mr2mk1g 10
Recommended Posts
QuoteThe law did nothing in the first two circumstances because it never sought to... in the last, yes it took weapons away from the innocent... but those people also belonged to the guilty group.
At the end of the day, that’s what the overwhelming majority of people wanted... we live in a democracy - seeing as we were dealing with a privilege and not a right - the majority got what the majority wanted.
There's something disturbing about referring to the citizens as the "guilty group." And if, as I understand it, shotguns are still obtainable, I wonder how long till the next incident. Much more lethal than a .22.
So if it's ok in a democracy for the majority to take away priviledges - what rights do the citizens of Britain retain?
mr2mk1g 10
Quoteto take away priviledges - what rights do the citizens of Britain retain?
Don't confuse privileges and rights.
QuoteQuoteto take away priviledges - what rights do the citizens of Britain retain?
Don't confuse privileges and rights.
I'm not. I'm asking what Britons consider to be rights.
Obviously guns aren't one of them, and I believe the UK government has a lot more power to censor press than here. So what rights are there, and where/how are they enumerated?
mr2mk1g 10
Our rights are to be found in a combination of places. A hodge-podge of documents dating back over a thousand years; constitutional conventions (nothing written down anywhere but that's just the way we've always done it so that’s the way it’s done) and more recently the Human Rights Act 1998. That’s probably the one source you guys from over the pond would most identify with and enjoys an unprecedented degree of protection from implied repeal.
The thing you won’t be familiar with is the constitutional supremacy of Parliament. Nothing binds Parliament but the rule of law. Even that could be overcome if the people allowed it. The biggest restraint on the powers of Parliament is the people themselves… an we have a proud history of letting Parliament know if we don’t like what they’re doing… much more so than even in the States.
As for government control of the press… try to listen to less propaganda. The only government born restraint over here is with regards to the incitement of racial hatred. Simply put, this means you can’t tell people to murder blacks/jews/gingers etc. That’s also banned in the states – just it’s hidden amongst the rest of your inchoate offences. Personally I’m not sure why we even needed to create the offence – the actions the legislation covers were already illegal in just the same way as they are in the States... But hey – it made good PR in the run up to an election.
The only other restrictions we have over you guys is an archaic one relating to offending public decency and blasphemy which the Bible bashers wheel out of the library and blow off the dust of years every now and then. Since the 50’s they generally get laughed out of court though. Britain is such a secular society that no one gives a damn if someone blasphemes and most laugh at the concept of having a law against it.
This legislation is dead in the UK… but don’t be too surprised if you see a movement to bring it to the States – you guys have almost as much of a penchant for religious fervor as they do in the Middle East… beware your heartland!
As for offending public decency this was only ever applied to porn… the BBFC stopped giving a damn about that in the late 90’s.
The thing you won’t be familiar with is the constitutional supremacy of Parliament. Nothing binds Parliament but the rule of law. Even that could be overcome if the people allowed it. The biggest restraint on the powers of Parliament is the people themselves… an we have a proud history of letting Parliament know if we don’t like what they’re doing… much more so than even in the States.
As for government control of the press… try to listen to less propaganda. The only government born restraint over here is with regards to the incitement of racial hatred. Simply put, this means you can’t tell people to murder blacks/jews/gingers etc. That’s also banned in the states – just it’s hidden amongst the rest of your inchoate offences. Personally I’m not sure why we even needed to create the offence – the actions the legislation covers were already illegal in just the same way as they are in the States... But hey – it made good PR in the run up to an election.
The only other restrictions we have over you guys is an archaic one relating to offending public decency and blasphemy which the Bible bashers wheel out of the library and blow off the dust of years every now and then. Since the 50’s they generally get laughed out of court though. Britain is such a secular society that no one gives a damn if someone blasphemes and most laugh at the concept of having a law against it.
This legislation is dead in the UK… but don’t be too surprised if you see a movement to bring it to the States – you guys have almost as much of a penchant for religious fervor as they do in the Middle East… beware your heartland!
As for offending public decency this was only ever applied to porn… the BBFC stopped giving a damn about that in the late 90’s.
"The only government born restraint over here is with regards to the incitement of racial hatred."
Isn't there something that prevents the likes of the IRA using the BBC as a soapbox? I definitely recall Maggie bringing something in along those lines.
Isn't there something that prevents the likes of the IRA using the BBC as a soapbox? I definitely recall Maggie bringing something in along those lines.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
"I don't need the pull-up cord, but I know what it is. It's an artwork "tree" metal sculpture made up out of guns turned in by Africans, which I think is on display in England."
Close, close enough for a free pull up, I'll drop one off at Waller next time I'm passing.
"Phew, I guess that will stop all the mass killings in Africa now!"
When I said close, I really meant that the guns came from child soldiers in Mozambique. Phew, I'm glad you think the subject of press ganging children into a brutal and often inhumane war is worthy of your sarcasm.
I'm alarmed that you find child abuse a suitable subject for your sense of humour.
Your sarcasm detector should be off the scale by now.![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
Close, close enough for a free pull up, I'll drop one off at Waller next time I'm passing.
"Phew, I guess that will stop all the mass killings in Africa now!"
When I said close, I really meant that the guns came from child soldiers in Mozambique. Phew, I'm glad you think the subject of press ganging children into a brutal and often inhumane war is worthy of your sarcasm.
I'm alarmed that you find child abuse a suitable subject for your sense of humour.
Your sarcasm detector should be off the scale by now.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
mr2mk1g 10
IIRC, that got repealed after the cease fire in the 90's. There used to be legislation relating to broadcasting tapes of Jerry Addams... if you remember you used to get a still and an actors voice or some such whenever he had something to say for himself.
Now he now just pops up on telly telling everyone how he knows the IRA had nothing to do with Britain’s largest robbery in history and that he knows this because Sinn Fein has no links whatsoever with the IRA.
The IRA's enjoyed a somewhat unique position in UK legislation throughout its history – it’s the only group for which membership in itself was actually an indictable offence. Probably understandable under the circumstances.
Now he now just pops up on telly telling everyone how he knows the IRA had nothing to do with Britain’s largest robbery in history and that he knows this because Sinn Fein has no links whatsoever with the IRA.
The IRA's enjoyed a somewhat unique position in UK legislation throughout its history – it’s the only group for which membership in itself was actually an indictable offence. Probably understandable under the circumstances.
"There used to be legislation relating to broadcasting tapes of Jerry Addams... if you remember you used to get a still and an actors voice or some such whenever he had something to say for himself. "
Thats exactly what I recall Matt, cheers for clearing it up.
Thats exactly what I recall Matt, cheers for clearing it up.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuote"Phew, I guess that will stop all the mass killings in Africa now!"
When I said close, I really meant that the guns came from child soldiers in Mozambique. Phew, I'm glad you think the subject of press ganging children into a brutal and often inhumane war is worthy of your sarcasm. I'm alarmed that you find child abuse a suitable subject for your sense of humour.
I'm alarmed that you presume I said anything at all about child abuse being okay.
All I said was that taking a few guns away from children and welding them into a statue, isn't going to stop the inhumane wars going on in Africa.
It's done nothing to stop those adults who are pushing the children into that kind of lifestyle.
Ahhh, but the gun-haters feel so much better about themselves for having done something "symbolic".
Just don't ask the U.S. to get involved to solve the problem - the world doesn't like us sticking our nose into their business. So I guess they'll just go on killing each other.
That's exactly what I'm saying because that's exactly what the law sought to achieve. Remember - I'm not a proponent of this law... I'm just correcting people’s misconceptions.
The law did nothing in the first two circumstances because it never sought to... in the last, yes it took weapons away from the innocent... but those people also belonged to the guilty group.
At the end of the day, that’s what the overwhelming majority of people wanted... we live in a democracy - seeing as we were dealing with a privilege and not a right - the majority got what the majority wanted.
Whether I liked it or not.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites