…But, in British politics in the 20th and 21st century, gun control is not, has not been, and is most unlikely to be, an issue for the vast, vast majority of the population. It has not affected our crime rate in either direction to any great extent, and was never going to have an impact on the ability of the government to subjugate the population, because there were too few fucking guns in circulation. Ok?
Precisely.
Why do I agree with you? Because you freely admit, “Gun control is not, has not been, and is most unlikely to be, an issue.” And therein lies the problem, that being your lack of recognition that in this case the gun is a symbol of freedom (as well as an effective tool) and not just a device that goes, “Boom!”
You also admit guns were “never going to have an impact on the ability of the government to subjugate the population, because there were too few fucking guns in circulation.” Again, precisely. So the net effect is for Britons there is a paved highway to tyranny laying there just waiting to be traveled. It may take a few months or it may take a few decades but the flat, smooth asphalt highway is beckoning. Eventually it will be too tempting to pass up - someone, something will head down the road and enjoy the scenery along the way.[/quote]
Whereas in the US of course anytime the government tries to do something the people don’t like the population rises up and takes back control using their guns. Or is that just in the fantasies of deluded aging gun nuts like you?
The first gun control laws in Britain came after world war one and were a response to the Russian revolution.
[/quote]
Bzzzzzz, wrong answer.
The first gun control laws in the UK were part of the Vagrancy act 1824 (a reaction to all the guns around after the Napoleonic wars.
This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828, the Game Act 1831,
the Night Poaching Act revisions 1844, the Poaching Act 1862, the Gun License Act 1870, the Pistols Act 1903, then the Firearms Act 1920 (which is I guess is the one you think was the first) then alongside the 1937 Firearms Act the Home Secretary ruled that self defence was not a legitimate reason for applying for a Firearms License.
Bzzzz, wrong again. Most of these acts were actually designed to cut down on poaching and as a way to raise tax revenue (sounds familiar.)
Bzzzz, wrong again I am afraid Sifu. The total number of people with firearms before the 1997 legislation was roughly 57,000 bear in mind that the majority of the guns licensed were 22 target pistols or rifles and then look at the fact that at the time the British Army stood at 425,500 plus the 6,000 or so armed police without counting the 41,400 members of the RAF and the 38,400 members of the Royal Navy and I think it is safe to say that an armed rebellion was not really in the offing.
OK now Sifu, concentrate. If you try really hard you can get a perfect score here!
Bzzzz, wow I thought you were going to blow it there but well done. You have a perfect score of 0 correct statements out of 4.
The right to apply for a firearm license for use in self defence was removed by the Home Secretary (a Conservative) in 1937
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.
I see here you apparently concede the argument. Your ineffective diatribes and weak position certainly force you to become facetious at some point. Can’t say that I blame you; if I were in your position I would see the need to become playfully silly too.
You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.
Of all places to live, regardless of the relative safety or your particular neck of the Mexican woods, you employ this misguided attempt to paint a picture of utopia in a land where tyranny both from the criminal and from the state has reared its ugly head for hundreds of years. I’m tempted to type “I feel sorry for you,” but in reality I don’t. We all get what we deserve. If enough Americans acquire your ethos on this idea we too collectively will get what we deserve as well. You can take consolation in that fact.
Obviously I am a sheep because I don�??�??�?�¢??t follow you and your group�??�??�?�¢??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.
Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.
And here is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion: you believe in the innate transcendent goodness of your fellow man and your government. I believe he (and it) is innately evil and left unchecked will always eventually evolve into a force of malignancy. Again I would have to say history wholeheartedly and unarguably supports my view over yours.
Pretty neatly sums it up. As I have stated before, had I had a different upbringing in a different area I am sure that I would have different views. With this kind of argument there is no right and wrong other than what is right and wrong for you or for me personally and that is something that we both have to decide.
I am pretty optamistic (though with an underlying cynical caution), I treat people as I find them and try to be fair with everyone that I come into contact with. It has worked well for me so far in a large range of places, environments and social settings therefore that is the way that I will continue to lead my life.
I feel no need to go and get a gun or to rally against the gun laws here in Mexico or in the UK. Whilst I disagree with you about your need for a gun I also respect your choice especially given that you are breaking no laws.
What I do object to is Sifu claiming that the British are repressed by changes in gun laws in 1997 that were only controversial because they were not really necessary given that virtually no-one (less than 0.1% of the population) actually had or wanted a gun.
Obviously this is going over your head because we constantly have to keep telling you but you don’t get it. When the civilian population of a country own firearms they have the ability to physically force their government to obey their will and respect their rights.
When the people are disarmed and the government has a complete monopoly on military power you do not live in a free country. The government may allow the people to have an illusion of freedom but make no mistake the government can crush the people any time they want.
The British army has a history of gunning down unarmed, peaceful protesters. If they have done it before they can do it again! Look at this.
The massacre at the Qissa Khawani Bazaar (the Storytellers Market) in Peshawar, British India (modern day Pakistan) on April 23, 1930 was a defining moment in the non-violent struggle to drive the British out of India. It was the first major confrontation between British troops and non-violent demonstrators in the then peaceful city�¢??some estimates at the time put the death toll from the shooting at nearly 400 dead.[1] The gunning down of unarmed people triggered protests across the subcontinent and catapulted the newly formed Khudai Khidmatgar movement onto the National scene.[2]
The Khudai Khidmatgar (literally Servants of God), led by Ghaffar Khan, were a group of Pashtuns committed to the removal of British rule through non-violent methods. On April 23, 1930, Ghaffar Khan was arrested after giving a speech in Utmanzai urging resistance to the British occupation. Ghaffar Khan’s reputation for uncompromising integrity and commitment to non-violence inspired most of the local townspeople to take the oath of membership and join the Khudai Khidmatgar in protest.[3]
After other Khudai Khidmatgar leaders were arrested, a large crowd of the group gathered at the Qissa Khwani bazaar. As British troops moved into the bazaar, the crowd was loud, though completely non-violent. British armored cars drove into the square at high speed, killing several people. The crowd continued their commitment to non-violence, offering to disperse if they could gather their dead and injured, and if British troops left the square. The British troops refused to leave, so the protesters remained with the dead and injured.[3] At that point, the British ordered troops to open fire with machine guns on the unarmed crowd.[
Here is the reason why Americans think the British are foolish to blindly trust their government by allowing it to disarm them.
The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the British colonies in America, which culminated in the American Revolution
I seriously doubt that less than one tenth of a percent of the people in Britain were opposed to the gun ban. But if that number were true it speaks volumes about the ignorance of the British people of their own history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes.
Wow, such relevent examples. 250 years ago in a different country! [/quote]
You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the British because you always make excuses for or try to rationalize any information that forces you to face the harsh reality of the truth. In both cases of the British army opening fire on unarmed protesters in “different countries” the civilians being shot were considered British subjects.
Their British citizenship was why the government considered itself justified in shooting them, because they were British subjects openly rebelling against legitimate authority of the crown!
In that 250 years Britain has not changed it’s constitution (Magna Carta) it’s bill of rights (1689 bill of rights) or it’s royal family (Hannover).
[quote]
Perhaps you could also dig up some recent examples of armed militia in the US succesfully resisting the government. There must be lots of them. [/quote]
Now you are getting really stupid. Obviously you don’t understand the concept on maintenance. The second amendment has allowed the American people to maintain their freedom so that armed rebellion has not been neccessary.
But since you are thick I will give you an analogy to make it even clearer. Cock says “airplanes aren’t falling out of the sky and crashing to the ground so it is silly how they obsessively insepct, repair and maintain them to keep them airworthy”. Cock says " FAA airplane maintenance rules are from another age when airplanes used to crash, so they should do away with them".
[quote]
Finally, the figure of 0.1% of the population was the number of people who had legal firearms before the 1997 changes to the law. [/quote]
That was the statistic for hand guns only you putz.
Here is an interesting excerpt for you.
gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain, where ownership of firearms was relatively common a century ago.
The contrast between UK legislation on gun ownership - among the strictest in the world, and that in the United States - among the most relaxed, might appear stark.
But in fact both countries’ firearms laws can be traced back to the same source.
The right to bear arms was guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, in which the new King William of Orange enshrined a series of rights for his subjects - Catholics were famously excluded.
This was enshrined in common law during the early years of the US, and later informed the second amendment of the US constitution, which explains why the right to bear arms remains so strong a factor in America
Prior to World War I there were a quarter of a million licensed firearms in private hands across the country.
But after soldiers returned from the trenches the government became concerned about the number of weapons they had brought home with them.
The establishment’s fears were heightened by the rise of socialist and anarchist movements and the 1917 Russian revolution.
Lots of waffle but didn’t address any of the questions directed at him. Again.
[/quote]
Not at all. You are making silly remarks that are thinly vieled as questions. Just because the people haven’t felt it neccessary to form a militia and go to war with the government does not mean the common law right to arms is no longer needed. This important Anglo American right serves two important purposes.
First is the obvious one that the people have the ability to rebel against the government and it’s military and police forces.
The second one is obviously something that the British people are not intellectually enlightened enough to understand. When the citizenry is allowed to defend itself and use firearms for that purpose it has a profound impact upon law and order within the community. When the people aren’t totally dependent upon the government for their own security that is good for freedom because there is less of a need for police and for the government to have a lot of authoritarian powers.
On the other hand, when the people are legally prevented from defending themselves like in Britain you get a situation like in Britain. You get increased lawlessness which allows the government to say that they now need more police powers and capabilities to deal with all the lawlessness. Then when the government doesn’t effectively use their new powers and tools they can come back and say that it isn’t working we need even more powers and tools. This is exactly what they do with the CCTV’s. There are increasing numbers of cameras but for some reason they are having little to no impact on crime because although people are committing crimes on camera they are still having difficulties catching the criminals.
Another example was when the government said it needs to be able to imprison people without charge. First it was for 28 days then they said that isn’t working so now we need 42 days. In America we call this the tail wagging the dog because it is the government manipulating the people. In Britain what they government does it engages in a policy which causes a problem then it uses the probelm it has created as an excuse for a power grab.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Lots of waffle but didn’t address any of the questions directed at him. Again.
Not at all. You are making silly remarks that are thinly vieled as questions. Just because the people haven’t felt it neccessary to form a militia and go to war with the government does not mean the common law right to arms is no longer needed. This important Anglo American right serves two important purposes.
[/quote]
No, I asked several specific questions, none of which you can answer so you ramble on instead. I also pointed out numerous examples where you are demonstrably wrong on major facts about gun law in the UK. You have not reacted so I take it that you cede the point.
but every time the people have attempted to rebel against the government they have been shot dead. So that obviously doesn’t work.
Then how comes in the US the government is steadily increasing it’s authoritarian powers. Surely the US guns should be stopping this.
People are not legally prevented from defending themselves. Self defence is still a legal defence even for shooting someone. I cannot however have a gun for the purpose of self defence. Possibly this difference is too subtle for you however it is important. British people do not equate freedom, self defence or liberty with a tool. We equate it to a state of being. I repeat my earlier point, if you are only free because you have a gun then you are not really free.
Another point is that CCTV has been effective. Not as effective as the government claimed it would be and that is partly due to the revenue generation based implementation however more crimes are being reported and more arrests are being made due to the evidence from CCTV.
If the US gun based model was so effective, why are crime rates so high in the US? Surely they should be lower.
[quote]
Another example was when the government said it needs to be able to imprison people without charge. First it was for 28 days then they said that isn’t working so now we need 42 days. In America we call this the tail wagging the dog because it is the government manipulating the people. In Britain what they government does it engages in a policy which causes a problem then it uses the probelm it has created as an excuse for a power grab. [/quote]
In the UK there is a full parlimentary debate over whether terrorism suspects should be able to be held for 42 days without charge (up from 28.) This debate is happening in the open by elected officials.
In the US there are terrorism suspects being held indefinitely without charge, illegally and without any recourse to democratic process. So what was your point again?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The second one is obviously something that the British people are not intellectually enlightened enough to understand.
[/quote]
Aha. Gratuitous offence. Clearly a good way to win an argument.
A much more reasonable response to the OP’s question is to say that we have allowed our democracy to become ineffectual: we have a centuries-long tradition of solving political problems through the ballot box, rather than armed uprising. But our politics has lost touch with the concerns of ordinary people.
There are innovations happening there: the Conservaties ran an open primary for a parliamentary candidate this week, for example. People are starting to talk about a power of recall for MPs. And so on. I’d much rather pursue a renewal of democracy than the threat of civil war implied by a populace armed to the teeth.
In a nut shell, the British have always had an overwhelming compulsion to bring Orwell’s 1984 to life. It gets a little closer every day.
Their “properness” (or stick up the ass state of mind) and inbred willingness to be led around like barnyard animals have opened them to being under this form of control. Is it true that their police are largely unarmed while our ASPCA corps carry 9MMs?
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
In a nut shell, the British have always had an overwhelming compulsion to bring Orwell’s 1984 to life. It gets a little closer every day.
Their “properness” (or stick up the ass state of mind) and inbred willingness to be led around like barnyard animals have opened them to being under this form of control. Is it true that their police are largely unarmed while our ASPCA corps carry 9MMs?
BG[/quote]
I would not diss policemen with no gun.
Ordinary unarmed cops are a very clever idea and are much more in line with what a street cops job is supposed to be. Or at least it says a lot about what a societies opinion is about what a street cops job is supposed to be.
The whole dynamic changes when a cop is basically a life guard and not part of an occupying force.
First is the obvious one that the people have the ability to rebel against the government and it’s military and police forces.
but every time the people have attempted to rebel against the government they have been shot dead. So that obviously doesn’t work.[/quote]
You’re thinking too black and white. For someone who jibes Sifu about differences too subtle for him, you are missing the point. Of course people in small groups are shot dead–they’re small fucking groups. On the other hand, there are something like 190 MILLION guns in private citizens hands–if even 10 percent of those got mad enough at an Unconstitutional action of the US, they COULD do something about it. What’s our army? Like 1.4 million between all branches?
Second point–which you either do not recognize or are glossing over–is that it IS NOT about pure winning. Regardless of the outcome, a gov’t does not want to commit large amounts of resources over an extended time period to having to physically control its people through confrontation. It’s a sort of convenience thing–you might not win, but you can make it so damn uncomfortable and hassle so much that they just don’t want to deal with it.
That’s a retarded argument and you know it. The reason the US gov’t is steadily increasing its authoritarian powers is that the population is becoming progressively more complacent and uneducated, preoccupied too much with what Hollywood is doing and whether Brad is cheating…whoever the hell he’s dating now. It is a question of education, complacency, and willpower that lets the gov’t grab more and more of the reins. Not a question of guns.
We are about where your esteemed countrymen were 100-120 years ago in attitude–power brings complacency. We will continue on this path so long as we are more concerned with driving a big car with platinum rims or reality tv, or being taken care of by gov’t, or blaming somebody else for our individual problems, than we are our personal freedoms.
[quote]
People are not legally prevented from defending themselves. Self defence is still a legal defence even for shooting someone. I cannot however have a gun for the purpose of self defence. [/quote]
How the hell are you supposed to be able to shoot someone in self defense if you have no gun?? If you take theirs and shoot them it’s not self defense anymore, obviously that’s out.
We equate it with the same ideal. However, you are only truly free if you can prevent yourself from being subjugated–by gov’t or criminal, it makes no difference. If you lack the ability to keep your freedom, you are only independent so long as you are considered of too little worth to care about by those with power. Once they notice you, you will be brought to heel.
You are woefully ignorant of the real world–throughout all of recorded history, men have only been free insofar as they could fight off foreign powers. As soon as a society lacked the ability to defend itself it was conquered by another. And the same goes for those private powers that would bend you individually to their will.
[quote]Another point is that CCTV has been effective. Not as effective as the government claimed it would be and that is partly due to the revenue generation based implementation however more crimes are being reported and more arrests are being made due to the evidence from CCTV.
If the US gun based model was so effective, why are crime rates so high in the US? Surely they should be lower.[/quote]
I don’t care if its been effective or not. IMO that use of CCTV is a blatant violation of civil liberties, and should not be allowed. The effectiveness argument is incidental, even if it’s true that the gov’t was “effective” or more effective than it was imbecilic in implementation, which I find hard to accept.
As far as crime rates go, you had better specify what specific crimes we are talking about, because if you are talking about “all violent crime”, then Britain is much higher than the US in incidence of violent crime. In a study conducted in Holland’s Leiden University (Internat’l Crime Victims Survey), found Australia, England, and Wales in the 1,2,3 positions for violent crime incidence. US didn’t even make the top 10 list.
I’m sure I could come up with corroborating stats from other sources as well, but I just really don’t feel like investing the time to put them together.
EDIT–here’s one I found by almost by accident. from the UK news (guardian), albeit 2007 “comparison of crime rates in individual capitals and major cities shows the 32% of the residents of London have been a victim of 10 categories of offences ranging from assault to sexual harassment to burglary. The comparable figures were 18% for Istanbul and 23% for New York.”
So London has almost 10% higher victimization rate than the “war zone” of “wild west” New York. Interesting.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
…I’d much rather pursue a renewal of democracy than the threat of civil war implied by a populace armed to the teeth.
You might just be surprised how the latter can precipitate the former. It’s uncanny.[/quote]
You have examples - other than (arguably) from US history - of where the threat of civil war has given rise to open, stable, democratic society? Anywhere in the world? Anytime?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
complacency, and willpower that lets the gov’t grab more and more of the reins. Not a question of guns.
We are about where your esteemed countrymen were 100-120 years ago in attitude–power brings complacency. We will continue on this path so long as we are more concerned with driving a big car with platinum rims or reality tv, or being taken care of by gov’t, or blaming somebody else for our individual problems, than we are our personal freedoms.
[/quote]
That is the state of the British people right there. Complacency, lack of willpower, emotional sloth in being taken care of by having the government ‘organize’/send other people to kill for them, and blaming somebody else for their problems than being concerned with their personal freedom.
The main British concern is to be able to go on their 3 holidays a year to Spain, Egypt resorts, and Dubai for the richer. My experience of this ‘state of being’ free for the British is being free from responsibility as they have no sense of community and live more and more in their insulated houses going abroad with their insulated families. No sense of personal responsibility. Do not want to and will not want to ‘get involved’ or ‘be disturbed’ in their perpetual slumber. They work hard and live to go on the next holiday in the sun.
A state of freedom requires responsibility. The responsibility to stand up for what is right and to own up to one’s own failures. The British are constantly passing the buck.
To Cockney Blue:
I have to say CB, you are speaking from a privileged position. You are on the outside looking in. From sunny Mexico to gloomy central London where you are completely powerless under 24 hour cctv surveillance on every gear you move on your car and penalized for 30 second mistakes on parking ‘offenses’ ( my own parents didn’t penalize me this harsh ) you too would want to own a gun.
I have to say I am grateful for the food for thought Pushharder and Aragorn are bringing to the table about the significance of gun ownership as I, though not necessarily against guns, never saw the deeper meaning of it. So thank you both for the enlightenment.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You’re thinking too black and white. For someone who jibes Sifu about differences too subtle for him, you are missing the point. Of course people in small groups are shot dead–they’re small fucking groups. On the other hand, there are something like 190 MILLION guns in private citizens hands–if even 10 percent of those got mad enough at an Unconstitutional action of the US, they COULD do something about it. What’s our army? Like 1.4 million between all branches?
Second point–which you either do not recognize or are glossing over–is that it IS NOT about pure winning. Regardless of the outcome, a gov’t does not want to commit large amounts of resources over an extended time period to having to physically control its people through confrontation. It’s a sort of convenience thing–you might not win, but you can make it so damn uncomfortable and hassle so much that they just don’t want to deal with it.
[/quote]
But he point is that it is always going to be small groups. The anarchist idea that the majority of the US is just waiting to burst out and throw off the oppressive government is a pipe dream.
I really think that keeping guns in order to threaten your government is a poor excuse. Money, publicity and votes are the way to control a government not threats of violence.
I think we actually totally agree on this point. You even said it, it is not a question of guns. Neither is it in the UK.
I don’t think you are 100-120 years behind, I think we are neck and neck. The difference is that the US is fecking huge and far more disparate than the UK. There is also far more power at a local level through the state system which makes it harder for the government to implement things.
Actually no it is not out. If you are attacking me with deadly intent, and I grab your gun in the struggle and shoot you then I have legally used a gun in self defence. If however I chase after you and shoot you in the back then I am comitting murder or manslaughter (depending on my intent.)
In the same way, if I carry a metal bar because I am walking through a ‘dangerous’ area and I am scared of being mugged then it is classed as carrying a dangerous weapon and I can be prosecuted. If however I were to be attacked and stab someone with the point of my umbrella then I have used my resources to defend myself.
The point is that under British Law people should not be walking around with any form of weapon. The theory being that this leads to a less violent attitude. In the US the general ideas go to the other extreme which is that if everyone has the opportunity to carry deadly weapons then everyone will be too scared to start anything.
Probably both viewpoints have some merit and also some level of stupidity.
[quote]We equate it with the same ideal. However, you are only truly free if you can prevent yourself from being subjugated–by gov’t or criminal, it makes no difference. If you lack the ability to keep your freedom, you are only independent so long as you are considered of too little worth to care about by those with power. Once they notice you, you will be brought to heel.
You are woefully ignorant of the real world–throughout all of recorded history, men have only been free insofar as they could fight off foreign powers. As soon as a society lacked the ability to defend itself it was conquered by another. And the same goes for those private powers that would bend you individually to their will.
[/quote]
I think that you actually have a false idea of the freedom that you enjoy. What you have is the perception of freedom which the US government is happy for you to have as long as it keeps you paying your taxes. You would only really have the freedom that you describe were your 2nd amendment defended militia to actually rise up and overthrow the government leaving a totally lawless anarchy. Of course, that wouldn’t last as the people with the biggest guns would take advantage and you would be back where you started.
[/quote]
I don’t care if its been effective or not. IMO that use of CCTV is a blatant violation of civil liberties, and should not be allowed. The effectiveness argument is incidental, even if it’s true that the gov’t was “effective” or more effective than it was imbecilic in implementation, which I find hard to accept.
[/quote]
I swing back and forth on the CCTV thing. Civil liberties are an illusion in the modern world anyway and there are areas of Britain where the streets have arguably become safer however it has also taken away from more traditional policing methods and is a system that is extremely open to abuse.
How did London compare to Baltimore or Detroit or even DC? Surely citing New York City is a bit of an own goal given that it has some of the strictest gun control laws of any city in the US.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
complacency, and willpower that lets the gov’t grab more and more of the reins. Not a question of guns.
We are about where your esteemed countrymen were 100-120 years ago in attitude–power brings complacency. We will continue on this path so long as we are more concerned with driving a big car with platinum rims or reality tv, or being taken care of by gov’t, or blaming somebody else for our individual problems, than we are our personal freedoms.
That is the state of the British people right there. Complacency, lack of willpower, emotional sloth in being taken care of by having the government ‘organize’/send other people to kill for them, and blaming somebody else for their problems than being concerned with their personal freedom.
The main British concern is to be able to go on their 3 holidays a year to Spain, Egypt resorts, and Dubai for the richer. My experience of this ‘state of being’ free for the British is being free from responsibility as they have no sense of community and live more and more in their insulated houses going abroad with their insulated families. No sense of personal responsibility. Do not want to and will not want to ‘get involved’ or ‘be disturbed’ in their perpetual slumber. They work hard and live to go on the next holiday in the sun.
A state of freedom requires responsibility. The responsibility to stand up for what is right and to own up to one’s own failures. The British are constantly passing the buck.
To Cockney Blue:
I have to say CB, you are speaking from a privileged position. You are on the outside looking in. From sunny Mexico to gloomy central London where you are completely powerless under 24 hour cctv surveillance on every gear you move on your car and penalized for 30 second mistakes on parking ‘offenses’ ( my own parents didn’t penalize me this harsh ) you too would want to own a gun.
I have to say I am grateful for the food for thought Pushharder and Aragorn are bringing to the table about the significance of gun ownership as I, though not necessarily against guns, never saw the deeper meaning of it. So thank you both for the enlightenment.
[/quote]
I loved and still love London as one of the most vibrant, exciting, beautiful and historically important cities in the World. Certain things about London have improved out of sight in the last 20 years or so however at the same time certain changes (a number brought in by the idiot Ken Livingston), have certainly had a negative impact on the quality of life there. Also, the cost of living in London has risen to a totally ridiculous level.
I loved and still love London as one of the most vibrant, exciting, beautiful and historically important cities in the World.
Certain things about London have improved out of sight in the last 20 years or so however at the same time certain changes (a number brought in by the idiot Ken Livingston), have certainly had a negative impact on the quality of life there. Also, the cost of living in London has risen to a totally ridiculous level.[/quote]
I lived the first 18 years of my life in Brazil and the past 21 in London. I never went back because I couldn’t live with the political economic corruption. Now London is even worse than Brazil because the Brazilian government wouldn’t dare impose this daylight robbery on its people.
I was discussing this with a Brazilian friend who lives here also and we concluded the difference is Brazilians get together and unite against the government, the British turn against each other and bite one another in the face of the powerlessness they experience from their government.
I was just in conversation with my colleague at work who is responsible to fight for us to remove the parking penalties and I told him I did not authorize money to come out of my salary to pay for the parking penalties and he said to me : “If you don’t pay and decide to take the government on that is up to you, my job is just to try and pull the wool over their eyes and hope they let you off. The law is on their side and we cannot change that.”
No one wants to fight. They all feel powerless before the government. Then we all take out on each other on the streets and at work. That vibrant city you once new is vibrating with insecurity and helplessness ( we are going around in circles chasing our tales to pay for all the stealth taxes ).
This is no way to live CB.
It would break your heart to see so much oppression masquerading as diplomacy.
You are lucky to be on the outside looking in.
The British are not believing in using voting as a weapon, either. Resignation is their self defense: ‘Let’s drink and go on holiday on our credit cards to forget we are being watched and penalized’.
Beneath all the business and chaos which is now London there is an insidious slumber.
And the legacy of that idiot Ken Livingstone is still being maintained by the Muppet who replaced him.
That monstrosity of the bendy bus still present on the streets like a beached whale and that congestion charge which the American embassy and many others rightly refuse to pay.
Boris Johnson was on tv 2 months ago appealing to Obama to pay it.
It’s like a Muppet show.
I was last living in London 18 months ago so I doubt it has changed that much since then. I totally get where you are comming from however I could write a similarly depressing outlook on most places, then I could write a really positive piece as well.
There is still a hell of a lot in London to be rightly proud of. There are lots of things that I really miss from sitting outside a pub on the first sunny day in April to walking back from the west end to my place in Kensington at 3 in the morning because it is so beautiful that I couldn’t bear to miss it by jumping in a cab or on a buss. From going and watching a good live band pretty much any night of the week to a dining experience that spans everything from a decent Chicken Shawarma at kicking out time through to some of the best restaurants anywhere on earth.
Museums and galleries that you could spend a life time wandering around and still never see all the exhibits. A public transport system that whilst admitedly overpriced and overcrowded covers pretty much every inch of London. And the fact that you can rub shoulders with people from literally every part of the planet and imediately have something in common with them by complaining about how crap the District line service is or how terrible the weather has been.
It seems that you truly have become aclimitised to living in Britain because you know how to whinge and moan but you don’t actually plan to do anything about it
