NationStates Jolt Archive

And yes read some English history, and see how often they tried to stab the English in the back, overthrow the crown, support upising etc...


(and yes, the word English is meant to appear twice in the line above)
Have done and no body in whinging on about what the English did to each other in the past, for us it is exactly that the past. We tend to deal with the here and now rather than dwelling on what went on hundreds of years ago.

Originally Posted by Scudderfux
Well for hundreds of years the english waged war against us, they killed men women, children and babies. Eventually we managed to fight back and scared the hell out of them. This made the king at that time (Henry VII) nevrous enough to bribe, lie and cheat our leaders into submission and win the war. Not content with having beat us the english decided in later years to ban tartan's and anything scottish. Still not content they burned our towns and threw us off our land and used it to graze cattle. After nearly a thousand years of hatred the english decided to give us back what was left of our country, a baren, blood-stained land most of which is still owned by englishmen. Still, forgive and forget eh?

So another Scot buying into all the re written Scottish history. If you look it was not just the English there doing those things it was the low land scots, people from Edinburgh and the other major towns. This was not just and English Scottish thing! Remeber more scots fought at Flodden on the English side than did on the French/Scots!

Well for hundreds of years the english waged war against us, they killed men women, children and babies.

So did the scots, both sides were as bad as each other.

Eventually we managed to fight back and scared the hell out of them. This made the king at that time (Henry VII) nevrous enough to bribe, lie and cheat our leaders into submission and win the war.

The marrige of Henry VII daughter to James IV was a master stroke. As for the leaders giving in, it was their choice, after allying themselves with the losing side in the Wars of the Roses, they should have seen it coming.


Not content with having beat us the english decided in later years to ban tartan's and anything scottish. Still not content they burned our towns and threw us off our land and used it to graze cattle.

Yup, not exaclty proud of that. Although scots and english fought on both sides, there were as many unionists as nationalists. As pointed out by Niannorth above.

After nearly a thousand years of hatred the english decided to give us back what was left of our country, a baren, blood-stained land most of which is still owned by englishmen. Still, forgive and forget eh? :p

Hatred? Please, thats going well over the top. Don't forget that half the time the english invaded because the scots harboured the french! In anycase, the fact both countries are so closely related, yet still despise each other is something akin to nationalistic sibling rivalry. In other words, neither country wants to accept the other as being the better, but then neither would have got anywhere without the other, such as the empire, trade, inventions etc etc, both countries owe a lot to each other.

And yes read some English history, and see how often they tried to stab the English in the back, overthrow the crown, support upising etc...


(and yes, the word English is meant to appear twice in the line above)

Do you jerks know how to find an enemy? Ask him if his name is Mohammed?

So did the scots, both sides were as bad as each other.



The marrige of Henry VII daughter to James IV was a master stroke.




Yup, not exaclty proud of that. Although scots and english fought on both sides, there were as many unionists as nationalists.



Hatred? Please, thats going well over the top. Don't forget that half the time the english invaded because the scots harboured the french! In anycase, the fact both countries are so closely related, yet still despise each other is something akin to nationalistic sibling rivalry. In other words, neither country wants to accept the other as being the better, but then neither would have got anywhere without the other, such as the empire, trade, inventions etc etc, both countries owe a lot to each other.
Bravo on all counts, but I suspect the re written Scots history taught in schools there will not support this and the bile will remain. Funny the lad I work with from Aberdeen has very little regard for his schooling is history since he started to study a wider source of information, he also has very little time for those that live in either Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Saying all I have said, I don't support the land clearances, but it happed and it happed a long time ago so let's move on.
Or shall we bring up what Rob did to the Irish when he was over there supposedly fighting the English. It was a bloody time all round.

Bravo on all counts, but I suspect the re written Scots history taught in schools there will not support this and the bile will remain. Funny the lad I work with from Aberdeen has very little regard for his schooling is history since he started to study a wider source of information, he also has very little time for those that live in either Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Always the same, you have to try and see the big picture rather than one perspective.

Always the same, you have to try and see the big picture rather than one perspective.
Yes a fault of mine.
But from the perspective of a Northumbrian farmer raided many times by Scots raiders they got just what was coming to them!
So yes there are many points of view, not all of them with the Scots as the hapless victims.

I once heard a comedian comment about New Zealand and Australia, that New Zealand was liek teh chicken hawk in that cartoon and Australia the rooster. This is in regards to the fact that New Zealanders get upity and think theres a big rivalry however teh Aussies couldnt care less. (yes i know they way i put it isnt funny but its not eh point :P)

Now with Scotland, England many scots like to look back at scotland when it was independant when they were reasonably strong and admire their history. There is nothing at all wrong with this the only trouble being that during this period because England and France for so long fought tooth and nail and scotland got involved there was a lot of blood shed on both sides. The main problem with their outlook is that it is completly one sided, they dont mention the sacking of northern towns and cities the brutal murders at scottish hands its the angelical scots vs the daemonic English. Its a shame especially where the English couldnt give a rats arse about the entire thing.

Think of it like this, Man Utd a massive well established club with plenty of Glory, Man City a large club with its fair share of glory but dissproportionate amout of misery. Man City sees Man Utd as their main rivals bitter to the end however Man Utd care more about Arsenal or liverpool or Chelsea. This is very much like the situation in the Isles of Britain.

Yes a fault of mine.
But from the perspective of a Northumbrian farmer raided many times by Scots raiders they got just what was coming to them!
So yes there are many points of view, not all of them with the Scots as the hapless victims.

Saying all I have said, I don't support the land clearances, but it happed and it happed a long time ago so let's move on.
Or shall we bring up what Rob did to the Irish when he was over there supposedly fighting the English. It was a bloody time all round.


No country covered themselves in glory, despite what their leaders told them.

Deserves repeting. What do you think?

Thanks for ignoring. Please continue your whatevers.

"Look into the past and you have one eye closed. Ignore the past and you have both eyes closed."

The British are proud of their history, and as a result should know a fair bit about it. Is there any example of British History Repeating itself? We learn from our mistakes and move on.

But here's a Theory. At one point Europe was effectively the world power. The European countries started sticking their noses in other people's business, Cortez and the Aztecs. The Samurai were all but wiped out, and the British in India. As well as Australia.

America is now the world power. After WW1 Europe as a power ceased to be. Europe made mistakes, and now it's America's turn. But this time it's not cavalry and muskets. It's Submarines and Nuclear Missiles. America seems to be so interested in its own small history that it does not see the mistakes that have been made.

And Bush has the key to the Big Red Button.

Think of it like this, Man Utd a massive well established club with plenty of Glory, Man City a large club with its fair share of glory but dissproportionate amout of misery. Man City sees Man Utd as their main rivals bitter to the end however Man Utd care more about Arsenal or liverpool or Chelsea. This is very much like the situation in the Isles of Britain.

LOL! Now thats how to teach comparative history in school! compare it to the premiership! that said it might encourage fans to fight each other with broadswords.... :(

No country covered themselves in glory, despite what their leaders told them.
Exactly, so let's put it behind us and look forward.
One of my fave quote (and from a Yank).

I am less concerned about who my grandfather was than who my grandson will become.

The ban on fox hunting is nothing more than a blatant socialiast attack on the middles classes of this country. The 'New' Labour backbenchers very much want to do a Lenin: that is liquidate the middle classes and their 'petty bourgeoisie emotionalism'.
Firstly, i think it's wrong to compare todays politics with that of the russians 80 years ago

Fox hunting is a part of British culture. It is has been here for hundreds of years and is very much a way of life for those who practice it..Tearing little furry animals apart and then smearing your kids' faces with the leftovers is what i think many people would consider as wrong. Just because something has been around for hundreds of years doesn't mean it's okay. I mean the American slavery of black people had been around for hundreds of years and they don't practice that anymore...

However Labour is fundamentally anti British and it has always been their intent to destroy Old England in any way they can. The valiant and sensible House of Lords has opposed this destruction and forced the "sleazy Labour" government to have the ban in Febrary hence making this an election issue. The blatant opportunism used by Blair in his attmept to the delay the ban was rightly stopped so now he has to face the consequences of his actions. In 1997 his New Labour promised protection to the middle classses: he has betrayed that trust and so he will be paid back for it.

i think it's unfair to refer to any government as sleazy when you consider the things that happened in thatcher's era. And i'd like to hear more about what the 'middle classes (as you put it) are goin to do to avenge themselves against the government. If you place yourself in a class then people will treat you as a whole rather than individuals.


Fox hunting is part of the British culture and yet our government went out to destroy it. Yet it has protected parts of foreign culture to the death. In Muslim areas people are effectively banned from placing any pig ornaments on their window sil. Bonfire Night will soon be banned but I doubt Ramadan fireworks will. This government has only one aim, one purpose: to burn down old Britain and replace it with a socialist, politcally correct federal state of Europe with neither soul nor personality.
If fox-hunting is a part of british culture then i'm ashamed to call myself british. "Rama'Dahn fireworks"? Rama'Dahn is a festival where people fast to celebrate the hardships of Siddatha...it's typical of the middle class to not have a clue about any other cultures. So what do you have to say to that?

"Look into the past and you have one eye closed. Ignore the past and you have both eyes closed."

The British are proud of their history, and as a result should know a fair bit about it. Is there any example of British History Repeating itself? We learn from our mistakes and move on.

But here's a Theory. At one point Europe was effectively the world power. The European countries started sticking their noses in other people's business, Cortez and the Aztecs. The Samurai were all but wiped out, and the British in India. As well as Australia.

America is now the world power. After WW1 Europe as a power ceased to be. Europe made mistakes, and now it's America's turn. But this time it's not cavalry and muskets. It's Submarines and Nuclear Missiles. America seems to be so interested in its own small history that it does not see the mistakes that have been made.

And Bush has the key to the Big Red Button.


And who do you think should own it? And don't say the UN.

So did the scots, both sides were as bad as each other.



The marrige of Henry VII daughter to James IV was a master stroke. As for the leaders giving in, it was their choice, after allying themselves with the losing side in the Wars of the Roses, they should have seen it coming.




Yup, not exaclty proud of that. Although scots and english fought on both sides, there were as many unionists as nationalists. As pointed out by Niannorth above.



Hatred? Please, thats going well over the top. Don't forget that half the time the english invaded because the scots harboured the french! In anycase, the fact both countries are so closely related, yet still despise each other is something akin to nationalistic sibling rivalry. In other words, neither country wants to accept the other as being the better, but then neither would have got anywhere without the other, such as the empire, trade, inventions etc etc, both countries owe a lot to each other.

yeah ok i was wrong :)

Fox hunting is part of the British culture and yet our government went out to destroy it. Yet it has protected parts of foreign culture to the death. In Muslim areas people are effectively banned from placing any pig ornaments on their window sil. Bonfire Night will soon be banned but I doubt Ramadan fireworks will. This government has only one aim, one purpose: to burn down old Britain and replace it with a socialist, politcally correct federal state of Europe with neither soul nor personality.


Unfortunately he has some point here. In some shopping centres in cities they have banned santas grottos as they might offend other religions. sorry, but thats going way over the top! If we have a multi cultural populace it should have policies of tolerance, i.e. you can allow this stuff and not discrimination, which in effect this is.

Unfortunately he has some point here. In some shopping centres in cities they have banned santas grottos as they might offend other religions. sorry, but thats going way over the top! If we have a multi cultural populace it should have policies of tolerance, i.e. you can allow this stuff and not discrimination, which in effect this is.

MeThinks that We are Invisible.

Unfortunately he has some point here. In some shopping centres in cities they have banned santas grottos as they might offend other religions. sorry, but thats going way over the top! If we have a multi cultural populace it should have policies of tolerance, i.e. you can allow this stuff and not discrimination, which in effect this is.
Yes but remember we are a Christian nation. accept all cultures and religions but don't give way on issue of our own culture.
the fact that people were asked during the first gulf war to remove union flags in case it upset others was an absolute disgrace!

Yes but remember we are a Christian nation. accept all cultures and religions but don't give way on issue of our own culture.
the fact that people were asked during the first gulf war to remove union flags in case it upset others was an absolute disgrace!

Exaclty, it seems stupid that we should give up what we have had for years because apparently a Santas grotto is offensive, yet when it comes to other festivals they are welcomed with open arms. If people want social and religious equality then they should have. Not this mis balance.

Unfortunately he has some point here. In some shopping centres in cities they have banned santas grottos as they might offend other religions. sorry, but thats going way over the top! If we have a multi cultural populace it should have policies of tolerance, i.e. you can allow this stuff and not discrimination, which in effect this is.
I really thought it was just an internet rumour.
heh
what next, no surprises from eastern bunny?

The ban on fox hunting is nothing more than a blatant socialiast attack on the middles classes of this country. The 'New' Labour backbenchers very much want to do a Lenin: that is liquidate the middle classes and their 'petty bourgeoisie emotionalism'.

Fox hunting is a part of British culture. It is has been here for hundreds of years and is very much a way of life for those who practice it. However Labour is fundamentally anti British and it has always been their intent to destroy Old England in any way they can. The valiant and sensible House of Lords has opposed this destruction and forced the sleazy Labour government to have the ban in Febrary hence making this an election issue. The blatant opportunism used by Blair in his attmept to the delay the ban was rightly stopped so now he has to face the consequences of his actions. In 1997 his New Labour promised protection to the middle classses: he has betrayed that trust and so he will be paid back for it.

Fox hunting is part of the British culture and yet our government went out to destroy it. Yet it has protected parts of foreign culture to the death. In Muslim areas people are effectively banned from placing any pig ornaments on their window sil. Bonfire Night will soon be banned but I doubt Ramadan fireworks will. This government has only one aim, one purpose: to burn down old Britain and replace it with a socialist, politcally correct federal state of Europe with neither soul nor personality.

Erm...I would hate to argue with you, but am going to anyway.
Ok. Fox hunting in general is not supported by the middle classes, rather it is an upper class past time. Not many of the middle classes are involved, and if they are it is merely a way of making them appear to be in the higher classes. We don't hunt people anymore (we used to. The hunters used to release their servants and chase them down, occasionally some would be torn to shreds by the hounds, but oh well).
Hunting wasn't setup until 1770's, see Guardian editorial Monday 21st, not 700 years that many hunt supporters bring up. Also, hunting is not banned, merely the bloody and barbaric sport of hunting with hounds. Terrier hunting, stag hunting using two dogs and must be shot before ripped apart by dogs, hare coursing and drag hunting are all still legal, whats your problem (all these should be banned barring drag hunting which harms none of the above!)
Labour being fundimentally anti-British is a load of rubbish. The 'valiant House of Lords' is an antiquated, out of touch group who tried to stop the government putting through the plans for the banning of Fox Hunting for two years. The House of Commons used the Parliament act to force through this act as it has the majority support of its MP's and the public at large.
There are no plans to ban bonfire night, merely to reduce the amount of time that fireworks can be purchased before November 5 and to control there use. This is primarily through the introduction of rules that govern that fireworks should only be purchased by persons over 18 and preferably in public displays. No matter how colourful and pretty they are they are still explosives. We don't sell guns, so it makes sense to regulate fireworks.

Perhaps you should stop just reading the right-wing press and look at more forms of media.
Thankyou for your time!

I really thought it was just an internet rumour.
heh
what next, no surprises from eastern bunny?

Nope in Bradford xmas grottos were banned in the shopping centres...sucks big time

The world of the English is one of sin, where women can change the color of the lips, their eyes and their hair at whim. Where the people have made a pact with the devil to have sloth delivered to their homes through what they call 'electrical cords.' Instead of cleaning their dishes by hand they put them in the cupboard and they come out clean again.

No, the world of the English is one of sin and aggression, young Lukas. It is not the way of the Amish to live like that.

I'm Scottish, and I have tonnes of English friends, I was even born there but still object to being labelled 'English' just because we're neighbours! I call for a drinking competition.....

Erm...I would hate to argue with you, but am going to anyway.
Ok. Fox hunting in general is not supported by the middle classes, rather it is an upper class past time. Not many of the middle classes are involved, and if they are it is merely a way of making them appear to be in the higher classes. We don't hunt people anymore (we used to. The hunters used to release their servants and chase them down, occasionally some would be torn to shreds by the hounds, but oh well).
Hunting wasn't setup until 1770's, see Guardian editorial Monday 21st, not 700 years that many hunt supporters bring up. Also, hunting is not banned, merely the bloody and barbaric sport of hunting with hounds. Terrier hunting, stag hunting using two dogs and must be shot before ripped apart by dogs, hare coursing and drag hunting are all still legal, whats your problem (all these should be banned barring drag hunting which harms none of the above!)
Labour being fundimentally anti-British is a load of rubbish. The 'valiant House of Lords' is an antiquated, out of touch group who tried to stop the government putting through the plans for the banning of Fox Hunting for two years. The House of Commons used the Parliament act to force through this act as it has the majority support of its MP's and the public at large.
There are no plans to ban bonfire night, merely to reduce the amount of time that fireworks can be purchased before November 5 and to control there use. This is primarily through the introduction of rules that govern that fireworks should only be purchased by persons over 18 and preferably in public displays. No matter how colourful and pretty they are they are still explosives. We don't sell guns, so it makes sense to regulate fireworks.

Perhaps you should stop just reading the right-wing press and look at more forms of media.
Thankyou for your time!

Well, I disagree with both of you. Hunting with hounds is far less cruel than other methods of fox hunting - they kill the fox instantly, before it gets ripped apart - traps and guns can leave a fox in pain for hours before it dies. So just banning fox hunting is wrong. The main reason they have gone for it is that many Labour backbenchers (and they have admitted this) see it as just retribution for the mine closures in the 1980s. This is no reason to ban anything.

If they're going to ban hunting, why go for one of the least cruel forms of hunting?

I'm Scottish, and I have tonnes of English friends, I was even born there but still object to being labelled 'English' just because we're neighbours! I call for a drinking competition.....
I vote for that. Are we talking spirits of beer? Or both? Both for me, mixing has little effect on me but beer fills me up before it gets me too drunk, especially that fizzy larger stuff, ugh.

Fishing will be banned next.

Well, I disagree with both of you. Hunting with hounds is far less cruel than other methods of fox hunting - they kill the fox instantly, before it gets ripped apart - traps and guns can leave a fox in pain for hours before it dies. So just banning fox hunting is wrong. The main reason they have gone for it is that many Labour backbenchers (and they have admitted this) see it as just retribution for the mine closures in the 1980s. This is no reason to ban anything.

If they're going to ban hunting, why go for one of the least cruel forms of hunting?
I wouldn't necessarily say that it was one of the least cruel forms of hunting! But I do agree that it shouldn't have stopped at just fox hunting.
Also, I don't see how they kill the fox instantly? They don't tend to shoot it, rather the hounds tend to get to it first. There is also the problem of it being chased in the first place, which is surely wrong as the fox is having to run for its life whilst being chased by a pack of hounds and riders on horse back! Not exactly sporting is it old chap, hmmm?

I'm Scottish, and I have tonnes of English friends, I was even born there but still object to being labelled 'English' just because we're neighbours! I call for a drinking competition.....
Wooo! Drinking competition! I'm there!

Fishing will be banned next.
Yes they will forget that the only reason our rivers have become as clean as they have is because of the work of the Anglars association. Before the water board (one of the owrst poluters of UK rivers) was charged with creating an agency to look after the rivers.
But then again city folk participate in fishing so it won't be banned so easily. Look at hare coursing, good working class occupation of one dog alone ripping a hare to peices, apparently not as cruel as fox hunting, even though they have to go out and catch the harein the first place and the hare is not consider either vermin or a pest.
No this is not a class thing at all!

I wouldn't necessarily say that it was one of the least cruel forms of hunting! But I do agree that it shouldn't have stopped at just fox hunting.
Also, I don't see how they kill the fox instantly? They don't tend to shoot it, rather the hounds tend to get to it first. There is also the problem of it being chased in the first place, which is surely wrong as the fox is having to run for its life whilst being chased by a pack of hounds and riders on horse back! Not exactly sporting is it old chap, hmmm?

They're trained to kill it instantly - shooting would most likely wound it fatally, rather than kill it instantly. I'm not convinced by the stress of the chase argument either - it is natural for animals to try and kill each other, you can't pretend they never get put in that situation. It's certainly more sporting than catching it unawares and snaring it.

I don't agree with hunting (I'm not really bothered, actually), but the Government has acted improperly and with all the wrong motives.

Yes they will forget that the only reason our rivers have become as clean as they have is because of the work of the Anglars association. Before the water board (one of the owrst poluters of UK rivers) was charged with creating an agency to look after the rivers.
But then again city folk participate in fishing so it won't be banned so easily. Look at hare coursing, good working class occupation of one dog alone ripping a hare to peices, apparently not as cruel as fox hunting, even though they have to go out and catch the harein the first place and the hare is not consider either vermin or a pest.
No this is not a class thing at all!


My grandad used to go hare coursing. Had some whacky english type of dog called a lurcher or something.

So you are saying people can still hare course?

Look at hare coursing, good working class occupation of one dog alone ripping a hare to peices, apparently not as cruel as fox hunting, even though they have to go out and catch the harein the first place and the hare is not consider either vermin or a pest.
No this is not a class thing at all!
What's the point letting dogs rip anything in pieces? Why not shoot the animal (dog can show where it is) and use the meat and fur.
You certainly have weird hunting methods over there.

My grandad used to go hare coursing. Had some whacky english type of dog called a lurcher or something.

So you are saying people can still hare course?
oh yes.
Loads of lurcher around here!
Sort of a scraggy haired whippet.

oh yes.
Loads of lurcher around here!
Sort of a scraggy haired whippet.

Yeah, we don't have them in the US. Well at least I've never seen any. I saw a few when I was in england though.

So what's going to happen to all the dogs and breeders now that you can no longer chase cunning fox sub jove frigido , are they all going to be put down.

BTW when I was over there this summer, I visited a falconry center in hexham, ravenshaugh (sp-?), is that the next big thing?

What's the point letting dogs rip anything in pieces? Why not shoot the animal (dog can show where it is) and use the meat and fur.
You certainly have weird hunting methods over there.

Well, if you've ever eaten fox you'll know why nobody is particularly interested in the meat. It tastes a bit like chicken. Specifically, like a chicken that's been run over by a large and sulphurous lorry, some weeks ago.

As for the tearing to pieces thing: remember, these people are members of the aristocracy, often blue-blooded individuals with close ties to the monarchy. As such they have tiny, tiny brains. The only shooting they are capable of is blazing away at random with a shotgun at low-flying birds which have been carefully chased towards them by a small army of servants. Plus -- and this is the nub of the matter -- they get off on it. If it wasn't for engorged post-hunt shags in the shrubbery the English upper classes would have died out generations ago.

They're trained to kill it instantly - shooting would most likely wound it fatally, rather than kill it instantly. I'm not convinced by the stress of the chase argument either - it is natural for animals to try and kill each other, you can't pretend they never get put in that situation. It's certainly more sporting than catching it unawares and snaring it.

I don't agree with hunting (I'm not really bothered, actually), but the Government has acted improperly and with all the wrong motives.
Why would shooting most likely just wound it? As you say, the dogs are trained to kill it instantly, though I wouldn't agree that they do, instinct tends to take over, but if you shoot it correctly it would die instantly so whats the problem?
Yes, it is natural for the animals to get into that situation, but its normally one-on-one, not one on 10-20 plus riders.
I also don't see that the governments motives are wrong. Some of the older backbenchers may react out of spite, the majority vote against as they believe, and not all Labour MP's voted for a ban as not all Conservative MP's voted against.

I'd have thought it was so easy to understand why the English are the best...
it's because all the rest are foreigners ;)

Why would shooting most likely just wound it? As you say, the dogs are trained to kill it instantly, though I wouldn't agree that they do, instinct tends to take over, but if you shoot it correctly it would die instantly so whats the problem?
Yes, it is natural for the animals to get into that situation, but its normally one-on-one, not one on 10-20 plus riders.
I also don't see that the governments motives are wrong. Some of the older backbenchers may react out of spite, the majority vote against as they believe, and not all Labour MP's voted for a ban as not all Conservative MP's voted against.

Sorry, can't be bothered explaining - but dogs hunt in packs, and their instinct is to kill the prey.

hott accents :D
great bands like pink floyd :D

lol...that's all I could really think of.

England's pretty cool, and we have to give them credit for nearly conquering the world and managing to conduct (albeit unsuccesfully) countless counter-rebellion wars. Not to mention I'm nailin' a Brit, so I'm biased. :)

To go on the hunting issue:

Shooting an animal does kill it straight away, however one must then suffer witnessing muscle spasms that the animal has as its muscles tense up. For example, at the far end of our garden we used to have a chicken shed and resident rats. I shot a couple of rats in the head with my air rifle (as proper rifles require a licence here, which I do not posses) and they were jumping around the trap for about 30 seconds or so after being shot, even though they were technically dead. Hope that helps.

Lets face it fox hunting is an outdated pastime for a bunch of vicious barbarians who try and pass it off as some charming and quaint hobby of merry england...if it is a method of control why do you need to dress up in a red coat..is it a new uniform for rentokil or something...??? A bright light and a face at a window has seen off most of the foxes whove visited my garden at night

I say permit hunting for those hunt members who first manage to escape from the lion enclosure at longleat while also being chased by a group of men in centurion tanks :)

I like 'em.
I'm Canadian, Don't have any grievances, they're certainly not arrogant. And they've proved 'nough times that they like to stick to it. Least in the war's and such.
All in All only been to England once, and only One complaint. The Pub I visited was so small I smashed my head repeatedly on the roof. Other than that, a very nice place.
(And small roads... They scared the crap out of me trying to drive through them, but meh it wasn't a big thing)

Re: Immediately killing dogs and wounds from firearms
They actually train the dogs to crush the foxes' skulls/necks? Now that I didn't know. And no, shooting an animal won't kill it immediately unless you cause extensive damage to the CNS either by shooting through the skull or the spine near the skull -- assuming the layout of a fox's CNS is similar to that of a human's.

However, with a decently powerful rifle and a shot through the thoracic cavity, it's highly likely that the pressure waves will constrict the spine enough to immediately black-out the fox, keeping it unconscious until the loss of blood pressure from the massive hemorrhage kills it. A shot in the head/neck with the same will propably lead to enough damage to the CNS to kill it near-instantly, unless you hit the snout(?). With a shotgun firing shot, this is even less of a problem.

Rats are small enough for the pressure waves from any decent firearms to knock them out immediately.

Yes they will forget that the only reason our rivers have become as clean as they have is because of the work of the Anglars association.

I believe you are overlooking the decline of heavy industry in the UK as another factor here: historically they have been responsible for massive amounts of river pollution, and it is no coincidnce that their rapid decline was followed shortly by great improvements in river water purity.

Funnily enough, one of my first responses to this thread was going to be that the English (more than the British in general) have a perculiar obssession with class. I guess the last few pages of this thread have only served to reaffirm my point. :)
Whether it's putting down the people below us (chavs/townies/scallies), or wanting to bring down those above us (the inbred toffs), we can't seem to escape this horrible idea of class and social standing in our country. Which annoys me.

What do I think of my country?
I'd like to say it's fantastic. I'd like to say we're a tolerant nation, with an excellent multicultural mix (or mish-mash), where we have respect for one another. And as a general whole, we are. But some of the more questionable elements of our society have begun to raise their heads again recently, and no matter how many times I read/hear about these views, it still shocks me to believe that people can actually hold such ignorant, intolerant views. Thanks in part to a government that can't quite decide which side of the political fence it wants to sit, a weak, divided opposition, and some rather pathetic scare-mongering by our media, we've created a bit of a monster over here.
Don't get me wrong, while they may not be my own views, I have no real problem with right-wing economic viewpoints (like the Conservatives have always been good at), but the thought that people can hold such bizzarre right-wong social views, when we are nothing mroe than a nation of mixed culture in the first place, worries me.

I couldn't care less about fox hunting by the way, and I think the majority of the country is probably the same. But it's been overblown because it represents the power of parliament to ignore the house of lords, which is a very different issue. Personally I'd rather we sorted out the needs of every person in the coutry before we get too concerned with the ickle fluffy animals.

As for the basic aspects of being English? Well I think the guy from Finland pretty much summed up our points (I didn't get the name, since I only just logged in for this), although I'd like to add:
The English language - Bloody ace. So adaptable, so rich, and without so many of the irritating trappings of other languages (gender types etc).
EDIT: Sense of humour! - How could I forget this? Our language = our humour = the bestestest!
Food - Fry ups? Roasts? Pasties? Yes please! Although I'll take all the foreign food we've nicked too. ;)
Weather - I think I'm the only person in the world to think this, but I like our weather. Not too hot in the summer, not too cold in winter, and it doesn't rain all that much, just at odd times. Which makes a nice change.

I have more, but I feel I've gone on a bit here, when I should be working on the joys of Artificial Neural Networks. Fun!

Lets face it fox hunting is an outdated pastime for a bunch of vicious barbarians who try and pass it off as some charming and quaint hobby of merry england...if it is a method of control why do you need to dress up in a red coat..is it a new uniform for rentokil or something...??? A bright light and a face at a window has seen off most of the foxes whove visited my garden at night

I say permit hunting for those hunt members who first manage to escape from the lion enclosure at longleat while also being chased by a group of men in centurion tanks :)

Err, I don't think anyone has used centurion tanks since the 50s.

And what is the problem with fox hunting really. It's just harmless fun.

Lets face it fox hunting is an outdated pastime for a bunch of vicious barbarians who try and pass it off as some charming and quaint hobby of merry england...if it is a method of control why do you need to dress up in a red coat..is it a new uniform for rentokil or something...??? A bright light and a face at a window has seen off most of the foxes whove visited my garden at night

I say permit hunting for those hunt members who first manage to escape from the lion enclosure at longleat while also being chased by a group of men in centurion tanks :)

Yes of course. Lets go into the anti hunter's world:

Foxes are fluffy little creatures that only want to spread love and peace around the globe.

Foxhunters are the spawn of Hitler and should be shot on sight for their gross and indecent crimes on fox kind.

The House of Lords is full of ancient Tory fossils who say "Bah humbug" at Christmas and run down small children in their golden Mercedes, bought at the tax payers expense.

The Tory Party is the party of the devil.

Countryside people are all apes who should stop dragging their knuckles and move to the city where they can be reducated.

Marxism is a wonderful idea and could be successfully implement in the UK with the Labour Parties help.

Now lets go into the REAL WORLD:

Foxes are nasty little vermin who thieve farmer's life stock and threaten bird life. Here's a suggestion: lets ban foxes as well!

Fox hunters are mostly decent middle/upper class people who abide by the law and pay their taxes. However they expect a certain amount of freedom in this country which the nanny state has denied them

The House of Lords is a neccessary constitutional tool to prevent mad cap ideas from becoming law. Also the Lord who led the revolt AGAINST the ban was a female LABOUR baroness

The Tory Party has far better policies than Labour: thats why Blair steals them all.

Countryside people are probably more British than city dwellers, not being poisoned by the corruption of the big cities. They are also better behaved and far more law abiding.

Marxism will be implemented here over my dead and decaying corpse

For anyone who cares, I am city dwelling Tory who considers himself to be middle class.

Damn me I meant chieftain tanks....wouldnt want to give the beggars an adavantage....

harmless fun ? tell that to the fox....

I'm english, but not patriotic at all. I feel the english are uptight and complain a lot, they never compliment people, and the government is slowly declining, soon we will be a mini america sitting on the side of france.

harmless fun ? tell that to the fox....
I'd rather be one of the foxes killed by hunting with dogs than battery hen

Hey, even the English hate the English government!

Yup, pretty much. We do. :sniper: *gets ready to hit Blair with a .45 rather than a flour bomb* :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :upyours:

Quoted from New British Glory
Yes of course. Lets go into the anti hunter's world:

Foxes are fluffy little creatures that only want to spread love and peace around the globe.
Who said that?
Foxhunters are the spawn of Hitler and should be shot on sight for their gross and indecent crimes on fox kind.
Hunting for sport is disgraceful. We tell foreign nations that hunting elephants for their ivory, or lions for trophies is wrong, so how can we now sit back and say that hunting a fox is fine, especially as a lion is much more dangerous to livestock and people than a fox!
The House of Lords is full of ancient Tory fossils who sya "Bah humbug" at Christmas and run down small children in their golden Mercedes bought at the tax payers expense.
The House of Lords is there to check legislature sent and recommend modifications and ammendments to bills passed by the lower house. However, in many instances it has shown itself to be outmoded and out of date with current thinking.
The Tory Party is the party of the devil.
The Tory Party no longer exists. The Conservative Party, currently, is being lead by a group of mostly right-wing politicians who seem have got themselves lost in an argument with UKIP and the BNP about who can be more radical.
Countryside people are all apes who should stop dragging their knuckles and move to the city where they can be reducated.
In many areas of the Countryside people are just as anti-Fox hunting as many people in the Cities are pro. It just happens that the Countryside Alliance is very noisy!
Marxism is a wonderful idea and could be successfully implement in the UK with the Labour Parties help.
Labour (and especially New Labour) isn't Marxist, and could never be classified as such, in the same way that the Conservatives, though are becoming more right-wing, are not Fascists (yet).
Now lets go into the REAL WORLD:
About time to!
Foxes are nastily little vermin who thieve farmers life stock and threaten bird life. Here's a suggestion: lets ban foxes as well!
Foxes are vermin, and should be controlled humanely, not by being hunted by packs of dogs who will rip them apart whilst still alive. In the same instance, farmers should learn how to protect their livestock without requiring the need to moan everytime a fox gets through their rather limited chain fences (or hedges!)
Fox hunters are mostly decent middle/upper class people who abide by the law and pay their taxes. However they expect a certain amount of freedom in this country which the nanny state has denied them
Freedom to hunt and slaughter animals is ridiculous. In which case I want the freedom to set a pack of dogs on them, just to see if they were scared or they think the dogs attacked them fairly and humanely
The Hose of Lords is a neccessary constitutional tool to prevent mad cap ideas from becoming law. Also the Lord who led the revolt AGAINST the ban was a female LABOUR baroness
Yes, the House of Lords is required (though not necessarily in its present form). Yes, it was a female Labour baroness, whats your point? especially as you were moaning earlier that it was only Labour who were anti the hunt.
The Tory Party has far better policies than Labour: thats why Blair steals them all.
The Conservative Party has no defined policies, rather they tend to jump on anything that they feel the public is unhappy with. And when they do attempt to introduce new policies they tend to be oxymorons (see Univeristy tuition!)
Countryside people are probably more British than city dwellers, not being poisoned by the corruption of the big cities. They are also better behaved and far more law abiding.
How are Countryside people more British than city dwellers? So many of them haven't moved out of the nineteenth century yet, big woo.
Marxism will be implemented here over my dead and decaying corpse
No-one is trying to implement Marxism. You complain Labour has gone to left-wing, then complain they're nicking Conservative Policies. Eh?
For anyone who cares, I am city dwelling Tory who considers himself to be middle class.
Good for you. I'm a suburban dwelling Labourite who considers himself to be middle class, so you see we have something in common after all.
Have a nice day now!

Damn me I meant chieftain tanks....wouldnt want to give the beggars an adavantage....

harmless fun ? tell that to the fox....

Chieftans are also not used.

And it is harmless fun. Except for the fox, but the fox doesn't count, being vermin.

The curious thing about Tony Blair, is the no-one seems to like him, yet he will still most likely be Prime Minister after the next election.

The left dislike him for ruining their party. The right dislike him for being a lefty in disguise. And everyone dislikes him for lying about Iraq, and generally appearing to be on a bit of a power trip at times.

Personally, I'd rather have Tony Blair than "Poll Tax" Howard. And Thatcher was a far worse PM than Blair. But then, I am a big lefty, so take that all with a pinch of salt.

Good for you. I'm a suburban dwelling Labourite who considers himself to be middle class, so you see we have something in common after all.
Have a nice day now!


You are aware that destruction of hedgerows, as you seem to advocate, is a major environmental issue aren't you ?

The Conservative Party has no defined policies, rather they tend to jump on anything that they feel the public is unhappy with. And when they do attempt to introduce new policies they tend to be oxymorons (see Univeristy tuition!)
Ah, good old opposition politics. Possibly the worst thing about the British political system. It was the same with Labour under the Tories unfortunately (although post Blair it was a bit more defined). Jump on the counter-argument to anything the current government tries to press, in the desperate attempt for votes!

Can I not change this damn name? I only used it to name my country, didn't expect it to carry over into the forums.

You are aware that destruction of hedgerows, as you seem to advocate, is a major environmental issue aren't you ?
Ever been to South-West England mate? They're currently on a massive drive to replant them!

The 'valiant House of Lords' is an antiquated, out of touch group who tried to stop the government putting through the plans for the banning of Fox Hunting for two years. The House of Commons used the Parliament act to force through this act as it has the majority support of its MP's and the public at large.

Actually I used to think the same until I started studying British politics in depth. Then I realised that the House of Lords in fact does a hell of a lot of the essential legwork the Commons can't do because it's too busy actually passing legislation/engaging in pointless political dick-measuring contests (delete as applicable). Most of the regulatory bodies are based in the Lords, for starters. Also if you check the Lords record in the majority of cases where it has opposed the Commons it has actually done so in line with popular opinion (fox hunting being one notable exception).

I think the Lords in its current form is pretty decent, all in all. The one reform I would suggest is that the appointment process should be taken entirely out of the hands of the government, perhaps creating an elected body with members taken from various areas of society. An "expert" Lords would help deal with a lot of the crap legislation that passes through the Commons since the government often feels its "mandate" is a free pass to push through anything it can persuade enough its MPs to back, by whatever means. As it is you wouldn't believe how many times the Lords has to correct ridiculously obvious loop-holes in legislation that has passed through the Commons. An elected Lords would either duplicate the problem or create deadlock. Oh, and use of the Parliament Act should be subject to a referendum.

As for being "antiquated", I for one would suggest if you want to use that term you look at the other House. After all, the Lords has been extensively reformed on a number of occasions in the past century, when was the last time the Commons faced major reform? The sad fact is that all too often governments use reforming the Lords as a useful tool to distract from the huge problems with the way the Commons operates. One reason no government has actually reformed it in a way that most people would agree with, IMHO.

Ever been to South-West England mate? They're currently on a massive drive to replant them!

Yes I have several times.

Foxes are vermin, and should be controlled humanely, not by being hunted by packs of dogs who will rip them apart whilst still alive. In the same instance, farmers should learn how to protect their livestock without requiring the need to moan everytime a fox gets through their rather limited chain fences (or hedges!)

So I ask again are you suggesting that farmers should replace their hedgerows? It seems that way.

Yes I have several times.



So I ask again are you suggesting that farmers should replace their hedgerows? It seems that way.
I'm suggesting that Farmers should do more to protect their livestock, if they feel that a fox attack is likely. Hedgerows are important for wildlife, but these should only be used for seperation of fields, not protection of livestock.

OK, didn't want to get into this but to the anti-fox hunting lobby:

On what basis do you justify banning fox hunting?

You can't justify it on the basis that you find it icky. Well, you can, but you'd then have a hard time justifying to a homophobe why homosexuality shouldn't be illegal.

You can't justify it on the basis of popular opinion. Well, you can, but then you have to accept the death penalty, too.

If you want to justify it on the basis on the basis of cruelty etc. then please explain to me why the suffering of animals should be considered worthy of legislation. Note the objections to the above two lines of reasoning.

As for the whole "it's only the upper class who support it" do you really need me to explain to you what's wrong with that kind of justification?

Actually I used to think the same until I started studying British politics in depth. Then I realised that the House of Lords in fact does a hell of a lot of the essential legwork the Commons can't do because it's too busy actually passing legislation/engaging in pointless political dick-measuring contests (delete as applicable). Most of the regulatory bodies are based in the Lords, for starters. Also if you check the Lords record in the majority of cases where it has opposed the Commons it has actually done so in line with popular opinion (fox hunting being one notable exception).

I think the Lords in its current form is pretty decent, all in all. The one reform I would suggest is that the appointment process should be taken entirely out of the hands of the government, perhaps creating an elected body with members taken from various areas of society. An "expert" Lords would help deal with a lot of the crap legislation that passes through the Commons since the government often feels its "mandate" is a free pass to push through anything it can persuade enough its MPs to back, by whatever means. As it is you wouldn't believe how many times the Lords has to correct ridiculously obvious loop-holes in legislation that has passed through the Commons. An elected Lords would either duplicate the problem or create deadlock. Oh, and use of the Parliament Act should be subject to a referendum.

As for being "antiquated", I for one would suggest if you want to use that term you look at the other House. After all, the Lords has been extensively reformed on a number of occasions in the past century, when was the last time the Commons faced major reform? The sad fact is that all too often governments use reforming the Lords as a useful tool to distract from the huge problems with the way the Commons operates. One reason no government has actually reformed it in a way that most people would agree with, IMHO.
Good, am happy to hear that someone is learning British Politics. Any particular area? (I did Modern History and Politics at Uni!).
Ok, important stuff. I agree that the appointment of the Lords should be taken out of Government control, and that it should be handled by a secular organisation. I also agree that the Commons should face limited reform, but to be honest, it requires less reform than the Lords (personal opinion).

On what basis do you justify banning fox hunting?
[...]
If you want to justify it on the basis on the basis of cruelty etc. then please explain to me why the suffering of animals should be considered worthy of legislation. [...]Question: Do you think humans should be free to do whatever the hell they please with animals? I.e. do you think there should be no law banning the torture of animals or raping them?

OK, didn't want to get into this but to the anti-fox hunting lobby:

On what basis do you justify banning fox hunting?

You can't justify it on the basis that you find it icky. Well, you can, but you'd then have a hard time justifying to a homophobe why homosexuality shouldn't be illegal.

You can't justify it on the basis of popular opinion. Well, you can, but then you have to accept the death penalty, too.

If you want to justify it on the basis on the basis of cruelty etc. then please explain to me why the suffering of animals should be considered worthy of legislation. Note the objections to the above two lines of reasoning.

As for the whole "it's only the upper class who support it" do you really need me to explain to you what's wrong with that kind of justification?
Hunting should be banned. We tell countries such as Africa that they cannot hunt and kill Lions because they are an endangered species and it is cruel. Now, at this point, Foxes aren't endangered, but a fox will do far less damage than a Lion would, in both Livestock and Human terms.
Also, the Death penalty was abolished because to many innocent people were being put to death (even 1 is to many), and because it was inhumane. How can you say that you will kill this person because they killed someone else? It merely makes it murder with legislature backing. If we find this barbaric, then the ripping apart of an animal by a pack of dogs is also barbaric and should not occur, no matter what class or background the people involved are from.

Question: Do you think humans should be free to do whatever the hell they please with animals? I.e. do you think there should be no law banning the torture of animals or raping them?

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, but I accept I cannot justify this on an ethical basis. Thus I wouldn't campaign for or against such laws unless they violated ethical or practical principles which I felt I could justify.

Hunting should be banned. We tell countries such as Africa that they cannot hunt and kill Lions because they are an endangered species and it is cruel.

Irrelvant. Just because we do something doesn't mean its justified. Unless you can justify our policies with regards to Africa in such a way that equally justifies fox hunting it's a moot point.


Now, at this point, Foxes aren't endangered, but a fox will do far less damage than a Lion would, in both Livestock and Human terms.
Also, the Death penalty was abolished because to many innocent people were being put to death (even 1 is to many), and because it was inhumane. How can you say that you will kill this person because they killed someone else? It merely makes it murder with legislature backing. If we find this barbaric, then the ripping apart of an animal by a pack of dogs is also barbaric and should not occur, no matter what class or background the people involved are from.

So I take it that's one vote for "I find it icky"?

Irrelvant. Just because we do something doesn't mean its justified. Unless you can justify our policies with regards to Africa in such a way that equally justifies fox hunting it's a moot point.



So I take it that's one vote for "I find it icky"?
Yes, I do, as you say "Find it Icky". But, the point is is it is inhumane, simple. We don't hunt people (though we used to) becuase it was seen to be wrong. We now know more about the fear and pain that the animals suffer due to them being hunted, and so this is inhumane. So the arguement is it is inhumane, not it is "Icky".

Good, am happy to hear that someone is learning British Politics. Any particular area? (I did Modern History and Politics at Uni!).


Well, the change of opinion came when studying the subject at A-level, but I also did some work on it as part of the politics element of my Philosophy course (not very technical stuff, though, most of that came from arguing with Economics, Politics and War Studies students). As far as areas go, mostly I've focused on constitutional law and electoral systems. I actually know how the Single Transferrable Vote and Additional Member System work (as far as anyone does, that it), and I know that the Droop Formula has nothing to do with Viagra. Now if only I could retain really useful information, like where I left my bloody wallet, the same way.


Ok, important stuff. I agree that the appointment of the Lords should be taken out of Government control, and that it should be handled by a secular organisation. I also agree that the Commons should face limited reform, but to be honest, it requires less reform than the Lords (personal opinion).

Probably, but the committee system could do with an overhaul. It'd be nice to get rid of the whips, too. Not that it would happen in a million years, of course.

Yes, I do, as you say "Find it Icky". But, the point is is it is inhumane, simple. We don't hunt people (though we used to) becuase it was seen to be wrong. We now know more about the fear and pain that the animals suffer due to them being hunted, and so this is inhumane. So the arguement is it is inhumane, not it is "Icky".

Sorry, "icky" was a needlessly peurile term. Believe it or not, though, the "icky" justification does have supporters in modern philosophy. It's just that it's very hard to argue from there that one form of revulsion is more valid than another.

Anyway, so we now have the causing of fear and pain as a justification. Fair enough. Do you then accept that:

a) everything that causes fear and/or pain is morally unjustifiable
or
b) anything that does not cause fear and/or pain is morally justifiable
?

Sorry, "icky" was a needlessly peurile term. Believe it or not, though, the "icky" justification does have supporters in modern philosophy. It's just that it's very hard to argue from there that one form of revulsion is more valid than another.

Anyway, so we now have the causing of fear and pain as a justification. Fair enough. Do you then accept that:

a) everything that causes fear and/or pain is morally unjustifiable
or
b) anything that does not cause fear and/or pain is morally justifiable
?
Within reason, I would move toward A. Fear and/or pain is, importantly, morally unjustifiable. To purposely cause fear and/or pain for ones own pleasure cannot be justified.

OK, just realised I'm too tired to keep up a philosophical conversation, it's very, very late here. Brain. Cannot. Work. Logic. Feel. Like. Sun. Reader.

Will take this up tomorrow.

OK, just realised I'm too tired to keep up a philosophical conversation, it's very, very late here. Brain. Cannot. Work. Logic. Feel. Like. Sun. Reader.

Will take this up tomorrow.
Talk to you tomorrow!

The English: The most energetic, innovative, and entreprenurial nation since the Romans. Too civilized to maintain an Empire. I have mad respect for the English and what they accomplished. I think right now though, y'all are in a state of decline. Why? You lack strong leadership, or perhaps your time is simply passed.
The islamic empire was the most innovative and entreprenurial nation after the romans, after they failed to achieve industrialization, the british took over ...

I think britain is a nice place to visit... don't think that I would want to live there though... do you all hate the french, or is it a friendly rivalry?

The islamic empire was the most innovative and entreprenurial nation after the romans, after they failed to achieve industrialization, the british took over ...

I think britain is a nice place to visit... don't think that I would want to live there though... do you all hate the french, or is it a friendly rivalry?
On a personal note, its friendly. But then there are some nutters out there!

Funnily enough, one of my first responses to this thread was going to be that the English (more than the British in general) have a perculiar obssession with class. I guess the last few pages of this thread have only served to reaffirm my point. :)
Whether it's putting down the people below us (chavs/townies/scallies), or wanting to bring down those above us (the inbred toffs), we can't seem to escape this horrible idea of class and social standing in our country. Which annoys me.

What do I think of my country?
I'd like to say it's fantastic. I'd like to say we're a tolerant nation, with an excellent multicultural mix (or mish-mash), where we have respect for one another. And as a general whole, we are. But some of the more questionable elements of our society have begun to raise their heads again recently, and no matter how many times I read/hear about these views, it still shocks me to believe that people can actually hold such ignorant, intolerant views. Thanks in part to a government that can't quite decide which side of the political fence it wants to sit, a weak, divided opposition, and some rather pathetic scare-mongering by our media, we've created a bit of a monster over here.
Don't get me wrong, while they may not be my own views, I have no real problem with right-wing economic viewpoints (like the Conservatives have always been good at), but the thought that people can hold such bizzarre right-wong social views, when we are nothing mroe than a nation of mixed culture in the first place, worries me.

I couldn't care less about fox hunting by the way, and I think the majority of the country is probably the same. But it's been overblown because it represents the power of parliament to ignore the house of lords, which is a very different issue. Personally I'd rather we sorted out the needs of every person in the coutry before we get too concerned with the ickle fluffy animals.

I like the way that when 'Conservative' or 'right wing' is mentioned most whining liberals like to replace them with 'intolerant' and 'ignorant'.

Right wing people are certainly not intolerant to other cultures nor to immigration as a whole (yes I know the BNP and NF are but thats because they are racist loonies). Take Michael Howard who is the son of a German Jew, forced to flee the Holocaust. However we DO NOT like being taken advantage of. When we pay our taxes we expect it to go towards the schooling of BRITISH children, the improvement of hopsitals for BRITISH patients and the improvement of the police force for the protection of BRITISH people. What we do not like is our taxes being diverted away from such crucial issues and placed into the pockets of illegal asylum seekers who are living scot free in the immigration centres that our taxes built. I have nothing against immigration IF THE IMMIGRANTS IN QUESTION ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD AND INTERGRATE WITH BRITISH SOCIETY IN ORDER TO EARN THEIR CITZENSHIP. I do object to immigrants coming in, thinking they can take advantage of the lax British welfare system and sitting on their arses all day at the tax payers expense! The least they could do is use the benefits to go on an English speaking course but most don't even do that!

As for 'ignorant' well most of the 19th and 20th century have been dominated by right wing governments. If they can get into power and maintain a country, then they can't be all that ignorant.

I can also see that you are one of those poor (perhaps ignorant in your own words) people who wonder around with their heads in the cloud thinking that there is no such thing as class in Britain anymore. Well THERE IS. Want proof? Estates and towns are divided into areas that are considered 'bad' and 'good'. Look at politics. The reason Labour became New Labour and abadoned it's socialist mantra (at least on the face of it) was because it knew that it could never appeal to the middle classes with socialist doctrines. Education is still divided into class: grammar schools, public schools, comprehensives. Some comprehensive schools (like my previous one for instance) will go to any length to appeal to middle class parents and appear more middle class: they will introduce houses, have proper schools uniforms etc etc. Professions are divided into class. Political issues are debated on class terms. So there is class and class is needed. Class helps instill morality and obedience in the lower orders. If class is weakened (as it now) we can get the sort of lawless, immoral, yob ridden country that we have today.

My grandad used to go hare coursing. Had some whacky english type of dog called a lurcher or something.

So you are saying people can still hare course?
Point of information (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm) (about a third of the way down)

Though there's some story about organisers muzzling their dogs in order to evade the ban.

My tuppence on fox hunting:

The fox is dead within a few seconds of being caught. Wild animals lives are not exactly pleasurable. The "natural" death of a fox through disease or some such is probably just as bad if not worse. Theres no problem here.

Now, 100's of dogs will be put down needlessly, jobs will be lost and we will continue down the path of killing off that annoying diversity lark and making the whole country as much like middle England as possible. Brilliant!

The worst thing about fox-hunting is that so many people on both sides of the debate view it as hugely important. 200,000 children die world-wide every week from preventable causes, and nobody gives a shit. But raise the question of whether or not a tiny number of inbred halfwits should be allowed to kill small, common mammals by the method of their choice or not, and there are riots, invasions of the House of Commons, threats of civil disobedience campaigns... Jesus.

On the English in general: I like 'em. In the main they are an intelligent, civilised and together bunch. They have their faults, but who doesn't? I like their common sense (2nd country in Europe to end the execution of witches, for example -- the Netherlands was no. 1) and their tradition of moderation (1848, riot and rebellion all over Europe. In England? A really big petition). OK, for much of the Middle Ages they were a blight to their neighbours, and there is some truth to the saying that the reason the sun never set on the British Empire was because God couldn't trust the English in the dark, but to be frank they could have been, and often consciously avoided being, a hell of a lot worse.

They have produced some great literature (not so much now -- they need to get over that whole "Middle-class middle-aged author with writers' block miraculously cured by some hot sex with a teenager" kick), some great contemporary music, many fine institutions, a whole heap of worthwhile science and philosophy and some of the funniest comedians and humourists in the world.

Ladies and gentlemen: the English.

I like the way that when 'Conservative' or 'right wing' is mentioned most whining liberals like to replace them with 'intolerant' and 'ignorant'.

Right wing people are certainly not intolerant to other cultures nor to immigration as a whole (yes I know the BNP and NF are but thats because they are racist loonies). Take Michael Howard who is the son of a German Jew, forced to flee the Holocaust. However we DO NOT like being taken advantage of. When we pay our taxes we expect it to go towards the schooling of BRITISH children, the improvement of hopsitals for BRITISH patients and the improvement of the police force for the protection of BRITISH people. What we do not like is our taxes being diverted away from such crucial issues and placed into the pockets of illegal asylum seekers who are living scot free in the immigration centres that our taxes built. I have nothing against immigration IF THE IMMIGRANTS IN QUESTION ARE WILLING TO WORK HARD AND INTERGRATE WITH BRITISH SOCIETY IN ORDER TO EARN THEIR CITZENSHIP. I do object to immigrants coming in, thinking they can take advantage of the lax British welfare system and sitting on their arses all day at the tax payers expense! The least they could do is use the benefits to go on an English speaking course but most don't even do that!

As for 'ignorant' well most of the 19th and 20th century have been dominated by right wing governments. If they can get into power and maintain a country, then they can't be all that ignorant.

I can also see that you are one of those poor (perhaps ignorant in your own words) people who wonder around with their heads in the cloud thinking that there is no such thing as class in Britain anymore. Well THERE IS. Want proof? Estates and towns are divided into areas that are considered 'bad' and 'good'. Look at politics. The reason Labour became New Labour and abadoned it's socialist mantra (at least on the face of it) was because it knew that it could never appeal to the middle classes with socialist doctrines. Education is still divided into class: grammar schools, public schools, comprehensives. Some comprehensive schools (like my previous one for instance) will go to any length to appeal to middle class parents and appear more middle class: they will introduce houses, have proper schools uniforms etc etc. Professions are divided into class. Political issues are debated on class terms. So there is class and class is needed. Class helps instill morality and obedience in the lower orders. If class is weakened (as it now) we can get the sort of lawless, immoral, yob ridden country that we have today.
Good god you somehow quoted me without understanding a single word I said, hats off, that's quite an achievement!

First of all, I said I have no real problem (although obviously I disagree) with "true" right wing views like most people out there who vote Conservative. What worries me is the people who've become disillusioned with the Tories and got scarily, worringly, horribly far right-wing, into the arms of the BNP, with their "kick the darkies out" rhetoric.
Have you even read about the Political Compass theory? That's what I was applying here. Economic politics are completely different from social politics, and it's the scary right wing social politics (see BNP) that scares me about our country right now, not the right-wing economic views (low tax, free business, entrepeneurial spirit) that I merely disagree with. I didn't call right-wing governements ignorant, I called the BNP and it's followers ignorant. Have the BNP ever been in power? Thankfully not.

Secondly, where did I say class doesn't exist? I said we Brits have a peculiar obsessesion with constantly going on about it, and making it out to be far more of a big deal than it really is. After all, all it is just the grouping of people according roughly to their wage. Yes, some things naturally extend from that, but for some reason, we seem to make it out to be a life and death issue (the working class hate the upper class, the middle class want to be the upper class and hate the working class, etc (these are just stereotypical generalisations for the purpose of example, not my personal opinion)). Your comment of "Class helps instill morality and obedience in the lower orders." only proves my point. Class does f*** all like that, I've met plenty of immoral idiots from all ends of the class spectrum. Morality is instilled by parents and education, not some tired old "Aren't the upper classes so spectacular" viewpoint that's been carried on from before the Industrial Revolution.

I'm also fully aware that New Labour switched it's views to gain middle-class support, but it's also a fact that a lot of middle-class people are still incredibly sceptical of them, remember their old socialist politics.

Please don't assume I'm some mollycoddled, "whiney liberal" mummys-boy who has no idea how the world works. I have plenty of time for debating politics with Conservatives like yourself in a perfectly adult manner, so I'd appreciate it if you did the same with me, instead of jumping to conclusions. :)

OK, just realised I'm too tired to keep up a philosophical conversation, it's very, very late here. Brain. Cannot. Work. Logic. Feel. Like. Sun. Reader.

Will take this up tomorrow.

OK, more awake now. I've realised that last night I made a pretty seriously blunder (I blame the tiredness). My original pair of options should have read:

a) everything that causes fear and/or pain is morally unjustifiable
AND
b) anything that does not cause fear and/or pain is morally justifiable

Any moral justification worth its salt should state both what is unjustifiable and what is justifiable. Stupid mistake on my part.

So my (re-phrased) question is do you accept both the above statements? Or, if you only accept a) what other factors do you think make certain actions that do not cause fear and/or pain morally unjustifiable?

OK, more awake now. I've realised that last night I made a pretty seriously blunder (I blame the tiredness). My original pair of options should have read:

a) everything that causes fear and/or pain is morally unjustifiable
AND
b) anything that does not cause fear and/or pain is morally justifiable

Any moral justification worth its salt should state both what is unjustifiable and what is justifiable. Stupid mistake on my part.

So my (re-phrased) question is do you accept both the above statements? Or, if you only accept a) what other factors do you think make certain actions that do not cause fear and/or pain morally unjustifiable?
Hello again!
Ok, this makes slightly more sense! I would have to answer that I can't support either arguments fully, but would move toward A. However, even this point can't be followed completely. e.g. A child can be scared of a needle, however an injection could save its life or, if nothing else, provide a possible innoculation to a harmful disease. The child would be scared, and for a time afterwards possibly even in pain, but it would be morally justifiable as it would cause less harm to the child to have the injection than die of the disease. Make sense?
On the other side (b), if a person is born into servitude. Lives the life of a pauper with no ability to improve themselves or their position, but are not afraid nor are they in pain (they know no different so they do not fear what is happening) is not necessarily morally justifiable. Still making sense, I hope.
So fear and pain can be justified in the idea that it is a short term problem, but will equal out as a long term good, yes?
Now, in the idea of hunting with hounds, the short term benefit to the farmers is negligable. They are down one fox, so have possibly saved a chicken or two. Now, the long term implications can be that the number of foxes in the area become to a dangerously low level (unlikely at present, but people used to believe you couldn't hunt a species into extintion). There is also the inhumane way the foxes are killed. It has been stated on this forum that the dogs are trained to kill in a single bite, so causing negligable pain to the fox. I would argue that the hunting instinct of a dog, like the wolves they are from originally, hunt in such a way that they toy with their prey. Then, once they capture said prey they don't tend to attack the head, or spine, but rather the soft underbelly disembowling the animal. This is cruelty to the extreme, and is why my position is so.
I hope this makes sense. If not, please say so and I will endeavour to explain myself better.

Hello again!
Ok, this makes slightly more sense! I would have to answer that I can't support either arguments fully, but would move toward A. However, even this point can't be followed completely. e.g. A child can be scared of a needle, however an injection could save its life or, if nothing else, provide a possible innoculation to a harmful disease. The child would be scared, and for a time afterwards possibly even in pain, but it would be morally justifiable as it would cause less harm to the child to have the injection than die of the disease. Make sense?
On the other side (b), if a person is born into servitude. Lives the life of a pauper with no ability to improve themselves or their position, but are not afraid nor are they in pain (they know no different so they do not fear what is happening) is not necessarily morally justifiable. Still making sense, I hope.


I'm not clear here, though, why the example of the person born into servitude is morally unjustifiable.
Anyway, here, perhaps, is a thought experiment that I feel may well get more directly to the point:

Would it be permissible to engage in fox hunting purely for sport (ie with no benefits as regards pest control) in which the fox was brutally ripped apart before death if, before the hunt, the fox was injected with a mixture of drugs to ensure that it felt no pain but would still run (for the purpose of this thought experiment lets say it runs for a reason other than fear, say a hallucinatory snack in front of its eyes or just an over-abundance of adrenalin)?


So fear and pain can be justified in the idea that it is a short term problem, but will equal out as a long term good, yes?


I'd avoid going down that route, you're basically saying consequentialism overrides the fear and pain justification. And it's hard to argue that consequentialism would extend to animals.
Your initial argument, relating to personal pleasure, was better IMHO. Let's try this:

Any action that causes fear and pain is morally unjustifiable if the person committing the action causes the fear and pain for reasons of their own gratification.

I think that's fair enough, there's probably some counter-examples, there usually are, but it seems intuitive enough for the time being. We still need to deal with part b), though.

<Snipped out section on whether fox hunting is unjustifiable, I'm willing to grant it is by either my or your argument for the time being>


I hope this makes sense. If not, please say so and I will endeavour to explain myself better.

Makes sense, the question of what is justifiable needs a little clarification, though.

Would it be permissible to engage in fox hunting purely for sport (ie with no benefits as regards pest control) in which the fox was brutally ripped apart before death if, before the hunt, the fox was injected with a mixture of drugs to ensure that it felt no pain but would still run (for the purpose of this thought experiment lets say it runs for a reason other than fear, say a hallucinatory snack in front of its eyes or just an over-abundance of adrenalin)?
An interesting suppostion. I would say no, as the people involved were gaining pleasure from the death of another animal in a fairly violent passtime.

I give you a supposition...should a criminal, who may or may not be guilty of a crime, be hunted by a pack of hounds and torn to shreds, even if said criminal would feel no pain?



Any action that causes fear and pain is morally unjustifiable if the person committing the action causes the fear and pain for reasons of their own gratification.

I think that's fair enough, there's probably some counter-examples, there usually are, but it seems intuitive enough for the time being. We still need to deal with part b), though.

Makes sense, the question of what is justifiable needs a little clarification, though.
I'll admit my answer to part b) was scant, I was in a bit of a rush at the time.
The problem with moral justification is that it comes down to the position of the individual and what they believe to be moral. Within a Country wide setting what is morally acceptable has to be what the majority of the populace believe rather than the minority, especially as we live in a Democracy. The majority of the Country is against hunting, which doesn't mean to say that the majority of the Countryside is, but as a majority decision has to be the overuling point, then it would appear to be morally wrong, in the majorities view, that hunting is right.
The point I was trying to make on point b), but doing an awful job, was that should that serf, who knows no better and so thusly is apparantly having any harm done to them, not have the ability or chance to improve themselves or their position? Is this morally wrong, or is it fine because they know no better?

I'm english but I lived abroad for three years and then came back. Can't wait to leave again. When I am here it drives me up the wall. When I am away I miss it. What can ya do huh?
What anoys me most are the anti-european views based on a unreal view of the EU and the price of everything, ouch!
What I miss most is the language, the sense of humour, the television, decent curries, proper teabags and brown sauce.

They have produced some great literature (not so much now -- they need to get over that whole "Middle-class middle-aged author with writers' block miraculously cured by some hot sex with a teenager" kick).
Ladies and gentlemen: the English.

But so many of our authors are lonely middle-class middle-aged guys with writer's block! Don't spoil their teenage hot sex dreams.

England, with all thy faults I love thee still.

It has its downsides, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
The USA always seems so big and impersonal (not to mention the sinister right-wing, patriotic, uber-religious side), nothing ever happens in Canada, the Continent is all so... Continental and pretty much everywhere else is Fascist, Communist, too remote, too poor or has some kind of evil, biting poisonous wildlife and more natural disasters than hot meals.

An interesting suppostion. I would say no, as the people involved were gaining pleasure from the death of another animal in a fairly violent passtime.


So, we have fear, pain and/or death. OK, another thought experiment:

Is it OK to slowly torture an animal purely for your own pleasure in such a way that it feels neither pain nor fear (ie by administering suitable drugs) but maintain its life so that it lives to or beyond its normal life expectancy?

Yeah, I know it's doubtful anyone would want to do that, but that's why it's called a thought experiment.


I give you a supposition...should a criminal, who may or may not be guilty of a crime, be hunted by a pack of hounds and torn to shreds, even if said criminal would feel no pain?


Well I'm neither condemning nor condoning hunting so my own ethical views aren't really relevant. Plus, we don't want to get into them because it'd take quite a while to explain. I mean I could explain them but we'd get majorly sidetracked most likely.
I got into this not to argue that hunting is right but because I see in the UK now a conventional ethical belief that I would to say justified in a more concrete manner. If the conventional belief was that fox hunting was right I'd probably be doing the same to that belief.


I'll admit my answer to part b) was scant, I was in a bit of a rush at the time.
The problem with moral justification is that it comes down to the position of the individual and what they believe to be moral. Within a Country wide setting what is morally acceptable has to be what the majority of the populace believe rather than the minority, especially as we live in a Democracy. The majority of the Country is against hunting, which doesn't mean to say that the majority of the Countryside is, but as a majority decision has to be the overuling point, then it would appear to be morally wrong, in the majorities view, that hunting is right.


Hmm, it's somewhat dubious whether you can argue that the majority can decide what is and isn't a moral truth. It may mean that banning hunting is democratically justified but it doesn't necessarily show that it is morally justified. And even if it does, like I said, that then lets in the death penalty. Unless you argue the death penalty is immoral in which case whatever basis you use to argue against the death penalty becomes the source of moral justification, not whether or not most people believe it to be right or wrong.


The point I was trying to make on point b), but doing an awful job, was that should that serf, who knows no better and so thusly is apparantly having any harm done to them, not have the ability or chance to improve themselves or their position? Is this morally wrong, or is it fine because they know no better?

Don't ask me. I mean, seriously, don't ask me. We've got about 8 different conceptions of morality fighting each other there. I think at best we can say it's debatable. It all depends on what you use to distinguish between moral and immoral acts, which is the basic question at hand. Given the fear, pain and death justification so far then we'd have to say no, providing the serf doesn't suffer an early death.

Great Britain is great. If only I could say the same of the New Labour government:

EDUCATION

1997: EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION booms Mr. Blair

2000/2001: The AS system his government introduced enters melt down as previously A grade students end up with Us because the markers were told that to make the new exams look difficult.

2001: New Labour government says in election manifesto: "We will not impose tutition fees".

2004: Oh dear, Tony Bliar decides to introduce (guess what?) tutition fees, much to the displeasure of his own backbenchers.

IRAQ

2003: Saddam Hussain could launch apocolyptic WMDs at Britain within 45 minutes.Or so Bliar claims in a keynote speech.

2004: One suicide, two whitewash reports and a handful of headlines later, the UN inspection team reveal there were no WMDs in Iraq and had not been any since the end of the Gulf War (shock). Nearly all of cabinet apologise for misleading the country and Parliament but Mr. Bliar still can only say that he may have been slightly wrong, in the vaguest sense of the word. Most other PMs would have resigned but dear old Bliar, in his eternal arrogance and contempt for the British public, decided to stay. Some might argue that the Hutton and Butler reports vindicated him. Well not really. Hutton blamed the BBC entirely (absurd, absolutely absurd) and Butler blamed...no one in particular. So Bliar, the Hoon and his intelligence croonies got off scot free. And Allistair Campbell could continue to smile smuggly.

FOX HUNTING
1997/2001: Manifesto says Labour will ban fox hunting.

2004: 7 years later after delaying and dodging for days on end, the ban is pushed through. Bliar and his cabinet croonies did not even bother to vote.

CRIME
1997: Tough on crime, Tough on the causes of crime, screeches Bliar to his party conference.

2004: Hooliganism and thuggery is out of control. Bliar has legalised cannabis and increased pub drinking hours ( drugs and drink both being primary causes of crime). Police men can't do anything because they are too busy filling out forms about how they rescued Mrs. Pryce's cat from a tree.
Under New Labour, the criminal justice system favours the criminal not the victim. Here is a story I saw in the papers:
A man tackled a thief who was holding up a jewlery store. He held him on the ground until the police arrived. The crook was arrested and then the hero stood up to get his heroes reward...only to receive a verbal warning from the officer that he could be on charges of assault and as such shouldn't leave the country.

NANNY STATE
2004: Gambling to be legalised and the green light is given for widespread gambling addiction.

2004: Smoking in pubs banned but only in pubs where food is served. So effectively Bliar has managed to ban...food as pubs can make far more revenue serving smoking customers rather than serving non smokers food. Why not ban smoking in public entirely? Oh no wouldn't want to risk the votes would we Bliar? One day our PM might have the spine to introduce some real policies but I doubt it.

CONSTITUTION
1997 to 2004: Well Mr Bliar has definitely tried his best to ruin both the House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor's office. Alas he has failed on both counts.

IRELAND
Peace process: OFF, ON, OFF, ON, OFF, ON. Honestly Mr. Bliar its a regional assmebly not a light switch.

EUROPE
Well each budget we wondered whether Mr. Brown would finally deliver the news as to whether we would be joining the Euro. And each time the answer was the same: maybe, possibly, perhaps.
Meanwhile Bliar is fully enjoying relationships with Mr. Berlusconi of Italy, a man so corrupt that Jeoffrey Archer looks up to him with admiration. He goes and has occasional arguments with the French and then signs away our liberty on this constitution. The only reason he is having a referendum is because the Sun threatened to withdraw its support if he didn't.

AMERICA
Bliar has decided he wants to be close to America and Europe, something impossible as America and Europe hate each other.

And the list goes on. And on. And on.

My tuppence on fox hunting:

The fox is dead within a few seconds of being caught. Wild animals lives are not exactly pleasurable. The "natural" death of a fox through disease or some such is probably just as bad if not worse. Theres no problem here.

Now, 100's of dogs will be put down needlessly, jobs will be lost and we will continue down the path of killing off that annoying diversity lark and making the whole country as much like middle England as possible. Brilliant!

What disease is most common in foxes?

IRELAND
Peace process: OFF, ON, OFF, ON, OFF, ON. Honestly Mr. Bliar its a regional assmebly not a light switch.



Too right why don't ye just fuck off out of the place.

IRELAND
Peace process: OFF, ON, OFF, ON, OFF, ON. Honestly Mr. Bliar its a regional assmebly not a light switch.



Too right why don't ye just fuck off out of the place.

Because the people of Northern Ireland want us to stay. More unionists than nationalists.

I'm english but I lived abroad for three years and then came back. Can't wait to leave again. When I am here it drives me up the wall. When I am away I miss it. What can ya do huh?
What anoys me most are the anti-european views based on a unreal view of the EU and the price of everything, ouch!
What I miss most is the language, the sense of humour, the television, decent curries, proper teabags and brown sauce.

Oooh, let's have a "what do I miss?" contest.

Hmm, like you I miss the TV, curries, sense of humour and brown sauce (though it must be said that is but one part of the glory that is a fry-up).

Not too bothered about teabags (I am in China after all) or the language (I love spitting the old Mandarin around).

What else do I miss? Sunday lunch, real ale, country pubs, a proper drinking culture, crusty bread, Cathedral City, London (believe it or not), pedestrian crossings, politeness, Private Eye, Four-Four-Two, When Saturday Comes and Empire, the diversity, the weather (it gets down to -30 here) and the countryside

What don't I miss? Closing times, the prices, Big Brother and any of its bastard ilk, ITV, the tabloids, the music charts, the public transport (it's actually much better here), the mystifying trend for Thai food, the Croydon facelift and big hoop earings, the government, half of the stuff in the supermarket being "extra-virgin", "organic" or whatever else is trendy at the moment and Vernon fucking Kaye.

here is something that would be really interesting to me and that is what do people think of the English?
i know this was done the other day with what people thought about the canadians and i apologise for copying but i am really intrigued to see what people have to say about us english folk, we are a small country but we do so like to be noticed.
so any comments at all would be appreciated
have a lovely day
xxx


The ones I met have all been pretty nice and extraordinary polite. Thozgh most of them seem to be a bit obsessed with Britain´s former glory and colonial past. That and the world wars.

England, with all thy faults I love thee still.

It has its downsides, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
The USA always seems so big and impersonal (not to mention the sinister right-wing, patriotic, uber-religious side), nothing ever happens in Canada, the Continent is all so... Continental and pretty much everywhere else is Fascist, Communist, too remote, too poor or has some kind of evil, biting poisonous wildlife and more natural disasters than hot meals.

How very true!

IRELAND
Peace process: OFF, ON, OFF, ON, OFF, ON. Honestly Mr. Bliar its a regional assmebly not a light switch.



Too right why don't ye just fuck off out of the place.

Yes, we've already been through this...perhaps if you bothered reading the rest of the thread?

The ones I met have all been pretty nice and extraordinary polite. Thozgh most of them seem to be a bit obsessed with Britain´s former glory and colonial past.

Strangely enough it only seems to be Americans who ever bring this up. I literally can't think of a single conversation when anybody has brought up the empire, unless we're discussing parts of the world we fucked up.

That and the world wars.

Well, point taken. Though if you think we're bad you should check out the Dutch. Or the Chinese.

ENGLAND: Long past its prime, resorting to kissing US ass, whether US is right or wrong in order to still get respect in current affairs worldwide. If there is anyone in the world that fears the UK its because they know they have American muscle behind them. I'm in now way a fan of US foreign politics, or the politics at home for that matter, but the only thing worse than a corrupt country is that countries little henchmen like the UK, I mean even Canada takes some stands once in awhile...

ENGLAND: Long past its prime, resorting to kissing US ass, whether US is right or wrong in order to still get respect in current affairs worldwide. If there is anyone in the world that fears the UK its because they know they have American muscle behind them. I'm in now way a fan of US foreign politics, or the politics at home for that matter, but the only thing worse than a corrupt country is that countries little henchmen like the UK, I mean even Canada takes some stands once in awhile...

indeedy, although, there's no reason why the UK can't be big again.
Henchman point is harsh, but true, but it's the Govt. licking the US' behind.

ENGLAND: Long past its prime, resorting to kissing US ass, whether US is right or wrong in order to still get respect in current affairs worldwide. If there is anyone in the world that fears the UK its because they know they have American muscle behind them. I'm in now way a fan of US foreign politics, or the politics at home for that matter, but the only thing worse than a corrupt country is that countries little henchmen like the UK, I mean even Canada takes some stands once in awhile...
Heh heh, we are Israel mk II

Hey, even the English hate the English government!

in fact we may hate our government more than any one else does.


The youth on the other hand...well they combine the worst aspects of American punks with redneck ignorance. Have you ever gotten into an argument with a Euro-trash wearing, mohawk headed, idiot about the fact that England is not in fact the savior of every problem the world has? I have. Worse yet, the youth fails to recognize any of England's past that isn't glorious. The botched situations left behind in India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, you name it...they completely ignore that, whilest still believing the Empire should return to its former glory. I don't know what the problem is with the English educational system, all I know is that they need a taste of reality.

yes we normaly refer to these people as bnp supporters but dont worry we are not all like that hell most of us actiualy think less of our country than most others unfortunately its a case of noisy minority

A) I've been to England, I've seen their teeth. Its not that they can't get them fixed, its that they don't give a damn. No offense, but the limited gene pool in England has caused...shall we say...a rather ugly effect, alike to that in certain backwater parts of the US. New genes are very necessary to every gene pool. There is a reason that high traffic areas gene wise, NE coast and California rank so high in both intelligence and physical attractiveness.

I've been to, lived in, etc, the various parts of the US. If I had to really pluck it apart, I'd say that the most beautiful part of the country, population wise, is easily California, followed by the Mid-North East Coast. You just don't see a high degree of physical imperfection on a general level that you see in certain other parts of the country. To be blunt, where I currently live there is, among the tens of thousands of residents, approximately 2 truly overweight people, both from the city. The area's averages in state and national testing is always close to the top. Average income among even the "poor" in the region, is enough to at least own a condo, or a house even if it means renting out parts of it. Illiteracy is totally unknown, and divorce is relatively rare.

B) I've met many people educated by the English system, and I've found it roughly as good as Northern education, though some parts of it appear quite worse. Remember, the US suffers from having the South and Mid-West put into every single average in the country. You take those away, and American divorce, murder, weight, and illiteracy rates all plummet, while per capita income, College-Level education, and employment all skyrocket.

America is truly divided between the red states and the blue states, and the results in our national averages is ugly.


yes and if we removed milton keyens and a number of the slummyer parts of london lets say untill we have removed the same percentage of people you do with getting rid of the red states well you will notice quite a considerable difference

I love Americans questioning the European nations colonial pasts, when we ran around the world conquering nations and setting up puppet governments... wait a minute, doesnt that sound familair? Suspicously like current US foreign policy? America is a young nation that is now making the mistakes the old nations made over a hundred years ago.

Strangely enough it only seems to be Americans who ever bring this up. I literally can't think of a single conversation when anybody has brought up the empire, unless we're discussing parts of the world we fucked up.

Well, point taken. Though if you think we're bad you should check out the Dutch. Or the Chinese.

Please don´t take my comments as a NEGATIVE comment. It´s just a observation - I think it´s a bit odd, but so what?

you have to love us really

Please don´t take my comments as a NEGATIVE comment. It´s just a observation - I think it´s a bit odd, but so what?
Meh. You think we're slightly living in the past? There's a certain amount of truth in that in some parts of our society, but you should hear the Greeks on the subject of cultural influence. ;)

Well in defense of both American and English citizens, I guess were two most influential political countries in the world whose own citizens largely disapproved of their respective governments. That really sounds like a problem...and as a sidenote Ill be studying abroad next year and if any Europeans want to make reccomendations I love to hear it. As of now Im going to Denmark but let me know what you think!!!

Another point would be that without colonialism the United States wouldnt exist!

Oooh, let's have a "what do I miss?" contest.

Hmm, like you I miss the TV, curries, sense of humour and brown sauce (though it must be said that is but one part of the glory that is a fry-up).

Not too bothered about teabags (I am in China after all) or the language (I love spitting the old Mandarin around).

What else do I miss? Sunday lunch, real ale, country pubs, a proper drinking culture, crusty bread, Cathedral City, London (believe it or not), pedestrian crossings, politeness, Private Eye, Four-Four-Two, When Saturday Comes and Empire, the diversity, the weather (it gets down to -30 here) and the countryside

What don't I miss? Closing times, the prices, Big Brother and any of its bastard ilk, ITV, the tabloids, the music charts, the public transport (it's actually much better here), the mystifying trend for Thai food, the Croydon facelift and big hoop earings, the government, half of the stuff in the supermarket being "extra-virgin", "organic" or whatever else is trendy at the moment and Vernon fucking Kaye.

Tea was a big problem - no one else, in Europe anyway, makes it strong enough. You are sooooo right about public transport, I think it might be better everywhere else...I missed english language purely for making jokes, plus sarcasm is hard to do if you aren't a native.
When Saturday Comes was readily available in Belgium (strange but true) and I couldn't have got by without World Service Football Report on Saturdays :)
In fact I think pretty much everything on your lists sums it up perfectly! :)

Makes me think, people ought at least to be grateful to us for proffesional football even if they can't think of anything else!

Please don´t take my comments as a NEGATIVE comment. It´s just a observation - I think it´s a bit odd, but so what?

I wasn't, and don't take my comments as being defensive, just confused. I've hear this claim about obsession with the empire so often now I can't help but feel there's something to it, but it really doesn't match up with my experience, or any of my friends' experience for that matter. Maybe it's just something we bring up to take the piss out of/win arguments with Americans or other foreigners but don't actually believe.