I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,565

Quote: keewik @ 13th May 2014, 12:16 AM BST

If you think British society is crap and the US gives total freedom, I do wonder why you stay here.

View original

Says the woman who is voting for Scotland to leave British society. So your answer is that I shouldn't campaign for freedom in my own country, but instead emigrate - that's what Braveheart did in the movie. Just got on a boat and went to Norway.

Consensual tyranny - it's an expression I use over and over again and perfectly sums up the passive, brain washed and complicit nature of the relationship between the UK government and it's electorate. It's a strange world where British people actively campaign for the government to limit their freedoms and attack America for being less tyrannical and despotic.

Quote: billwill @ 13th May 2014, 1:52 AM BST

The targetted person is not really going to care whether the drone is a missile or whether it fires a missile and then goes home to mum.

View original

Please bill, don't overwhelm me with your techno speak. Why not put up an emotive picture to get over a simplistic and inaccurate point instead?

And please be sure to stop the Americans from using drones to find the missing Nigerian schoolgirls, because drones are 'evils'.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 1:27 PM BST

Consensual tyranny - it's an expression I use over and over again and perfectly sums up the passive, brain washed and complicit nature of the relationship between the UK government and it's electorate. It's a strange world where British people actively campaign for the government to limit their freedoms and attack America for being less tyrannical and despotic.

View original

"Consensual tyranny" is just an emotive word for the social contract. No it isn't perfect but is necessary - to a level.

What is the check to the misuse of power?

Being able to criticise the country without being seen as "unpatriotic" (unlike the US)

Not having to swear allegiance to a flag (unlike the US).

Whatever "passive, brain washed and complicit" issues we have in this country they are nothing compared to the US. First Amendment applies..until you criticise the US.

Quote: Jennie @ 13th May 2014, 1:34 PM BST

"Consensual tyranny" is just an emotive word for the social contract. No it isn't perfect but is necessary - to a level.

What is the check to the misuse of power?

Being able to criticise the country without being seen as "unpatriotic" (unlike the US)

Not having to swear allegiance to a flag (unlike the US).

Whatever "passive, brain washed and complicit" issues we have in this country they are nothing compared to the US. First Amendment applies..until you criticise the US.

View original

So instead of denying that we live under a symbiotic regime of mutual oppression, you instead celebrate this wonderful tyranny you are complicit with. That is what 'brain washed' means.

Freedom of Speech means you can criticise your own country and Freedom of Speech means that you can be similarly criticised for your stance. It's enshrined by law and no amount of super injunctions or pressure groups can stop you.

You call it a social contract, I call it consensual tyranny. If I have to use emotive words to draw people's attention to the fact that they are so far gone, that even questioning the laws we live under forces others to say: 'If you don't like it, then you should leave the country', then so be it.

Saying we live under tyranny seems a little on the insulting side to people who live under tyranny.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ 13th May 2014, 2:33 PM BST

Saying we live under tyranny seems a little on the insulting side to people who live under tyranny.

View original

Yes and being date raped isn't as bad as being raped violently in the street, but they're both still rape.

Some people enjoy British tyranny, they like social engineering, they like the freedom of not having to think or make choices. They particularly enjoy being petty, small minded, jealous and prejudiced.

Guaranteed, if there was one small section of Britain that had the same freedoms as America, if there was a tiny spit of land or a small island that allowed it's inhabitants to smoke in a pub or carry a gun - then the full weight of 'British opinion' would come crashing down on it like a ton of bricks.

It would kill people in this country to see others happy.

My personal idea of happiness probably wouldn't be smoking in a pub with a legal gun holstered (probably in one of those belt set-ups, not the cop under one arm jobies); what else could I have?

Also, don't quite a lot of U.S. states also have similar smoking laws?

Is anyone else thinking or RCP as Peter Serafinowicz's character Tex from Alan Partridge, who 'like's American things?'

I think "brainwashed" just means "thinks differently to RCP".

I think you are forgetting an important part of what is means to be free. It is not just about the right to do what you want. We none of us have the right to do exactly as we choose and nor should we.

Also, what you have decided defines freedom (oddly, they are the things that you would like to do) naturally limits someone else's freedom.

For example, your right to smoke in a pub limits the freedom of the barmaid to work in a smoke free environment. Yes, she could work in a smoke-free bar. But if she was free, she could work in any bar she chose.

The price of one person's "freedom" is the constraint of someone else's.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 12:03 AM BST

Certainly open to interpretation, but it's too late in the evening for a fully blown discussion. We're basically signed up to the European version along with a few leftovers from the Magna Carter and the 1689 act. It's all patch work and duct tape with everyone just assuming things.

View original

The European Convention is enshrined in UK law and is effectively our bill of rights.

We had a Bill of Rights in 1689 if you are interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Every article of the US Bill of Rights is enshrined one way or another in English law already (and has been for centuries) except for jury in civil disputes.

.

Quote: Jennie @ 13th May 2014, 4:13 PM BST

Also, what you have decided defines freedom (oddly, they are the things that you would like to do) naturally limits someone else's freedom.

For example, your right to smoke in a pub limits the freedom of the barmaid to work in a smoke free environment. Yes, she could work in a smoke-free bar. But if she was free, she could work in any bar she chose.

We had a Bill of Rights in 1689 if you are interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

View original

I mentioned the 1689 act a few posts up along with the European bill of rights and the misspelled Magner's Cider.

You are not limiting anyone's freedom by having smoking and non-smoking bars. Most of the barmaids in London are foreigns who smoke anyways, but putting that aside, every job has particular requirements and associated risks.

Fire fighters, miners, oil rig workers, fishermen, etc. all have dangerous jobs, are they 'free'? As there is no definitive link between second hand smoke and cancer, I'm not sure why you are voicing these concerns about health. Surely working in an environment full of drunk people and broken bottles is far more dangerous than inhaling their second hand smoke? But you would rather go for the no proof angle out of social engineering and prejudice.

As for limiting the freedoms of others, so many laws in this country are passed because of a social dislike - from fox hunting to smoking on hospital grounds to not drinking on the Tube. These are diktats not sensible legislation and are based purely on subjective discriminations.

That's why we have movements from the Mumsnetters to limit freedom of speech, censor video games, ban water pistols and put restrictions on the Internet. Banning things is second nature to the people of the UK and they are happiest when trampling over the rights and freedoms of others.

Quote: Gordon Bennett @ 13th May 2014, 10:10 AM BST

RIP H.R Giger...one of my favourite "Swissers".

View original

Where's the Deborah Harry cover?

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 8:04 PM BST

That's why we have movements from the Mumsnetters to limit freedom of speech, censor video games, ban water pistols and put restrictions on the Internet. Banning things is second nature to the people of the UK and they are happiest when trampling over the rights and freedoms of others.

View original

You would never get such noisy conservative pressure groups in the magical U.S. of course. Doesn't happen.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ 13th May 2014, 8:21 PM BST

You would never get such noisy conservative pressure groups in the magical U.S. of course. Doesn't happen.

View original

Obviously a sly dig at the NRA, but there are loads of other pressure groups who want to change the Second Amendment or get rid of it altogether. Which is weird because if they tried to do the same thing to the First Amendment, they'd be labelled as terrorists.

But if you want to have a little fun and want to know whether you are indeed liberal or not, go to a pro-public breast feeding website and replace the words 'breast feeding' with the words 'cigarette smoking' and you'll soon discover if you're open minded or a disgusting prejudicial hypocritical bigot.

It's amazing what people find socially acceptable.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 8:04 PM BST

You are not limiting anyone's freedom by having smoking and non-smoking bars. Most of the barmaids in London are foreigns who smoke anyways, but putting that aside.

View original

Lets not. In Room 101 are people who think the UK begins and ends in it's capital. Plus do you have stats for that? No obviously. Believe it or not there are bar staff and pubs and bars outside our fine capital who have both foreign and non-foreign workers. Just in case you were wondering.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 8:04 PM BST

That's why we have movements from the Mumsnetters to limit freedom of speech, censor video games, ban water pistols and put restrictions on the Internet. Banning things is second nature to the people of the UK and they are happiest when trampling over the rights and freedoms of others.

View original

Mumsnet has got to be the biggest waste of time. If men set up a similar website they'd be damned for being chauvinistic. Double standards all over the shop.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 8:43 PM BST

Obviously a sly dig at the NRA,

View original

Afraid not. Just a general statement about the fact there are similar pressure groups in the U.S. People campaign to ban stuff. It happens there. I would imagine there are plenty of Christian groups that are attempting to ban stuff all over the U.S.

Quote: roscoff @ 13th May 2014, 8:52 PM BST

Mumsnet has got to be the biggest waste of time. If men set up a similar website they'd be damned for being chauvinistic. Double standards all over the shop.

View original

You need to try Dadsnet!