It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by hotel1
Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by gladtobehere
I also wanted to add if they keep pushing like this eventually the Brits are going to grow a pair again. You can only rub peoples faces in it so far and this is pretty bad. It is like you are all children and your Government is the needy parent.
Think back in time during ww2 and what your grandparents had to endure what do you think they would have said if they tried this crap 70 years ago. What in the heck happened.
Short answer; Liberalisation of the academic, America your next!
Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by SubTruth
So what you're saying is that:
- someone british disagreed with you in your thread
- you felt a great pain in your anal region
- you decided to strike back against those dastardly british by posting a news article from 2005, which never amounted to anything, and saying "lol guys look how stupid british people are"
- you did this at 6AM GMT expecting everyone from the UK to be asleep
- you are a terrible person
Public health cannot be the sole criterion for judging policy in a free society22 March 2011There is something deeply unsettling in the debate about tobacco control. Campaigners and public health advocates show commendable zeal in trying to eliminate the scourge of smoking from our society. But that zeal in pursuit of public health seems to blind them to any other consideration that might temper their policy ideas. That zeal also bleeds into other public health debates where the health issue is less clear cut than it is for tobacco (such as alcohol control). But in a free society there are other issues at stake and public health cannot be the only basis for judging policy. I can't defend smoking on any public health grounds. But it is legal and, in a free society, there are limits as to how far governments should go to coerce people into doing what government wants them to do (even when people want to harm themselves by their actions). A society that forgets that there should be limits on government coercion is, ultimately, Orwellian. Perhaps the best way to see that this is true is to use an Orwell example. In 1984, if I remember correctly, the government is concerned with the health of its citizens. To ensure good health, there is compulsory exercise and compliance is monitored by the state. Few obesity campaigners have advocated this, yet. But we are not far from it if we accept the logic of the anti-smoking lobby. Perhaps we should insist that speed limits are reduced to 30mph on motorways and 10mph in towns to limit road deaths. Or, that kitchen knives should be confiscated to limit stabbings. Or that England should be banned for playing in football tournaments because of the suicidal depression the results cause in fans. I don't know where the limit is for anti-smoking measures. It feels as though not allowing shops to display the goods is pushing things a little far. I'm far more worried about the consequences of campaigners not knowing where to stop. Competing interests: None declared
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
Originally posted by rival
Kitchen knives are extremely dangerous!
Especially when they have conformed grips and multiple edges.
Ban kitchen assault weapons NOW! We must do it to save our children...and the baby seals
...and the kittens, and puppies, and......ummmm....zucchini !
edit on 26-12-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Infi8nity
This is obviously a response to the gun ban in America.
Good job docs looking out for us.
Showing us how absurd it is to ban something because it can be USED BY A PERSON to kill.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
Originally posted by sconner755
Do our friends in the U.K. really have to justify things like this to their nanny state government? WTF.
Why don't you guys do something about this? For all of our friends in the U.K., do you really want to live like this? Having to justify to the government why you have a good reason to possess a knife?
How about this reason: Because I want to.
Isn't that enough in the U.K.?