NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that most people probably don't care very much about British Politics and I know that the people who care the least are unfortuantely usually British. But something pretty interesting (in my view) happened last night. Tony Blair lost his first parliamentary vote in the erm... 8 years he's been Prime Minister over the new terrorist legislation.
The Conservatives, Lib Dems and 49 (If Im wrong correct me) Labour rebels opposed this bill and knocked it out. They were opposed to the idea that terrorist suspects should be held for up to 3 moths without charge. They proposed a shorter maximum of 28 days. However, the government refused to back down and lost quite drmatically yesterday evening.
The Met Police and Sir Ian Blair, who runs it, made a plea in parliament for support for this bill. Apart from being a clear failure for them and Mr. Blair, what should we make of these events? Are they a victory for civil liberties? Or a victory for the terrorists?

A victory for civil liberties.

A victory for civil liberties. The 90 days incarceration without a trial proposal shows it best. The original 14 days was extended to 28, but extending it to 90 was discarded.

A victory for civil liberties. The 90 days incarceration without a trial proposal shows it best. The original 14 days was extended to 28, but extending it to 90 was discarded.
Technically I agree. I think perhaps 60 *waits for jeers.* The reason that this is all very odd is that public opinion is firmly behind Blair on this matter. The Mirror this morning referred to MPs as "traitors" (It may have been the Sun actually). I'm not sure what to think, but I do believe that if we can save lives that would otherwise be lost, at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.

Civil Liberties, and I'm desperately hoping that this will somehow affect the Australian vote on the Anti-Terror laws as well.

Technically I agree. I think perhaps 60 *waits for jeers.* The reason that this is all very odd is that public opinion is firmly behind Blair on this matter. The Mirror this morning referred to MPs as "traitors" (It may have been the Sun actually). I'm not sure what to think, but I do believe that if we can save lives that would otherwise be lost, at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.I remember hearing whoever was leading the opposition asking Blair: "Can you name any cases in which the police actually needed 90 days?" and Blair failed to provide one.

I'm not sure what to think, but I do believe that if we can save lives that would otherwise be lost, at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.
I always say "What is the statistical probability that you will get killed by a terrorist?"
And you must agree that you're more likely to get struck by lightning. I don't see them locking away all citizens in Faraday's Metal Cages just yet, do I.

And I certainly don't think it would be wise...

I remember hearing whoever was leading the opposition asking Blair: "Can you name any cases in which the police actually needed 90 days?" and Blair failed to provide one.
Very true. That man was Michael Howard, who's party I have supported for years. However, I find it hard to agree with him on this one.

I always say "What is the statistical probability that you will get killed by a terrorist?"
And you must agree that you're more likely to get struck by lightning. I don't see them locking away all citizens in Faraday's Metal Cages just yet, do I.

And I certainly don't think it would be wise...

A fair point. However, the fact that the risk does exist should warrant strong measures to combat it. I probably won't be killed by a terrorist and would rather hope Im not, but the fact is that since the last string of attacks, there have been two significant plots foiled.
I just think that the police must have reasons to lobby parliament in this manner and call for this. I think it would be unlikely for them to demand this without sufficient reason.

I know that most people probably don't care very much about British Politics
Well, they cared enough to start a thread on this subject yesterday:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453181

Is that tony blair British?
Then he does not care 'bout Britiah politics!
And he said it's better losing a good law than voting a bad one.

tata matey

I just think that the police must have reasons to lobby parliament in this manner and call for this. I think it would be unlikely for them to demand this without sufficient reason.
The question is though what these new laws actually do.

I can only speak for Oz now, but right now they are proposing to detain people without trial - Stupid, either they've done something wrong, then the criminal system can cope with them (there are laws against detonating a bomb somewhere already), or they haven't in which case the detention would be unnecessary anyways.
They also want it to be secret when they detain someone, to the extent that if anyone, including the media, talks about it, they're liable for 7 years jail. WTF!!! How is that helping to prevent attacks?
And my favourite: It is no about to become illegal to say things considered to be agains National Security. Saying things like "the Iraq war is terrorism" (ie Pilger) or "Osama Bin Laden has devoted his life, material pleasures and his riches to something he believes in. That makes him a great man." (both these examples have been quoted as cases for this law) now not only results in a 5 year jail-term BUT THAT PUNISHMENT CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE MEDIA WHICH REPORTS IT!

It's utter and complete insanity, and I can tell you with 99.9% certainty that I will be more affected by these laws than by terrorism.

Well, they cared enough to start a thread on this subject yesterday:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453181

Ok Ok. I didn't check back very far. I was simply being pessimistic. The only thing less unexpected than being corrected on this forum is getting people to agree with you.

I'm not sure what to think, but I do believe that if we can save lives that would otherwise be lost, at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.Even if it's you? Or someone you love?

The question is though what these new laws actually do.

I can only speak for Oz now, but right now they are proposing to detain people without trial - Stupid, either they've done something wrong, then the criminal system can cope with them (there are laws against detonating a bomb somewhere already), or they haven't in which case the detention would be unnecessary anyways.
They also want it to be secret when they detain someone, to the extent that if anyone, including the media, talks about it, they're liable for 7 years jail. WTF!!! How is that helping to prevent attacks?
And my favourite: It is no about to become illegal to say things considered to be agains National Security. Saying things like "the Iraq war is terrorism" (ie Pilger) or "Osama Bin Laden has devoted his life, material pleasures and his riches to something he believes in. That makes him a great man." (both these examples have been quoted as cases for this law) now not only results in a 5 year jail-term BUT THAT PUNISHMENT CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE MEDIA WHICH REPORTS IT!

I do fear for the implications these laws will have on free speech. But to be honest, the measures you describe are not part of the Bill proposed by our government yesterday and have no bearing on my personal argument.

It's utter and complete insanity, and I can tell you with 99.9% certainty that I will be more affected by these laws than by terrorism.
Hmm.... not got anything to hide have we Neu Leonstein? *joke*

The question is though what these new laws actually do.

I can only speak for Oz now, but right now they are proposing to detain people without trial - Stupid, either they've done something wrong, then the criminal system can cope with them (there are laws against detonating a bomb somewhere already), or they haven't in which case the detention would be unnecessary anyways.
They also want it to be secret when they detain someone, to the extent that if anyone, including the media, talks about it, they're liable for 7 years jail. WTF!!! How is that helping to prevent attacks?
And my favourite: It is no about to become illegal to say things considered to be agains National Security. Saying things like "the Iraq war is terrorism" (ie Pilger) or "Osama Bin Laden has devoted his life, material pleasures and his riches to something he believes in. That makes him a great man." (both these examples have been quoted as cases for this law) now not only results in a 5 year jail-term BUT THAT PUNISHMENT CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE MEDIA WHICH REPORTS IT!

I do fear for the implications these laws will have on free speech. But to be honest, the measures you describe are not part of the Bill proposed by our government yesterday and have no bearing on my personal argument.

It's utter and complete insanity, and I can tell you with 99.9% certainty that I will be more affected by these laws than by terrorism.
Hmm.... not got anything to hide have we Neu Leonstein? *joke*

Detention without trial for any longer than absolutely neccesary is an outrage.
If the police cannot find evidence to charge people with a crime within even 3 days, why did they pick them up?

Also of course keeping awaiting trial suspects in prison for a long time is just as outrageous. Well done to the House of Commons for upholding the very freedoms the terrorists are trying to destroy.

at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.

THAT would be victory for the terrorists.

If the police cannot find evidence to charge people with a crime within even 3 days, why did they pick them up?

Lets face it, the issue of the lengthy holding period is nothing to do with collecting evidence against the individual concerned. It is more of an issue when one is talking about conspiracies of multiple possible individuals, any one of which my behave rashly if they consider their group compromised. The police simply want to ensure that an individual that experts consider to pose a significantly possible threat, or possibly significant threat, is out of action until the rest of his misguided comrades can be safely secured as well. Acting precipitously, as the police would be forced to with a time limit of 3 days, will severely limit the effectiveness of any attempt to break such a group.

Also of course keeping awaiting trial suspects in prison for a long time is just as outrageous.

The police and judges have a limited amount of time and a large number of cases to examine. The attendant secrecy arrangements mean that it is as much to the benefit of the defendant to be patient as it is for the prosecutor. And again, see above.

Civil Liberties, and I'm desperately hoping that this will somehow affect the Australian vote on the Anti-Terror laws as well.

Not likely as Beastly is supporting them too.

Technically I agree. I think perhaps 60 *waits for jeers.* The reason that this is all very odd is that public opinion is firmly behind Blair on this matter. The Mirror this morning referred to MPs as "traitors" (It may have been the Sun actually). I'm not sure what to think, but I do believe that if we can save lives that would otherwise be lost, at the risk of occasionally infringing on the rights of the odd innocent person we might be wise to do it.
Public opinion as whole isn't necessarily behind Blair, though, just the more right wing papers. There's still a difference, as yet.

A victory for civil liberties.

Extending the period for holding without trial from 14 days to 28 days is a victory for civil liberties? Pretty strange definition of 'victory' you've got going there.

Extending the period for holding without trial from 14 days to 28 days is a victory for civil liberties? Pretty strange definition of 'victory' you've got going there.

I was going to say, "Wow, don't have a problem with 14 days?"

I was going to say, "Wow, don't have a problem with 14 days?"Less of a problem than he'd have with 90 days, though it's a fair point. I don't see it as a victory myself. Nothing short of Blair leaving office is going to achieve that at this point.

Less of a problem than he'd have with 90 days, though it's a fair point. I don't see it as a victory myself. Nothing short of Blair leaving office is going to achieve that at this point.

Is there anyone else in Labour (who would likely succeed Blair) who would continue the 14 day policy?

Would they let it rest, or would they remove it once Blair was out of office?

It's a victory for civil liberties. I hope the USA Patriot Act can be overturned soon. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." By choosing the path of security over the path of individual and civil liberties, we hand victory to terrorists for besmirching the fabric of our societies.

mixed: 90 days rejected/28 accepted

Extending the period for holding without trial from 14 days to 28 days is a victory for civil liberties? Pretty strange definition of 'victory' you've got going there.

Since the alternative was 90 days, you can at least call it a Pyrrhic victory for civil liberties.

Since the alternative was 90 days, you can at least call it a Pyrrhic victory for civil liberties.
I'd call it a step in the right direction.

I hope somone pointed out to him.... pssstt Tony, it didn't work in N. Ireland before you know....

I'd call it a step in the right direction.

I hope somone pointed out to him.... pssstt Tony, it didn't work in N. Ireland before you know....
The main problem I have with investigations is that they usually point up that the investigators don't really know what's going on - regardless of how long you give them.

It's a victory, of sorts, for both civil liberties and clear thinking. It will make the job of GB security forces more difficult, but nobody promised them their job would be easy. This is the better way.

I'd call it a step in the right direction.

I hope somone pointed out to him.... pssstt Tony, it didn't work in N. Ireland before you know....

Actually, it did. The first time interment was introduced it was on the back of very devoloped intellegence. It shattered the IRA and UDA.

The second time however, the IRA forced the goverments hand six month before they wanted it introduced. With no intellegence network set up, the British mearly picked up the most visable troublemakers. When these ran out, and political pressure was beign applied, the RUC responded by picking up anyone. That failed spectacularly.

Since the alternative was 90 days, you can at least call it a Pyrrhic victory for civil liberties.

Would you define it as a pyrrhic victory if someone just stabbed you after threatening to shoot you? Face it, its a defeat.

I'm mostly scared that now Blair will have a hard time putting through his Education/healthcare and social benefits reforms in the spring of next year. If he fails in any of those he might have to step down. And I certainly wouldn't want to see Brown in power.

Actually, it did. The first time interment was introduced it was on the back of very devoloped intellegence. It shattered the IRA and UDA.


The UDA? The UDA hadn't even been formed when internment started in '71, and was a legal organisation for another twenty years after that.

The UDA?
Ulster Defence Assoc.

I think he's right- they were a big player in the 60's 70's.

Think about it. I know, lets get all the terrorists and terrorist suspects together in one place... free to disseminate information, ideas, thoughts, and educate those who might only have been sympathetic... what could go wrong after they're released?

Ulster Defence Assoc.

I think he's right- they were a big player in the 60's 70's.


Check your facts. I know what the UDA stands for. They didn't exist until after internment was introduced, and only became a proscribed organisation in '91.

If this is a victory for civil liberties then it's a pretty hollow one. Yes, the abhorrent 90-days clause got canned, but there's still plenty in the motion to be concerned about. As with so many of this government's bills, a truly shocking draft is rejected in order that a less obviously alarming yet nonetheless authoritarian replacement is passed. Everyone thinks their liberties are protected when they are not.

I've never felt more disenfranchised.

If this is a victory for civil liberties then it's a pretty hollow one. Yes, the abhorrent 90-days clause got canned, but there's still plenty in the motion to be concerned about. As with so many of this government's bills, a truly shocking draft is rejected in order that a less obviously alarming yet nonetheless authoritarian replacement is passed. Everyone thinks they're liberties are protected when they are not.

I've never felt more disenfranchised.

It's like being the frog in a pot of water. If they heat the water slowly, the frog doesn't notice it's about to boil until it's too late.

Everytime I watch Brazil, I think of how Britain will be in a few years.

Check your facts. I know what the UDA stands for. They didn't exist until after internment was introduced, and only became a proscribed organisation in '91.

Nope, UDA were around in the 70's.

You're right about them being proscribed in the 90's alright.

Linky:The UDA was, and remains, the largest Loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. It was formed in September 1971 from a number of Loyalist vigilante groups many of which were called 'defence associations'; one such group was the Shankill Defence Association. The UDA's first leader was Charles Smith. Members of the UDA have, since 1973, used the cover name of Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) to claim the responsibility for the killing of Catholics....
UDA was only proscribed (declared illegal) on 10 August 1992. The UDA attracted many thousands of members (at its peak the estimated membership was 50,000) and very quickly became a formidable force particularly in Belfast.

Actually, looking through that site... .yuck...

Allright then. Im back. Look's like I've started something here.

If this is a victory for civil liberties then it's a pretty hollow one. Yes, the abhorrent 90-days clause got canned, but there's still plenty in the motion to be concerned about. As with so many of this government's bills, a truly shocking draft is rejected in order that a less obviously alarming yet nonetheless authoritarian replacement is passed. Everyone thinks their liberties are protected when they are not.

I've never felt more disenfranchised.

I don't think that the majority of people in Britain would agree with these sentients. Forget "I don't think" actually, I know they wouldn't.

I don't think that the majority of people in Britain would agree with these sentients. Forget "I don't think" actually, I know they wouldn't.

I keep hearing that this: http://www.livingtv.co.uk/mosthaunted/

is one of the most popular shows on UK television. If true, then it's hard to say if they have the ability to discern the difference on any other topic.

Nope, UDA were around in the 70's.

Yes, they were formed in September 1971, after internment was introduced in August of that year, and to the best of my knowledge no members were interned.

I keep hearing that this: http://www.livingtv.co.uk/mosthaunted/

is one of the most popular shows on UK television. If true, then it's hard to say if they have the ability to discern the difference on any other topic.

I think you'll find that it is not. You present further evidence that there are as many idiots in your country as there are in mine.

Yes, they were formed in September 1971, after internment was introduced in August of that year, and to the best of my knowledge no members were interned.

Oh yes. Internment didn't affect them.... was that what we were debating? :confused: Oh, apologies- thought it was some side topic, never mind :D

I keep hearing that this: http://www.livingtv.co.uk/mosthaunted/

is one of the most popular shows on UK television. If true, then it's hard to say if they have the ability to discern the difference on any other topic.

American equivalent...... National Enquirer. Or maybe..... as popular as QVC. (Home Shopping Network or whatever you guys call it )

Oh yes. Internment didn't affect them.... was that what we were debating? :confused: Oh, apologies- thought it was some side topic, never mind :D

Yeah, I was taking issue with DrunkenDove's spurious claimand then we got sidetracked when someone thought I was asking what the UDA was.

American equivalent...... National Enquirer. Or maybe..... as popular as QVC. (Home Shopping Network or whatever you guys call it )

Firstly, lets all remember that Fox is American.
Secondly, this is getting irrelevant.

Yeah, I was taking issue with DrunkenDove's spurious claimand then we got sidetracked when someone thought I was asking what the UDA was.

*blushes* hehehe... whoops. :D

I think you'll find that it is not. You present further evidence that there are as many idiots in your country as there are in mine.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklytop30&requesttimeout=500

It doesn't get as many viewers as Lost, but it's got a lot of viewers.

The other popular shows seem to be just as appalling.

Could it be that TV has a mind-numbing effect that is used to political advantage in developed countries?

Yes, they were formed in September 1971, after internment was introduced in August of that year, and to the best of my knowledge no members were interned.

You're right. I was quoting from memory. Can we stop nitpicking now?

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklytop30&requesttimeout=500

It doesn't get as many viewers as Lost, but it's got a lot of viewers.

The other popular shows seem to be just as appalling.

Could it be that TV has a mind-numbing effect that is used to political advantage in developed countries?

As most of these programmes were made in America, or are based on American shows perhaps they are mind-numbing. Your point is irrelevant. Come back you have something interesting to say.
Also... I like Lost!

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklytop30&requesttimeout=500

It doesn't get as many viewers as Lost, but it's got a lot of viewers.

The other popular shows seem to be just as appalling.

Could it be that TV has a mind-numbing effect that is used to political advantage in developed countries?
Yes.

Carops, I'm not surprised that the majority of the UK populace are too stupid and/or ignorant to realise how bad this is.

Could it be that TV has a mind-numbing effect that is used to political advantage in developed countries?

Indeed. I've given up watching TV in the past few weeks, and feel all the better for it. Of course, I'm now on the internet all the time. *Shrugs*

As most of these programmes were made in America, or are based on American shows perhaps they are mind-numbing. Your point is irrelevant. Come back you have something interesting to say.
Also... I like Lost!

Most Haunted is definitely a UK show. On regular UK TV, it looks like Eastenders is really big (I happen to like it, but it is mindless as well).

What I'm trying to say is:

What percentage of UK residents actually care one way or the other? How likely are they to personally experience being arrested without trial (or how likely do they think it is)?

I would bet most are thinking, "It will never happen to me".

Yes.

Carops, I'm not surprised that the majority of the UK populace are too stupid and/or ignorant to realise how bad this is.

Indeed. Your understanding of our country is minimal and so can be used to form a stark contrast to your ignorance.

I would bet most are thinking, "It will never happen to me".

But then again, most people don't vote. Hopefully they'll cancel themselves out.

Most Haunted is definitely a UK show. On regular UK TV, it looks like Eastenders is really big (I happen to like it, but it is mindless as well).

What I'm trying to say is:

What percentage of UK residents actually care one way or the other? How likely are they to personally experience being arrested without trial (or how likely do they think it is)?

I would bet most are thinking, "It will never happen to me".

Most Haunted is a UK show... but I'm sure there is a US alternative. However, that is irrelevant. The majority of British people started caring when people lay maimed and dying on the streets of London after the 7/7 attacks. You could say that woke us up. And, shockingly, perhaps we dont want it to happen again.

Most Haunted is a UK show... but I'm sure there is a US alternative.

Yes, it's popular over here, too - unaltered.

Indeed. Your understanding of our country is minimal and so can be used to form a stark contrast to your ignorance.
Strange. There was me thinking I'd been living here for the whole of my life.

Put away your rose-tinted specs and take a proper look around. It ain't pretty.

I know that most people probably don't care very much about British Politics and I know that the people who care the least are unfortuantely usually British. But something pretty interesting (in my view) happened last night. Tony Blair lost his first parliamentary vote in the erm... 8 years he's been Prime Minister over the new terrorist legislation.
The Conservatives, Lib Dems and 49 (If Im wrong correct me) Labour rebels opposed this bill and knocked it out. They were opposed to the idea that terrorist suspects should be held for up to 3 moths without charge. They proposed a shorter maximum of 28 days. However, the government refused to back down and lost quite drmatically yesterday evening.
The Met Police and Sir Ian Blair, who runs it, made a plea in parliament for support for this bill. Apart from being a clear failure for them and Mr. Blair, what should we make of these events? Are they a victory for civil liberties? Or a victory for the terrorists?

A victory for civil liberties.
If one is genuinely a terrorist, it seems that 28 days should be long enough for the government to decide on what charges to hold a person. And then afford that person access to counsel. If the government cannot make up it's mind, in a whole month...on what charges to prosecute a prisoner, then they have no right to continue to hold that person, incommunicado, and with no formal charges being filed against them.
Terrorists are most definitely scum, and should be treated very harshly. However, it seems that, if one truly is a terrorist, the government ought to have enough on them to decide how to proceed to give the accused his trial...additional charges can always be added later, if warranted.
Any government that fails to do that is being given unlimted power to "dissappear" "enemies" of all sorts, and you start down a slippery slope. Without rule of law, and without checks and balances, there is a fearfully thin line between a Federal agent and a thug...or, for that matter, a terrorist.

Let us not allow our governments, in their struggle to combat terrorism...become terrorists themselves. Let us ensure our governments continue to be accountable for their actions, answerable to their people, and humane in the treatment of all prisoners.

Strange. There was me thinking I'd been living here for the whole of my life.

Put away your rose-tinted specs and take a proper look around. It ain't pretty.

Maybe Carops hasn't been to Manchester.

Maybe Carops hasn't been to Manchester.
...Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Leeds, Greater London...

...Sunderland, Southampton, Northampton, Glasgow, Peterborough, Milton Keynes...

...Southend, Derby, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Humberside...

Lets face it, the issue of the lengthy holding period is nothing to do with collecting evidence against the individual concerned. It is more of an issue when one is talking about conspiracies of multiple possible individuals, any one of which my behave rashly if they consider their group compromised. The police simply want to ensure that an individual that experts consider to pose a significantly possible threat, or possibly significant threat, is out of action until the rest of his misguided comrades can be safely secured as well. Acting precipitously, as the police would be forced to with a time limit of 3 days, will severely limit the effectiveness of any attempt to break such a group.



The police and judges have a limited amount of time and a large number of cases to examine. The attendant secrecy arrangements mean that it is as much to the benefit of the defendant to be patient as it is for the prosecutor. And again, see above.

Hmmm...and just what is a "conspiracy?" What is a "significant possible threat?" And what is "misguided?"
I can see the day when, if allowed to go unchecked, governments will begin to see ANYONE opposed to their agenda as being "involved in a conspiracy," "a significant possible threat," and just plain "misguided."
Do you think, for a minute that Mr. Bush, for example...if he could get away with it...would not just LOVE to get all Democrats, and others who oppose him politically...and hold them incommunicado? In his eyes, would not these people who oppose his agenda be "misguided," or "a significant possible threat?"
Yeah, a significant possible threat to him retaining his power!! And how long before plotting legal ways to get him out of office and acting with a group to advance that cause would be considered "being part of a conspiracy?"

No, I don't like your argument, not for a minute...it gives governments far too much leeway in terms of deciding exactly WHO is "involved in a conspiracy," WHO "poses a significant possible threat," and WHO is "misguided."

I don't trust our current government here in the United States. Do you trust YOURS? Do you trust yours to not abuse new powers? I sure as hell don't trust mine to not abuse them!

...Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Leeds, Greater London...

...Sunderland, Southampton, Northampton, Glasgow, Peterborough, Milton Keynes...

...Southend, Derby, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Humberside...

and godforsaken Barrow-in-Furness...

Tony Blair is silly

Strange. There was me thinking I'd been living here for the whole of my life.

Put away your rose-tinted specs and take a proper look around. It ain't pretty.

*grumbles back to cheerless cave*

*grumbles back to cheerless cave*
If it would stop raining in Manchester, you would have a cheerier cave.

...Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Leeds, Greater London...

...Sunderland, Southampton, Northampton, Glasgow, Peterborough, Milton Keynes...

...Southend, Derby, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Humberside...

True.... England's a piece of Crap. But it's our piece of crap!

If it would stop raining in Manchester, you would have a cheerier cave.
No... it's still cold... *sobs* It could be worse, I could be in Hull.

No... it's still cold... *sobs* It could be worse, I could be in Hull.

Oh, Hull. Where the men are ugly, and the women are even uglier...

Oh, Hull. Where the men are ugly, and the women are even uglier...
No the women are actually just uglier men....

My jaundiced view is certainly not helped by waking up almost every morning next to the largest housing estate in Europe.

Strange. There was me thinking I'd been living here for the whole of my life.

Put away your rose-tinted specs and take a proper look around. It ain't pretty.

The bit north of the Tyne is. (Well, except for Blyth Valley).

It is pretty shite below there though.

My jaundiced view is certainly not helped by waking up almost every morning next to the largest housing estate in Europe.

Where's that. Glasgow?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4136342.stm

I haven't been everywhere in the UK yet, but I liked Harrogate the most.

Hull just sucks.

My jaundiced view is certainly not helped by waking up almost every morning next to the largest housing estate in Europe.

Fair enough
But there are lots of pretty gorgeous parts of the country. I live in Greater Manchester, not Manchester and I live in a small village on its edge. True, the local towns are decidedly shitty, but Manchester city centre is brilliant now and the scenary nereby is breathtaking. I know we're not perfect but there are much worse countries to live in. At least we tried to provide housing estates, despite the way they have turned out.

Middlesbrough, allegedly, is a hotbed of child molestation.

It is truly horrible though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4136342.stm

I haven't been everywhere in the UK yet, but I liked Harrogate the most.

Hull just sucks.

Have you been to the Lake District? You should use Rugby League as a marker. If you find that a town has a large rugby league following, its not worth visiting.

Have you been to the Lake District? You should use Rugby League as a marker. If you find that a town has a large rugby league following, its not worth visiting.
Not the Lake District (Cumbria?)

But I've been to the Yorkshire Dales.

Not the Lake District (Cumbria?)

But I've been to the Yorkshire Dales.

Yep Cumbria. I like it there, at least
Also... avoid Blackburn! At all costs!

Where's that. Glasgow?

Yeah, where is it? The largest one in Europe used to be Rathcoole in North Belfast - at one point it had 10,000 population and not even a community centre to its name.