There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice [/quote]

CIVILISED?!?
You mean sugar coated with “civility”, right? How many truly authentic people who do not wear “civilised” masks do you know in England, or Brazil or Mexico for that matter - if you are abiding in a genuine human society please point me towards it because my heart is yearning for that. [quote]

This was not defending, this was attacking.[/quote]

Attack is a form of defence.
What guarantee does a man/woman has that said intruder ins’t a sociopath who is coming back for revenge? There are certain boundaries that ARE NOT OK to be crossed. And self preservation DICTATES you make sure the transgressor knows not to cross that line again.
When someone shows no regard for human life that means they accept their own life may be eliminated. You don’t risk taking something you are not prepared to lose yourself.

I am not being vengeful. This is a basic principle that operates from gambling to murdering.
You got to be prepared to lose money if you want a shot a winning money.
And you got to be prepared to lose your life if you are going to take life.

War anyone? Is that civilised killing just because you vote for it in the comfort and distance of your own home? What makes the soldier a hero because he defended your country and that man a criminal because he defended his home and quite possible the honour of his wife.

If a man breaks into my home do I need to prove to my “civilised” society he wasn’t going to rape me or come back to do so? Do I appear more “civilised” to you as a victim of rape and the life long psychological trauma I , notice the detail I, have to live with than if I cut off his balls? Does that make you feel better about me or would it fill you with horror if I, out of protecting myself from this intrusion of HORROR in my life, did all I could to defend myself? Not every one is trained in Ninja moves thus knowing exactly where to strike in order to simply “disable” your “opponent” in a “clean” and “acceptable”, “civilised” manner. Wouldn’t you agree?

The police cannot be there 24/7 to protect me. My experience with minor crimes has been exactly a CIVILISED LETTER saying: " We are terrible sorry you have been a victim of crime. We at the Metropolitan Police are doing everything in our power to offer support to the victims in your area by providing the following victim support groups…"

I am not a victim.

I found the people who crossed me and showed them fear does not live here so don’t even dare because Dare is my second name.

We don’t need guns we need courage.
In a society of rats be a lion.
[/quote]

Your argument holds no water. Legally you can use reasonable force to defend yourself and remove someone from your property. After that point if you choose to chase after someone, attack them and beat them with poles whilst they are cowering defenceless on the ground then you are guilty of comitting assault. You simply cannot have people exacting their own justice.

1102

edited.

1103

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Your argument holds no water. Legally you can use reasonable force to defend yourself and remove someone from your property. After that point if you choose to chase after someone, attack them and beat them with poles whilst they are cowering defenceless on the ground then you are guilty of comitting assault. You simply cannot have people exacting their own justice. [/quote]

I was a little but tipsy after the companies’s Christmas party so my argument was actually holding a bit of wine, hehe.

: D

1104

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is some fresh lunacy from the Britains joke of a legal system. This man and his family were the victims of a home invasion by three armed men. Because he beat one of the men with a cricket bat he recieved 30 months in prison while the home invaders were set free.

The traditional concept of justice has become perverted in modern Britain. The law no longer acts as a bulwark to protect decent citizens.

In a degraded culture of misnamed ‘human rights’ and institutionalised leniency towards serial thugs, it is all too often the honest people who end up being punished while the criminals walk free.

The twisted values of the criminal justice system have been exposed by the case of Munir Hussain, a wealthy businessman jailed this week for tackling a dangerous burglar.

[/quote]

They were attacked, they successfully defended themselves at that point if they had stopped, no issue. Problem is that once the self defence situation ended, they chased after one of the guys, caught him then beat him senseless whilst he was defenceless on the ground. Regardless of the fact that this guy had attacked the men first, their actions constitute assault and they were correctly charged and sentenced. [/quote]

Typical Guardianista bullshit.

[quote]
You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home.

It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong.

1105

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…ofcourse i never said that the BNP was a whites only party. They are required by law, in order to play along with the big guys, to admit everybody. Don’t fall for the smoke screen Sifu is trying to put up. The BNP is up there with France’s Le Pen en Wilders…[/quote]

Their constitution was in place for over thirty years but it wasn’t an issue until they had electoral success and became a genuine threat to the power of the “big guys”.

1106

[quote]caveman101 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

they used to be an whites-only party but the courts forced them to change cos of human rights and race laws. this was pretty recent. [/quote]

No they were not forced by the court. They changed instead of fighting an expensive legal battle that was politically motivated to bankrupt the party so they would not be a threat to the Labour party.

They are not as racist as Labour or the Tories. So what is your point?

1107

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is some fresh lunacy from the Britains joke of a legal system. This man and his family were the victims of a home invasion by three armed men. Because he beat one of the men with a cricket bat he recieved 30 months in prison while the home invaders were set free.

The traditional concept of justice has become perverted in modern Britain. The law no longer acts as a bulwark to protect decent citizens.

In a degraded culture of misnamed ‘human rights’ and institutionalised leniency towards serial thugs, it is all too often the honest people who end up being punished while the criminals walk free.

The twisted values of the criminal justice system have been exposed by the case of Munir Hussain, a wealthy businessman jailed this week for tackling a dangerous burglar.

[/quote]

They were attacked, they successfully defended themselves at that point if they had stopped, no issue. Problem is that once the self defence situation ended, they chased after one of the guys, caught him then beat him senseless whilst he was defenceless on the ground. Regardless of the fact that this guy had attacked the men first, their actions constitute assault and they were correctly charged and sentenced. [/quote]

Typical Guardianista bullshit.

[quote]
You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]

Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished.

Now admittedly in the second crime there was extenuating circumstances and you would therefore hope that there was some leniency in the sentencing but the crime has to be punished.

What the Mail article fails to mention is they beat the guy so badly he has been left brain damaged and that this is the reason he didn’t get a custodial sentence he wasn’t fit to plead the case.

1108

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is some fresh lunacy from the Britains joke of a legal system. This man and his family were the victims of a home invasion by three armed men. Because he beat one of the men with a cricket bat he recieved 30 months in prison while the home invaders were set free.

The traditional concept of justice has become perverted in modern Britain. The law no longer acts as a bulwark to protect decent citizens.

In a degraded culture of misnamed ‘human rights’ and institutionalised leniency towards serial thugs, it is all too often the honest people who end up being punished while the criminals walk free.

The twisted values of the criminal justice system have been exposed by the case of Munir Hussain, a wealthy businessman jailed this week for tackling a dangerous burglar.

[/quote]

They were attacked, they successfully defended themselves at that point if they had stopped, no issue. Problem is that once the self defence situation ended, they chased after one of the guys, caught him then beat him senseless whilst he was defenceless on the ground. Regardless of the fact that this guy had attacked the men first, their actions constitute assault and they were correctly charged and sentenced. [/quote]

Typical Guardianista bullshit.

[quote]
You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]

Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished. [/quote]

No they were not two seperate events. They freed themselves as the home invasion was still in progress. They were in hot pursuit when it went outside. The criminals had put those men in fear for their lives. They wanted to be gangsta and ended up getting thugged upon by their victims, that is karma.

[quote]
Now admittedly in the second crime there was extenuating circumstances and you would therefore hope that there was some leniency in the sentencing but the crime has to be punished.[/quote]

Those criminals made the homeowner feel helpless and impotent in his own home, because they got off on the power. To be the victim of such an assault is psychologically damaging. The homeowner took back control of his home. The therapuetic benefits to the homeowner should count for something. If the homeowner had to chase the thugs out into the street and beat him down with a bat to feel he had restored the sanctity of his home, it is the thugs fault for starting that drama.

[quote]
What the Mail article fails to mention is they beat the guy so badly he has been left brain damaged and that this is the reason he didn’t get a custodial sentence he wasn’t fit to plead the case. [/quote]

He threatened to kill the man and his family while he had them tied up, he got what he asked for. Besides it isn’t just the mail that thinks the homeowner got a raw deal. Even the leftist Torygrapgh has started a campaign to have the law changed so homeowners can defend themselves in their homes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6844682/Tories-back-new-rights-to-help-home-owners-protect-themselves-from-burglars.html

Tories back new rights to help home owners protect themselves from burglars

The Conservatives have backed a new campaign by The Sunday Telegraph for changes to the law to give householders more rights to protect themselves against burglars.

1109

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…ofcourse i never said that the BNP was a whites only party. They are required by law, in order to play along with the big guys, to admit everybody. Don’t fall for the smoke screen Sifu is trying to put up. The BNP is up there with France’s Le Pen en Wilders…[/quote]

Their constitution was in place for over thirty years but it wasn’t an issue until they had electoral success and became a genuine threat to the power of the “big guys”. [/quote]

…so you are admitting that for over thirty years they were a whites only party?

1110

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]

Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished. [/quote]

No they were not two seperate events. They freed themselves as the home invasion was still in progress. They were in hot pursuit when it went outside. The criminals had put those men in fear for their lives. They wanted to be gangsta and ended up getting thugged upon by their victims, that is karma.

[quote]
Now admittedly in the second crime there was extenuating circumstances and you would therefore hope that there was some leniency in the sentencing but the crime has to be punished.[/quote]

Those criminals made the homeowner feel helpless and impotent in his own home, because they got off on the power. To be the victim of such an assault is psychologically damaging. The homeowner took back control of his home. The therapuetic benefits to the homeowner should count for something. If the homeowner had to chase the thugs out into the street and beat him down with a bat to feel he had restored the sanctity of his home, it is the thugs fault for starting that drama.[/quote]
EXACTLY!! But that power to stand on one’s own two feet as a strong capable individual to protect one’s self from harm does not belong to us. We must remain like vulnerable defenceless children dependent on our “parental” governmental guidance and protection, at the risk of becoming victims scarred AND sacred for life and all the more dependent on our government. It is a kind of “sick love” where keeping the injury to keep the injured thus insuring they are always in business; always useful as helpers/healers and keeping the dependency alive.
Would you be in a marriage with a partner like this? It is a very very subtle form of manipulation in the name of “love” ( “I am only doing this for your own good” ) and it is very real and the most damaging psychologically: it castrates you from within = powerlessness and codependency. This mentality is running and ruining the thread of British society.
This is a very covert abuse of power masquerading as love in “goody goody two shoes” behavior: the aggression is so subtle you almost cannot see it nor put your finger on it, but like a pervasive poisonous gas, it permeates at the fabric of society. Before you know it you are really to weak to break free.

This was in essence what I said. I understand where you are coming from. I have to say however, you are wasting your time as the majority of English and European ( non Latin origin ) will not see nor will accept this reasoning. It simply is not proper, nor civilized to protect one’s self in Europe. They are not like those ‘gun loving’ Americans “taking justice in their own hands”. They fail to see the police cannot be there 24/7 to defend them and would rather suffer the psychological trauma of being violated ( home, physical or sexual ) than to “freak out”, thus becoming an “uncivilized brute” to defend themselves. This total dependency and complete reliance and trust in the government is what allows them to be burgled by their authorities on a daily and continuous basis.

Because you “simply cannot have” people rebelling against the government and not doing as they are told. They are only doing this “for our own good”.

Being a sheep is equated with being noble and “a good child” / “good citizen”.
Any behavior that falls outside that parameter is frowned upon by the system.

The system is not perfect, nor is it a “good parent”/“husband”.
( protective role in this case )

1111

…i do understand that sometimes you have to reap havoc in order to set your bounderies. I also understand that when adrenaline is pumping and you have a chance to turn the table on your assailants, you go for it. I would even go as far as saying that the law in the UK, and in Holland, is skewed in favor of the criminal, and that is wrong…

…there is, however, a difference between selfdefense and attempted manslaughter. Forcibly holding someone until the police comes will not end with you in jail. Beating his head in with a club will…

1112

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is some fresh lunacy from the Britains joke of a legal system. This man and his family were the victims of a home invasion by three armed men. Because he beat one of the men with a cricket bat he recieved 30 months in prison while the home invaders were set free.

The traditional concept of justice has become perverted in modern Britain. The law no longer acts as a bulwark to protect decent citizens.

In a degraded culture of misnamed ‘human rights’ and institutionalised leniency towards serial thugs, it is all too often the honest people who end up being punished while the criminals walk free.

The twisted values of the criminal justice system have been exposed by the case of Munir Hussain, a wealthy businessman jailed this week for tackling a dangerous burglar.

[/quote]

They were attacked, they successfully defended themselves at that point if they had stopped, no issue. Problem is that once the self defence situation ended, they chased after one of the guys, caught him then beat him senseless whilst he was defenceless on the ground. Regardless of the fact that this guy had attacked the men first, their actions constitute assault and they were correctly charged and sentenced. [/quote]

Typical Guardianista bullshit.

[quote]
You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]

Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished. [/quote]

No they were not two seperate events. They freed themselves as the home invasion was still in progress. They were in hot pursuit when it went outside. The criminals had put those men in fear for their lives. They wanted to be gangsta and ended up getting thugged upon by their victims, that is karma.

[quote]
Now admittedly in the second crime there was extenuating circumstances and you would therefore hope that there was some leniency in the sentencing but the crime has to be punished.[/quote]

Those criminals made the homeowner feel helpless and impotent in his own home, because they got off on the power. To be the victim of such an assault is psychologically damaging. The homeowner took back control of his home. The therapuetic benefits to the homeowner should count for something. If the homeowner had to chase the thugs out into the street and beat him down with a bat to feel he had restored the sanctity of his home, it is the thugs fault for starting that drama.

Sifu you are missing the point, probably willfully.

In the same situation I would probably want to do exactly what these guys did. That is exactly the reason why their actions have to be punished.

Even if the law were changed in the way the Telegraph is asking, these guys would have been prosecuted for assault. They were not in their home, they were not defending anything. They got together a lynch mob, went after the burglar and beat him over the head until he had brain damage breaking a cricket bat they hit him so hard.

And to call the Telegraph leftist is hilarious. It is called the Torygraph due to it’s right leaning agenda.

1113

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You cannot have people in a civilised society extracting their own justice and it is typical of the Daily Heil to twist it around using inflammatory language like ‘For his vigorous action in defending his family and his home against a brutal assailant, he was given a prison sentence of 30 months’[/quote]

Wrong. You cannot maintain a civilized society by protecting criminals from the consequences of their actions and arresting people who don’t deserve it. They don’t give that severe of a sentence to murderers.

[quote]
This was not defending, this was attacking. [/quote]

NO! That was an occupational hazard, which could reaonably be assumed to be a risk of committing a home invasion, tying someone up and terrorizing him with threats to kill him and his family in his home. It is the criminals fault that his victim freaked out, got loose and beat him down with a bat. Punishing a victim who was provoked into freaking out while letting the criminal who provoked the attack go free to commit more crimes is wrong. [/quote]

Bullshit and you know it. You have to separate the crimes. The guys broke into someone’s house and tied up the occupants at knifepoint. That is a crime that needs to be punished. Then a separate crime took place where two men decided to take the law into their own hands, chase after someone and beat them senseless, this is a crime that also needs to be punished. [/quote]

No they were not two seperate events. They freed themselves as the home invasion was still in progress. They were in hot pursuit when it went outside. The criminals had put those men in fear for their lives. They wanted to be gangsta and ended up getting thugged upon by their victims, that is karma.

Bullshit!

Fighting the guy in your own home to protect your family and violently throwing them out is fine. Killing them in self defence whilst they are attempting to attack you or your family is fine.

Chasing after them with a lynch mob is not acceptable. Not only have you turned into a violent attacker, taking the law into your own hands, but you have also selfishly put your self at risk for no good reason. Had the guy been stabbed to death out on the street by the burglar, who would now be protecting and supporting his family?

1114

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…ofcourse i never said that the BNP was a whites only party. They are required by law, in order to play along with the big guys, to admit everybody. Don’t fall for the smoke screen Sifu is trying to put up. The BNP is up there with France’s Le Pen en Wilders…[/quote]

Their constitution was in place for over thirty years but it wasn’t an issue until they had electoral success and became a genuine threat to the power of the “big guys”. [/quote]

…so you are admitting that for over thirty years they were a whites only party?
[/quote]

No. The new equalities act which calls for discrimination in hiring based upon skin color and gender also has provisions for membership in organisations. They changed before the new law went into effect.

1115

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Bullshit! [/quote]

Umm. Is it? [quote]

Fighting the guy in your own home to protect your family and violently throwing them out is fine.[/quote] According to whom? [quote] Killing them in self defence whilst they are attempting to attack you or your family is fine. [/quote] According to whom? [quote]

Chasing after them with a lynch mob is not acceptable.[/quote] According to whom? [quote]
Not only have you turned into a violent attacker,[/quote]According to whom? [quote] taking the law into your own hands,[/quote] According to whom? [quote] but you have also selfishly put your self at risk for no good reason.[/quote] According to whom?

According to whose authority is it that you make these judgements by?
Do you have a problem with overt violence? For a man who doesn’t believe in God I respectfully inquire: When a man/woman acts out on his instinctual nature for the purpose of self preservation of life, where do you get this negative qualification that weights on his behavior as “vile” - is violence always qualitatively “vile”?
What about covert violence, or does that go by another name, if so what might that be?
Does the use of one’s own authority for self preservation of life immediately qualifies one as a predator/animal/criminal?
Is it selfish to use one’s self preservation instinct to ensure that the threat to one’s family life is completely eliminated? Is the police going to offer 24/7 protection to ensure the attacker will not return when the man of courage is not home and his family is vulnerable? Having being violated in your own home and overcome the violator how would you live knowing he is still out there, FREE. The burglar is free, is the man who just chased him out of his house FREE? Is his wife FREE. Are their children FREE?

Was there psychological justice?

What is that to you? That is his call to make, not your own and not society’s. We don’t have to live with the consequences of this drama - he does. You don’t have to comfort and reassure his wife and his children every day and night because they are now psychologically fragile not knowing if that thug will return for them. That man made a choice. The community which you interestingly judged as a “mob” supported him and would have likely taken care of his family had he died for them.

Strong individuals = strong communities = less power to the “goody goody two shoes” government telling us how not to exercise our free will in matters of life and death thus leaving us open to attack, vulnerable and dependent on their will to ensure the preservation of our lives.

I strongly invite you to think deeply on the relationship between authority and free will.
And who is controlling you when you have to face life threatening situations in your life.
And if you self preservation instinct is being overruled by complete reliance on your government to protect you, I wish you good luck.

1116

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…ofcourse i never said that the BNP was a whites only party. They are required by law, in order to play along with the big guys, to admit everybody. Don’t fall for the smoke screen Sifu is trying to put up. The BNP is up there with France’s Le Pen en Wilders…[/quote]

Their constitution was in place for over thirty years but it wasn’t an issue until they had electoral success and became a genuine threat to the power of the “big guys”. [/quote]

…so you are admitting that for over thirty years they were a whites only party?
[/quote]

No. The new equalities act which calls for discrimination in hiring based upon skin color and gender also has provisions for membership in organisations. They changed before the new law went into effect. [/quote]

…wow, i read that over and over again and still i can’t make sense of it. Let me refrase the question: was, at any time in it’s history, the BNP a whites only party?

1117

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…Alpha F, are you an “indigenous Caucasian”?

1118

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]

Those criminals made the homeowner feel helpless and impotent in his own home, because they got off on the power. To be the victim of such an assault is psychologically damaging. The homeowner took back control of his home. The therapuetic benefits to the homeowner should count for something. If the homeowner had to chase the thugs out into the street and beat him down with a bat to feel he had restored the sanctity of his home, it is the thugs fault for starting that drama.[/quote]
EXACTLY!! But that power to stand on one’s own two feet as a strong capable individual to protect one’s self from harm does not belong to us. We must remain like vulnerable defenceless children dependent on our “parental” governmental guidance and protection, at the risk of becoming victims scarred AND sacred for life and all the more dependent on our government. It is a kind of “sick love” where keeping the injury to keep the injured thus insuring they are always in business; always useful as helpers/healers and keeping the dependency alive.
Would you be in a marriage with a partner like this? It is a very very subtle form of manipulation in the name of “love” ( “I am only doing this for your own good” ) and it is very real and the most damaging psychologically: it castrates you from within = powerlessness and codependency. This mentality is running and ruining the thread of British society.
This is a very covert abuse of power masquerading as love in “goody goody two shoes” behavior: the aggression is so subtle you almost cannot see it nor put your finger on it, but like a pervasive poisonous gas, it permeates at the fabric of society. Before you know it you are really to weak to break free. [/quote]

It’s called “Parental Government”. Instead of being government of the people, by the people, for the people, where people are equals, it is government as supreme Mummy and Daddy. Parental government views the people as infantile. The logical conclusion that derives from that world view is that since we are only infantile we can’t know what is good for us.

Exactly. Those thugs triggered some of the most important basic survival instincts that any animal has. Defend your young and your mate from predators in your lair. If we didn’t have these instincts hard wired into us over millions of years we wouldn’t be here. The law makes no allowance for how we are made.

[quote]
This was in essence what I said. I understand where you are coming from. I have to say however, you are wasting your time as the majority of English and European ( non Latin origin ) will not see nor will accept this reasoning. It simply is not proper, nor civilized to protect one’s self in Europe. They are not like those ‘gun loving’ Americans “taking justice in their own hands”. They fail to see the police cannot be there 24/7 to defend them and would rather suffer the psychological trauma of being violated ( home, physical or sexual ) than to “freak out”, thus becoming an “uncivilized brute” to defend themselves. This total dependency and complete reliance and trust in the government is what allows them to be burgled by their authorities on a daily and continuous basis. [/quote]

Good point. Northern Europeans are pretentious crackers. They think they are so much more evolved than us brown savages from the south. That is why the common refrain you will hear from northern Europeans is “times have changed”, “that silly American constitution is outdated”, “it’s not proper that the common people are allowed to bear arms so that they may rebel against the proper authority of the government”.

Speaking of burgled by the government, taxes in Sweden are so high that when people file their tax return they have to pay a tax on the amount of tax they owe. Swedes will extoll the virtues of all the social services they have without realizing that Daddy Government takes everything they have in order to keep them at the level of a helpless toddler sucking Mommy governments tit.

The problem with that high taxation then give it back as social services is it pigeon holes everyone at a certain level in society with very little upward mobility. That paradigm could exist without a lot of social tensions when everyone was a blond haired, blue eyed Swede and you couldn’t tell someones place in society just by looking at them. But now they have taken in large numbers of people who do not look like Swedes and are at the bottom of the economic level with very little opportunity to advance themselves. It is a recipe for big problems in the future and in varying degrees all of western europe is like that.

Europe is headed for big problems and people are in denial. What is worse is liberals here in the US are trying to adopt the same mistakes the Europeans are making.

1119

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are not a whites only party. [/quote]

So where is that coming from? Is it all spin from Bliars minions?
( Did you see him on the news going in for interrogation on the Iraqi inquiry? I want to see what the British people are going to do about that, too )
[/quote]

…Alpha F, are you an “indigenous Caucasian”?[/quote]

I was born in Brazil. Arrived in London aged 18. Just turned 39. Never been back to Brazilian soil.

If you want to know which culture I mostly identify with/am fond of I would say Native Indians.
Hospitable, non-interested helpers/free givers, honourable, respect and live with nature not just mindlessly and greedily taking from it and taking it for granted. Comfortable with their bodies and ‘natural instincts’ which are viewed as ‘uncivilised’ such as honest expression of aggression. Protective of women and children. Warriors. Strong hearts.
That is as close to courage and as close to free as I can think a society can be.

I am seriously, seriously considering moving into a Native Indian community. Or start my own.
Forget gym. I want to work labour - not vote for it, ;).
And I want to die working. And I want to die free.

I am not impressed with our civilised society. And since I don’t have a solution all I can do is not become part of the problem.

1120

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Europe is headed for big problems and people are in denial. What is worse is liberals here in the US are trying to adopt the same mistakes the Europeans are making. [/quote]

I agree with your entire post.
I was tremendously fond of moving to America: I just love the spaciousness! And socially it was the best of Brazil and England mixed together, a better balance.

So I guess I need to start searching for an Indian Reserve.

Forget cardio; Alpha F is going to hunt her meals!

:slight_smile: