by Frances Lawrence, widow of the murdered headteacher Philip Lawrence.[1] Opposition leader David Cameron argued that the case highlighted the need for a fundamental review of human rights legislation in the United Kingdom, including the abolition of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its replacement with a “British Bill of Rights”.[6]

[quote]
Incidentally it is a European Ruling that leads to this. The situation is the same in all European member states but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical story? [/quote]

The Human Rights Act is UK law that was NuLabour’s fuck up.

The EU is more stupidity that the British government has signed onto, without ever asking the people for permission. In other European countries they are not as stupid as the British and they don’t apply the EU laws in such a bad way as the British do.

912

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is an example of the wonderful response time of police answering 999 calls in the UK. They are called to deal with a man who has a prior conviction for murder and they don’t respond. This is why alowing people in Brtain to own guns for self defense would make a difference. In many parts of America a woman in those circumstances would be able to buy a gun and be able to defend herself. The only thing she would need to call the cops for is to come pick up the perps body.

A grieving family have accused the police of a catalogue of errors over the murder of a mother-of-two by a convicted killer.

Maria Stubbings, 50, was strangled with a dog lead by her ex-boyfriend days after she had called 999 fearing he had broken into her house.

When officers visited her home eight days after the emergency call they were greeted by Marc Chivers, who told them she had gone away.

At that moment her body was just feet away from the front door - hidden in a downstairs toilet by Chivers.
He is believed to have killed her three days earlier.

It was only the day after their call that police finally conducted a search of the house and found Mrs Stubbings’s body under a pile of coats.

Chivers, 42, had previously served 15 years for strangling another former girlfriend.

Mrs Stubbings’s family are furious that, despite the previous murder and his history of violence, police did not fully follow up her complaint against Chivers in the days before her death in Chelmsford, Essex, last December. They are planning to sue Essex police.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating Essex Police’s handling of the case.
Chivers was sentenced to life in prison in September 1993 for strangling his ex-girlfriend in Germany and dumping her body in woodland when in his 20s.

He was deported from Stuttgart to the UK in January 2008 after serving 15 years.

A few months later he met Mrs Stubbings in a park, and the pair embarked on a whirlwind romance.

But their relationship turned sour within a few months, and last July jobless Chivers, from Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, was arrested for assaulting her after a night out.

An argument broke out at her home and Mrs Stubbings fled to a neighbour’s home.

Chivers dragged her back by her hair. In October 2008 he pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to battery. He was sentenced to serve four months in prison minus time spent on remand.

After he was arrested for attacking Mrs Stubbings, she discovered his murderous past and, fearing for her safety, was given a panic alarm by police.

But her family claim this panic alarm was broken - leaving her with no protection from her aggressive ex-boyfriend.

Once out of jail Chivers is understood to have tried to rekindle their romance.

She called police when she returned home late on December 11 last year to find someone had broken in. She feared it was Chivers.

Essex Police claim they visited her the next day, but despite his previous two convictions did not follow-up with another visit in the days after this.

Her 16-year-old son Richard visited the house to look for her, but Chivers followed him around to make sure he didn’t discover his mother.

s Stubbings made further calls to the police and friends also called the police repeatedly to raise concerns, but no one went to see her until eight days after the original call, when they were sent away by Chivers with the body lying within feet of the front door.

The following day her body was discovered during a police search of the house.

At Chelmsford Crown Court on October 9 Chivers pleaded guilty to murdering Mrs Stubbings between December 15 and 20 2008. Mrs Stubbings, who had been married three times, also has a daughter Celia, 29.

The victim’s younger brother Manuel Fernandez, 41, said: 'They failed miserably. It is a catalogue of serious errors; total neglect. They didn’t even get there a bit too late, they got there four days too late.

'Maria was someone who was known by the police to be at high risk having been attacked previously by a convicted murderer and had gone missing, she had called the police and told them her concerns.

‘They turn up and the murderer is there, her mobile phone is in the house, her car is in the drive, but they don’t realise something is up. It is just ridiculous.’

He added: 'I can’t blame them for her death, but they could have stopped it.

'The fact she could have been helped and that she wasn’t is just awful. I feel like I will never call the police again for anything.

‘There was just too much negligence on their part. In this incident they were just absolutely useless.’

http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=59614543&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281

2-year-old Calif. girl dies in accidental shooting

Police say 2-year-old California girl killed after 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her

Staff
AP News

Sep 23, 2009 23:30 EST

Police say a 2-year-old Northern California girl is dead after her 8-year-old brother accidentally shot her.

Police say the boy was playing with the gun Wednesday afternoon at the family home in Vacaville when it discharged, shooting the toddler in the head.

The girl was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Vacaville police Lt. Craig Courtemanche says the children’s parents were home at the time of the shooting. Both the parents and the boy were being questioned, with investigators hoping to determine how the boy got his hands on the weapon.

The girl’s name has not been released.

and

http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2009/10/10/news/news358.txt

Accidental Shooting: Incident claims life of 17-year-old
By Tim Hudson E-E County Reporter
Friday, October 9, 2009 12:42 PM CDT

A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.

Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.

Teague was reportedly dead at the scene when officers arrived.

According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an �?�¢??accidental shooting�?�¢?? and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage. The scene was reportedly a residence in the 6200 block of Sawgrass in northeastern Bartlesville.

The BPD Investigation Division later took charge of the scene, although BPD Chief Tom Holland said today the shooting is believed to be accidental.

�?�¢??When we left last night, detectives were convinced that it was a tragic accident,�?�¢?? Holland told the E-E today. �?�¢??Barring any new information, this will be treated as such.�?�¢??

Holland said no one else was injured and was not sure exactly how many people were present in the home at the time of the incident.

�?�¢??There were several young guys in the garage �?�¢?? I get the impression like three or four �?�¢?? and there were several people in the house,�?�¢?? he said.

�?�¢??We had to work with the young man who reported it, he was so frantic,�?�¢?? Holland said.

According to Bartlesville Public School District officials, there were to be a couple of adjustments to today�?�¢??s schedule following the accident.

�?�¢??The pep assembly at the high school that was supposed to be at 2:20 p.m. was canceled in lieu of the incident. We are still going ahead with the other homecoming activities,�?�¢?? said BPSD community relations coordinator David Austin.

�?�¢??We had counselors come in to the high school for students who need to talk to them. That�?�¢??s what we typically do for tragic incidents such as this.�?�¢??

Witnesses are being interviewed at the Bartlesville Police Department, officials said.

�?�¢??It was a long hard night for everyone,�?�¢?? Holland said.

Wow! You really are a piece of work. A young woman makes repeated calls to the police about her violent former boyfriend who has already committed one murder and they do nothing. The law rendered her defenseless so that all she had to rely upon was the police who did NOTHING! So what do you come back with?

Accidents. And not just any accidents either. You come back with acidents involving a child and a teenager so you can go for the tear jerk effect. Thank you for showing the showing your tactics. When you can’t appeal to reason so you resort to manipulativeness.

There was a time in this country where it was quite common for children to own guns and they didn’t have many accidents. The reason why is because the kids were taught safe firearm handling practices. Both those accidents you posted could have been avoided just by giving the 8 year old and 17 year old proper training.

There is no need to make an entire society defenseless and create a lawless free for all just to try and avoid accidents which could easily be avoided through other means that would not cause major problems for the entire society.

Accidents are not a reason for gun control they are an excuse.

Sifu I just decided to respond in kind. Every time you post a wall of text cut and pasted claiming that isolated incidents that make the news exactly because they are rare and shocking somehow back up your argument, I will do exactly the same.[/quote]

That is not the first incident of a young woman who has filed a police complaint and not been protected from being murdered. The police do not protect everyone who needs protecting because that is an impossible task and sometimes they are just lazy and don’t feel like it. In Britain a woman or man who finds themself in that position is fucked because with no right to own a gun for self defense the police is all there is.

You repeatedly have insisted that total reliance upon the police is the only way to go. Yet when I have come up with multiple cases of the police not protecting people you come up with excuses. You are a weak.

913

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

People are not afraid to speak out in the UK. The UK has a fantastic tradition of debate. Just watch British Parlimentary debate and compare it to the US, just go to Speakers Corner, just read books by modern British Authors.[/quote]
Cockney, I agree in part. The people you speak of, however, are the elite bar the lonely soul considered an eccentric/nutter standing on a box in Hyde Park. Yes, Parliament discussions in Britain are more vicious and more entertaining than in America, who funnily enough are more conservative and polite than the British politicians who just rip one another to pieces ( I almost can’t recognize their Englishness!) If the passion that flows in Parliament resonated on the streets with the people then we would be more like America and even Brazil. Besides Parliament is not the people ( I know they are meant to represent the people but that is part of the problem with what is wrong wrong with Britain: Parliament is replacing the people, not representing - in Brazil they used to misrepresent the people ), and so yes they are fearless.
However, brave words and cowardice in action is more what oozes out of Parliament, lately. Look at the scandal of tax payer money they steel for their expenses ( THAT was a kick in the teeth, to be honest! ). If my belly were that full at the expense of my children, I too would be able to debate like a ferocious feline all day.
Besides, debate is not speaking out. It is just a back and forth between two parties with an ego to defend not necessarily a cause to fight for.[quote]

It almost seems as if he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.[/quote]

That is what I mean by my definition of Parliament debate above, incidentally.
And it is my impression they don’t even know what they believe in - except for the right to claim their expenses.

: )

914

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

losing the gun laws in the UK would not have a positive impact on crime levels and that there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws.

Don’t you think that maybe the reason there is no real desire in the UK for changes to the laws is not because it would not have a positive impact on crime levels but simply because there is no real desire in the UK for change full stop?
Have we not entered a state of resignation as opposed to indignation?

P.S. I was away for the weekend and now I have to go back to page 33 to catch up…
I can’t keep up and yet I am spell bound to return to this thread.

: (

Perhaps it is because you getting to see a whole other side of things that you would not see or hear in Britain because people are afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out.

A large segment of British society have been molded into sheeple by a steady stream of one sided information from the media.

In Britain there is a whole army of sheep who if you suggest that the gun ban is a mistake will start bleeting that you are a “nutter”. They won’t even listen to you after that.

In Britain if you suggest that immigration on such a massive scale that the traditional tolerant culture and society are being washed out, that people who have lived in the country their whole lives are being disenfranchised and put on welfare, the sheeple will lable you a xenophobe and a racist.

In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.

The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain.

Utter bollocks. People are not afraid to speak out in the UK. The UK has a fantastic tradition of debate. Just watch British Parlimentary debate and compare it to the US, just go to Speakers Corner, just read books by modern British Authors.[/quote]

People have been arrested for saying things which were not politically correct. Whatever tradition the country once had, that has been terribly eroded. The reason why the BNP website is hosted on an American server is because they wanted the protection of speech that exists here. If they had their website on a British server they would be under constant threat of arrest and prosecution.

[quote]
Yes the Labour party has been a clusterfuck from start to finish, yes there are issues in the UK but no more so than any other modern democracy.
Sifu repeatedly tries to trot out a line that Britain is so much worse than anywhere else. He has nothing to back this up and I am not sure that he even believes it himself. It almost seems as if he is just arguing for the sake of arguing.[/quote]

Again you are misrepresenting me. I’ve never stated that Britain is much worse than anywhere else. My position is Britain is much worse than many Brits will admit to. In some cases they are not even allowed to admit there is a problem because they can get arrested.

If someone has a problem but they refuse to admit they have a problem there is no way they can ever resolve that problem. The big problem with Britain is the British take their freedoms for granted and place way too much trust in the political class. The British do not have a healthy distrust of government.

915

[quote]Sifu wrote:

In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.[/quote]

On what grounds, Sifu? I am just curious.[quote]

The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain. [/quote]

I can’t go back the four pages, maybe later. This page really delivered.

Freedom is one of my favorite themes, along with free will and self possession.
I think the British have forgotten all three, what is entails to achieve them and sustain them.
States of independence, power ( knowing how to exercise one’s free will is the ultimate exercise in power, in my opinion ) and autonomy are to me, the only real ‘state’ of a people. To be in a state of liberation implies awareness and exercise of these qualities.
Any nation that has resigned these qualities that bring vitality to one’s existence is a Zombie nation ( same goes for individuals - hence, one by one, “we” become neutralized ).

I don’t think that you are saying that Britain is worse than other places but I hear what you are saying. When the core is weak, the house stands on hollow ground.

It remains to be seen what would bring some vitality into the core of this nation.

916

[quote]Sifu wrote:

The British do not have a healthy distrust of government. [/quote]

I like the way you put this.
And I agree.
It is a vigilance - their vigilance is lost.
A healthy and sharp awareness which perceives imminent danger.

All sense of self preservation is lost when slumber enters the picture.

917

[quote]Sifu wrote:

In some cases they are not even allowed to admit there is a problem because they can get arrested.
[/quote]

Is that true?! But on what grounds??

918

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
No it is because the British do not have the same love affair with guns that the Americans have.

You are so wrong in your views and again misrepresenting the truth. What Americans have a love affair with is their freedom! Something for which they fought a long, hard, bloody war against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND ARMY! The same British government that you now defend.

So again you equate guns with freedom, proving my point. [/quote]

No that is not what I wrote. It is not a matter of equating anything. It is a matter of historical perspective. You are trying so use the suggestion that we equate guns with freedom as a way to denegrate our understanding of history. You are not going to get away with that here.

What you are suggesting would be just like equating the British army and their guns with tyranny. ie The British government used soldiers armed with guns to impose British tyranny on us. Therefore we equate the British army and it’s guns with tyranny. When really it isn’t the British army or British guns that equals tyranny it is the unrepresentative British government.

I post a paragraph relating to how gun control has made people sitting ducks and your response is to go off on a tangent about the American army because you can’t argue with my point. Classic. I would not suggest the American government fully represents the will of the people, however if it ever egregiously goes against the overwhelming will of the people we have a way to deal with it that the British don’t. That serves to keep it in line.

[quote]
The truth probably lies somewhere between the two positions (doesn’t it always.)

The truth is you are a cluless idiot who has never been on the wrong end of a gun wishing the law would have allowed you to have one of your own, arguing with someone who has been in that predicament.

What makes you think I have never had a gun pulled on me? Obviously with you the result was to turn you into some sort of conspiracy believing shadow jumping wreck. For me, it shit me up for a few days, then I got on with my life. Had there been a gun behind the bar, me reaching for it would most likely have got me shot.[/quote]

What makes me think you have never been in that position is your adamant insistance that gun control laws prevent things like that from happening. My overwhelming impression at that moment was gun control has failed me because this man has a gun and I don’t. After that you will never be able to convince me of the infallibility of gun control. That is why I think you are full of shit.

Had you been in that position you would know fully well that criminals don’t obey laws, that is why we call them criminals. The best way to discourage a criminal from pulling a gun on someone is to allow their would be victims to be armed. When criminals think they could get shot they become risk adverse and less willing to pull guns or knives on people.

All gun control does is guarantee criminals they will have the upper hand if they use a gun to commit a crime. If you were unarmed because of gun control and had someone pull a gun on you, you would understand gun control’s biggest flaw and I wouldn’t have to repeatedly explain it to you.

919

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.

On what grounds, Sifu? I am just curious. [/quote]

What they use are incitement to hatred and public order laws which they interpret rather broadly. That is how the couple in the B&B got arrested for saying that mohammad was a warlord and the burqa is a form of bondage. Right before the 7/7 bombings the Labour government was going to update the blasphemy laws so that criticising islam would be a crime.

The way the law was rewritten merely quoting passages from the koran that contradicted the government dictat that islam is a religion of peace and saying this is what the koran says form your own opinion would have been illegal.

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. In a free country ideas should be open to debate and criticism. The fact that Labour was going to reinstate ancient blasphemy laws in order to placate the muslim population shows how mass immigration of muslims into the UK is dragging the society backwards. People should be able to openly discuss that without having to be a nut on a box in speakers corner.

[quote]
The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain.

I can’t go back the four pages, maybe later. This page really delivered.

Freedom is one of my favorite themes, along with free will and self possession.
I think the British have forgotten all three, what is entails to achieve them and sustain them.
States of independence, power ( knowing how to exercise one’s free will is the ultimate exercise in power, in my opinion ) and autonomy are to me, the only real ‘state’ of a people. To be in a state of liberation implies awareness and exercise of these qualities.
Any nation that has resigned these qualities that bring vitality to one’s existence is a Zombie nation ( same goes for individuals - hence, one by one, “we” become neutralized ).

I don’t think that you are saying that Britain is worse than other places but I hear what you are saying. When the core is weak, the house stands on hollow ground. [/quote]

Britain has been hollowed out. The mass emigration out of Britain is depriving it of many of it’s most motivated indiginous people. They are being replaced with economic migrants from countries that have not had a long tradition of democracy or even any democracy. Much of the EU which Britain is surrendering it’s sovereignty to is countries that have not had much democracy and are riddled with corruption.

The future looks very bleak.

920

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The British do not have a healthy distrust of government.

I like the way you put this.
And I agree.
It is a vigilance - their vigilance is lost.
A healthy and sharp awareness which perceives imminent danger.

All sense of self preservation is lost when slumber enters the picture.
[/quote]

It is the opposite of the American attitude which is we should be forever vigilant and ready to defend our freedoms, which is why the British cast such aspersions on us and try to take the piss out of our ideas. ie Cockney constantly coming up with stupid suggestions of why don’t we enter into armed rebellion and start shooting up the government over minor things.

Just because we don’t take up arms against the government over minor issues that does not rule out the possibility of something major happening that would require such a response. The fact that we have that ability serves as a reminder to the government that there are very real limits on it’s power that the British government does not have and you can see the difference in the behaviour.