reply to post by Freeborn
Okay, I understand where your coming from. Though it is entirely different than pledging allegiance to a flag.
1.) you're pledging allegiance to a person, when you plege alliegence to a flag, you are not pledging to the actual 'flag', you're pleading
allegiance to what that flag represents. Completely different concept.
So you're saying you're not some sort of subservient medieval serf? I can understand that, however you perceive it, you're still in the same
position the 'serf' was back then, except instead of working farms or whatever, you're working in office buildings and retail outlets; paying the
majority of your income to taxes (sound familiar?) and the rest goes to paying to live. (unless you're upper scale, in which case you live mildly
better than others, though you still clock in to your office building..ect)
You may think you've improved your position, but actually have only transposed one job for another. Same here for most in america.
& Yes, having many friends coming from different cultures (benefits to being around boston) not to mention I have family members that have married
outside the country, and meeting their families from all over the erupean union, and south america, telling me their experiences. I did not just wake
up one morning with these assumptions.
Especially living near Boston, you meet a LOT of people from around the world (mostly from wealthier families). But you don't need to meet these
people, nor travel to every country, to have access to their laws and see what they have to abide by.
I don't understand what 'agenda' you're implying may be furthered, but there's no agenda in simply looking & cross referencing what's allowed
and whats not from country to country.
& the round restriction was an example, should of been obvious when it was a simple sentence exemplifying a point.
Peirs Morgan is indeed a twat, and you should def take him back.
Britain is a police state - In 1640 you had the Habeaus Corpus Act, protecting you from false and arbitrary imprisonment, presuming innocence until
proof of guilt, yet now you have had years and years of successive legislation that undermines that principle.
This allows the state to restrict liberty and confine citizens without interference by the courts. Sounds a lot like a police state to me? Need
examples? I would..
Though it's a bit worse here in America with the introduction of the patriot act, you've had to deal with detentions without charge for a lot longer
than we have. Since 1984 I think, was when the 24 hour max was changed to something like 4 days, then to like 90 days, but I think for citizens its
been repealed to 14 days (with plans to excent limit of detention back to 28 days, though I think it's experiencing much flak, and I applaud that.).
However, for non british citizens, they can be detained without charge indefinitely
Something radical that we don't have here is your terrorism act for the control orders- which can, WITHOUT trial, be electronically tagged,
monitored, restricted from making phone calls, using the interenet, and even banned from certain kind of work, or visiting certain places, even have
your passport revoked and be obligated to report to the police, just if you're SUSPECTED; not proven. I think they were replaced by TPIMS, which
requires a burden a proof to administer & judge approval, but has such low requirement.
& do we really need to get into your secret courts & closed material proceedings? I don't think so. We can though, if you wish.
How about the bill of rights act of 1689? Protecting you from armed British forces on the streets during peacetime? Oh right, the Civil Contingencies
Act of 2004 nullifies that and gives permission for the queen/government to suspect your bill of rights, Habeas Corpus and can even extend your
maximum parliament term (which is 5 years I think) in 21 day increments, as many as they want.
You're no stranger to phone tapping, having that years and years before us, pretty recent for us, but you've had it since 1985 (passed in 94&07,
though implemented before then) with the interception of communications act.
& do we really need to go into the regulation of investigatory powers act of 2000?
You say you're not in a police state, but I ask, how are you not? If that wasn't enough, just look at the violence your 'police' administer to
crowds of protesters in recent years, highlighted recently with police beating passersby (young women included) with batons. (google it, it's easy
And if you really think your universal healthcare is one of the 'greatest post war achievements' that's about as accurate as you saying you're not
in a police state. How can anyone justify rationing of healthcare? We give healthcare to all, you have to sit on waiting lists.
Need I go on? Im out of characters, but we can if u wish.