deanb Posted March 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Distraction tactics on the part of their leader. Gives something to talk about pre-election, if they're standing up to the British makes her come off as a strong leader n all that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted April 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Margaret Thatcher has died. As best as I can divine she won't be having a state funeral either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted April 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22306707 Winston Churchill to be on the upcoming £5 notes, to replace Elizabeth Fry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainHurtBoy...2 Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 Opinions? I'm kind of pissed, even though I have no substantive nationalistic stake in these events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 It would be nice to put a woman back on one of the others if they're coming up for renewal soon. Other than that I would prefer not to have politicians on our notes and I don't particularly like the idea of someone associated with was on their either, especially not such a recent one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted April 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I know Darwin is up for renewal, there was a list I think I posted a few pages back. I think it included Victoria Beckham so be careful what you wish for. Also technically there's a woman on every note. My only major issue is, what I assumed to be a mock note, isn't in a lined drawing like all the others. But as it's part of the (somewhat crude and outdated) security features I imagine it will be turned into a line drawing in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I'm sure there's a tasteless joke about Vicky B and people on bank notes normally being dead, but I'm just too classy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303 Wut. This is so surreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 It must be all that American media, starting to corrupt you guys too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 I hope GB has the death penalty still (though probably not). These two fuckwads would be excellent candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Abolished a fair while back. And they're currently being treated for the bullets the police put in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 no we don't have the death penalty. I'd say this is why - it's very easy to let your emotions run high on issues like this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 22, 2013 Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 Not to say this isn't horrible or anything, because it is, but I'm confused about why it's some huge thing. Surely people are murdered by crazy people in the UK on occasion, right? Is there more to the story that isn't in that BBC article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 no we don't have the death penalty. I'd say this is why - it's very easy to let your emotions run high on issues like this. Well, some may say murder is murder. But, hacking someone to death is definitely an item of note that should invoke an emotional response. We are human, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Not to say this isn't horrible or anything, because it is, but I'm confused about why it's some huge thing. Surely people are murdered by crazy people in the UK on occasion, right? Is there more to the story that isn't in that BBC article? It was done in broad daylight with people watching/filming and they guys just standing around afterwards. The main perpetrator went up to some of the people filming saying it was done in the name of allah and he killed the man in front of women and children because that is what's happening everyday by british soldiers. So it's being classed as an act of terror. no we don't have the death penalty. I'd say this is why - it's very easy to let your emotions run high on issues like this. Well, some may say murder is murder. But, hacking someone to death is definitely an item of note that should invoke an emotional response. We are human, after all. An emotional response is fine and appropriate, I meant that the emotions shouldn't be taken into the justice system. It's too easy to say "string them up" in the heat of the moment but a society shouldn't run on its emotions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Not to say this isn't horrible or anything, because it is, but I'm confused about why it's some huge thing. Surely people are murdered by crazy people in the UK on occasion, right? Is there more to the story that isn't in that BBC article? It's actually a big comfort that something like this is still uncommon enough to be huge thing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Woolwich isn't a place you'd want to live in. Not saying this is in anyway condonable but Woolwich, Tottenham (where the riots began) these aren't areas you want to be living in technically. People are still in shock over this. I mean honestly no one is really reacting to this apart from shock and abject horror and to some extent apathy. We know this isn't common and it's weird. Most Londoners went about as if nothing happened. I think after a lot of events here - people are willing to wait for investigations and such before you point fingers. Unless of course you're the EDL or UKIP or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10074881/Mum-talked-down-Woolwich-terrorists-who-told-her-We-want-to-start-a-war-in-London-tonight.html The more details you learn, the more horrific the events were. And, is it really necessary for people to tweet/instagram/other the pictures for everyone to see? That's not very kind to his friends and kin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2013 Yeah reactions from all is kind of surprising. I don't think British quite know how to deal with terror attacks properly. At this stage Instagramming it is about par for the course I guess. I can't watch any of the news channels at this stage too (watching hasn't helped).Until the suspects are out of hospital and on trial nothing much new is going to happen. But all of them will cover it near non-stop anyway and strip away every minute detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 This is mainly posted because to get an expansion on Thursdays views of the Human Rights Acts. So finally got rid of Abu Qatada back to Jordan, and Theresa May (home secretary, and potential Tory leader) has said following it that the UK Human Rights Act should be scrapped. Which to my tender non legally trained ears makes me go "eh, what?". Especially as it's suggested by many that part of the Tory plan to leave EU is to make it easier to scrap Human Rights. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/theresa-may-human-rights-abu-qatada It's not the first time she's said of it to be scrapped either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15140742 Dunno about others but I think it's good that evidence obtained through torture isn't allowed. But I'm maybe missing something that Thursday would be able to clear up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 9, 2013 Report Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Ok, so let's first establish that I think that people's rights, to life, to liberty, to free speech are A Good Thing™ it's not the rights that I don't agree with, it'd the legislative tool. In the same way that I think that brain surgery is good, but do not think that a sledgehammer is the best tool with which to perform it. There is no sense in the HRA (or the European Convention of Human Rights) that the needs of many may outweigh the needs of the one. Such that incredibly disruptive children are allowed into classrooms because they have a "right to an education" with little regard given to the quality of education that the children in the class that the disruptive child is foisted on will receive as a result. Similarly, 9 Afghani plane hijackers, criminals who threatened the lives of others on a plane could not be deported because they may face torture in their home country, later they also went to court because they were denied the right to work. Not to mention the much maligned Abu Qatada. One thing I find rather... interesting is that Jordan have only agreed not to "use evidence obtained by torture against him". I have seen no mention of not torturing him just for the hell of it. The next problem I have with the HRA/ECHR. It's all give and no take. "You have a right to this, you have a right to that," but it imposes no responsibilities on the people it confers rights on. For example, people who commit crimes serious enough to warrant imprisonment are to be allowed to vote while imprisoned, because a blanket ban is against their rights. I have no issue with people who have served their sentence voting, but not someone who is currently serving a sentence. Part of the punishment aspect of prison is the loss of rights, the right to vote should be one of those lost rights. I also don't like that the HRA doesn't just protect "natural" human rights, it also protects "economic rights". The right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions for example, is odd and seems to favour the rich at the expense of the poor, especially in countries where the rich/poor divide is very large. Most of the criticisms though seem to be around the role of the European Court of Human Rights. Having an essentially federal court making decisions for sovereign states means that often that states societal norms, culture, rule of law are not taken into account. As I said to Dean though, I'm really not an expert on this. Some convincing arguments in favour http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/speech_111103.pdf and against http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bringing%20rights%20back%20home%20-%20feb%2011.pdf are much better articulated. I would actually welcome something along the lines of the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to restore some balance to the whole affair. Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419 ECtHR has just ruled that "Life without Possibility of Parole" is against human rights. This doesn't mean you can't be imprisoned for life, it just means you have the right to a pointless interview where you say "I am not going to murder people any more.", we say "Yeah right(!)" and stuff you back in your cell. Edited July 9, 2013 by Thursday Next 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279 Same-sex marriages now legal in England and Wales. Now to wait as society collapses and marrying your horse becomes legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 She didn't want to be 1-up'd by the 13 colonies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23402103 Royal baby on the way The Guardian has a "Republican?"/"Royalist?" setting on their page if you wish to toggle baby news away. In other news David Cameron wants the porn to go away. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 And stupidly carries on trying to include child porn, which is already banned and filtered, this'd affect just normal everyday porn. He obviously doesn't like being PM anymore. I like how his plan to get around the tech issues is pretty much just to let other people sort that part out. Might as well ban the tides if that's his plan. Also I'm unsure how he plans to figure out how one is "possessing" illegal online porn. If it's online it's not in your possession. Also the fact it's Daily Mail all bieng "victory!". I can't see it lasting too long. ISPs like to kick up a stink with stuff like this, and Google has already politely called Cameron a moron if it thinks they don't already block CP off their ad funded search engine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUifLbLVXFo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Sounds like he wants to (a) Stop a child from accessing porn and (b) get google to stop searches contain "child" and "porn". Which oddly means that if I search google for "How do I stop my child accessing porn" my search would get blocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.