I've heard there will be a vote in the UK for PM "sometime soon," and I'd like to help you folks make your decision. Trouble is,
I don't know a lot about the UK or the laws there, let alone who your political figures are. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to offer my opinions
as to what would be best for you, my spanner-turning friends, just as many of you have been so helpful in our recent election.
Most of the subjects I've heard of are dead: Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, George Harrison, Colin Chapman, etc. - I assume they'd be
ineligible as a result of assuming room temperature. Another bunch apparently don't live there any more: John Cleese, Hugh Grant, etc. - if
that matters - and I assume Madonna "Hester?" hasn't lived there long enough to qualify.
So, if you could please provide me with some names of possible contenders and maybe a sentence or two about each (no more than a paragraph), I'd
be glad to provide my informed recommendation. Unflattering descriptions or nicknames given by their opposition would be very helpful in my
assessment.
I already have some insight into the qualities of Tony Blair (splendid orator) and Richard Branson (your Donald Trump), but there must be more to pick
from, correct?
If there are rules (e.g., age, previous offices or occupations), please let me know - no sense backing someone who's not eligible.
Also:
1) Does the PM have to be a "Sir" or "Madam?"
2) How about Scots - are they eligible?
And does Vanessa Redgrave still live there? Seems like she'd be a good PM candidate for those who think Kerry would have been a better President
than Bush has been.
[Edited on 5/11/04 by carcentric]
[Edited on 5/11/04 by carcentric]
Trouble is, over here money can't buy you the PM's job. It helps, but you still have to serve time to become leader of a party which
receives enough votes for it to have a majority of MP's.
There are lots of names we would probably like to see but at the moment the only contenders are Tony Bliar, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy (not
related to the Kennedys you would know as far as I am aware) - oh, and maybe Robert Kilroy-Silk
Those that would make a good PM - non of the above in my opinion, but it's all we got!
Pretty sure that we would allow a Scot (Charles Kennedy has no chance otherwise), I know of no age limit, and they do not need to be a Sir or
anything.
quote:
Originally posted by carcentric
2) How about Scots - are they eligible?
great post carcentric...
quote:
So, if you could please provide me with some names of possible contenders and maybe a sentence or two about each (no more than a paragraph), I'd be glad to provide my informed recommendation.
ChrisW is doing a good job for us on here.....
good point col! chrisW for PM it is.
what were his policies again?
quote:
what were his policies again?
Notwithstanding the fact that Good old George won the contest in the States, our politics are nothing like across the pond.
For a start we have more choice (Monster raving loony party), and there is no doubt in my humble opinion that a lot of people in this country are
far from happy about the stance taken by Tony Blair and the "assistance" for whatever reason we have given to our Special friends in Iraq.
We have been lied to with regards to WMD's, the timescale with which these weapons could have been launched, and though I have no doubt that
Battlefield weapons (short range) were available to his forces, I fail to see how these could have been a danger to our to us. I hope that Joe public
in this country remembers these errors when Mr Cheesy
Grin stands for re-election. Trouble is I see no one else on the horizon that looks a better bet, maybe Gordon Brown? But then Im biased as hes also a
Scot.
Shug.
To be honest, I wouldn't care which side won our next election - as long as they have a small majority and have to work hard and negotiate to get
their policies through. At the moment Labour can push through any policy they fancy without opposition, which is a bad state of affairs for
everyone.
The Tories chickened out of having a candidate that would have been more than a match for Bliar - Ken Clark - due to his pro-Europe stance. I would
have loved to see him in opposition, as he would have torn the government to shreds (although I'm no Tory, I hasten to add).
rgds,
David
No offence meant carcentric, but any country that is daft enought to vote for that idiot George W, not once but twice. is in no way qualified to
assist us in our choice of leader, it is because of him and our own spineless PM that there is 3 scottish soldiers lying in body bags this morning, I
hope that should any good come out of his reelection is that he realises that he cant go around the world invading whichever country he has a dislike
for, hopefully he will work towards peace not war.
Ill get off my soap box now.
I'm personally very flattered that you're taking such an interest in our litle insignificant aircraft carrier. It's not as if
we're really that important on a global scale. We're a small island just off the west coast of europe - that's all.
Whereas you guys are truly the world's last remaining superpower, and the president of your country is the world's most powerful individual
for the term of their office. Quite a responsibility.
And when you consider that wherever your government goes, ours follows like lap dogs.
Jeez - I wonder why we're interested in you guys picking a good guy...
I don't usually get interested in politcs on such public forums - especially when it's so off topic, but I couldn't help but comment on
this occasion.
Anyway,
back to engines, suspension et al...
I think mr carcentric was after a jokey set of suggestions.
After all we have slated off his political system a bit.
yeah, its easier to be a PM than a president. We have only had the one shot dead compared to your four, so thats gotta say something (we are worse
shots?)
Anyone can be president. Are not all of them from rich backgrounds? Having said that, in the UK most of our top politicans are lawyers, or barristers
(top lawyer) like blair and his wife. There are a fair few 'of the people' in government tho - unless im mistaken most of the filthy rich
are conservatives.
I think initially my vote has to be for ozzy osborne.
He doesnt seem to know whats going on, relies a lot on his wife for support, is probably on something, and has no sense of control (quad bike).
He's also well known in the USA, and makes a lot of unintelligable noise.
Dunno about you lot, but I think he's got all the qualities needed for PM - and would still make more sense than george bush.
Dont you just know that if he was born in america, that swatzenegger would be vote in at the end of bush's term....
atb
steve
[Edited on 5/11/04 by stephen_gusterson]
uhhhh mann, eerrrrr, sharon.
uhhhh, imm likkee stiilll on this heeeaaaavvvy trip, but pleeeeesse tell me thaa boosshh duudde diiddnt winn.
this sturf is a baaadd trip tys time....
ozzy
future PM
correct spelling is Tony Bliar.
Does splendid orator means he speaks endess bul**it ?
Unlike America we will not return our president (Bliar) to office or his meddling cronys for that matter.
enough is enough
quote:
Originally posted by swood
correct spelling is Tony Bliar.
a tenner says blair will walk it blindfolded even if he was caught dogging in parliament square with anne widdicombe
was a lovely thought
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by swood
correct spelling is Tony Bliar.
Does splendid orator means he speaks endess bul**it ?
Unlike America we will not return our president (Bliar) to office or his meddling cronys for that matter.
enough is enough
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
Dont you just know that if he was born in america, that swatzenegger would be vote in at the end of bush's term....
hmm , completely off topic , but i was wondering why there isnt any american gold medal winners for shooting et al , would have thought itd be second nature for them rednecks .
quote:
Originally posted by Volvorsport
hmm , completely off topic , but i was wondering why there isnt any american gold medal winners for shooting et al , would have thought itd be second nature for them rednecks .
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
a tenner says blair will walk it blindfolded even if he was caught dogging in parliament square with anne widdicombe
Whatever happened to the ole' Iron lady? I'm interested in knowing what the people think about her now that she has been out for some
time.
Getting back on topic...
"Do you think maybe Blair is a man who take his clothes off and let his hcrumb go hard and put it in another man's bottom?"
- Borat
quote:
Originally posted by turbo time
Whatever happened to the ole' Iron lady?
quote:
Originally posted by swood and timf
correct spelling is Tony Bliar.
Does splendid orator means he speaks endess bul**it ? . . . now get it right
tony b* liar
not at all offended !!
With some irish ancestry , you definitely must be a good shot !!
As for politics - as long as the government doesnt F@@k up too much , im not that bothered .
ooh , now you come to mention it though EU regs are closing in and the government are proposing to tax you on how many cars you actually own even if
they arent on the road , Ive got a petition , ill post it later .
Carcentric,
Not offended at all. I'm extremely guilty of believing it matters to people who don't live in the US/can't vote who the President is or
atleast what his policies are!
In global terms, it no longer really matters that much who is PM of the UK. On the other hand the policies of the leader of the US very much affect
all of us (the rest of the world).
All the best,
James
EDIT: Thanks for the invite! It's returned if you're ever in the UK!
[Edited on 6/11/04 by James]
quote
And (at the risk of getting serious for a moment) to stephen_g, and the others who referred to our "thing" with guns, we see our freedom
from colony status as resulting from having an armed population - it's a big deal and we're proud of it. Canada and Australia (as I
understand it) waited for permission to leave the Empire, but waiting isn't something we're good at.
is having kids blow themselves away when they find daddies gun in the night stand worth that? Or being shot by a crazy as you load your car at home
depot worth that? Or is having a crazy kid machine gun a school worth that?
I think not.
The only justification I can see for guns is hunting or defending yourself from nature - ie a friggin big bear in the woods.
you dont need hand guns or automatics for that.
We can still own shotguns in the uk, but autos and hand guns were banned after the hungerford massacre and the killing of 15 kids in dunblane by a mad
peadophile.
there are no real reasons to hold a hand gun at home. If you have one, so does the criminal or the burglar in your home
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
It still amazes me that people can justify owning a gun for anything but hunting. The statics always prove that you are much more likely to be shot at
home if you own a gun. How you going to get the gun out of the gun safe in time to stop and man with a gun whose just come into your bedroom at night
and stuck his straight up your arse? If it's not to hand then it's not going to help you much with an intruder. And if it's to hand,
then anybody can get hold of it. And yes, the person who does leave one lying around may be a 'criminal', not much consolation for the dead
child though, is it.
And the line 'Guns don't kill people - people do' is the lamest thing I've ever heard. Don't know many five year old that
could do much damage with anything but daddy's gun, do you?
And if psycho/f*cked up teenage wakes up one morning with a deadwish is he really likely to sit down and try and make a bomb - or go and get a PhD in
chemist to learn how to poison people. I think not - not when it's so easy to just go any get daddy semi! In the UK we still have this problem
with the only thing available to kids - knives - not great, but at least you can't sit on a balcony and pick off your class mates.....
And in response to your question about armed robbery in the UK, it is so rare if anybody gets shot by anything more than a pea-shooter in the UK it
always makes national news. I seem to remember a statistic that a total of about a hundred people or so got shot in the UK last year, in the US it
would be more in a single day. Criminals rarely carry guns in the UK because home-owners and the police so rare have them. We still use good old
'fisty-cuffs'. And the vast majority of the few people killed each year are gang members or other criminals - not the general public.
It would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad - the US are so obsessed with getting killed by terrorists, and yet the number of Americans killed by
fellow Americans is vastly higher than the number killed by terrorists - even with 9/11 taken into account. But I suppose it's ok - as it's
all done in the name of 'freedom', and at least it ain't a 'rag-head' doing the killing.
Sorry - just got on the soap box again - gonna get off now
[Edited on 6/11/04 by Jasper]
[Edited on 6/11/04 by Jasper]
there are a lot more peeps shot over here than the powers that be would like you know about.
i used to go to murder scenes at least twice a week to pick up cars used in murder/shootings,multiply that by the amount of peeps doing the same job
as me over the country and it probly nearly 1000.
only time they make news is when its in broard daylight in the high street
Yes - but John, u live in West London, where at least 95% of shooting take place
Joking aside though, even if the number is a fair bit higher, it is still mostly scumbags killing other scumbags - so it's a good thing really
not all scumbags deserve shooting. I've known of a few blokes with a shady past who have been murdered or tortured for money and drugs, most didnt deserve it.
good point jasper,ive had a gun pointed at me and been offered said weapons for a couple of hundred quid,i have also fired said weapons including 45,s
38,s 9mm and shot guns,they are ok in safe hands but most crims round here are anything but safe
It's quite amusing that this topic was posted on the day that we celebrate Guy Fawkes.
He gets my vote every time
ATB
Simon
In the US crime data is based on reported crime.
Unless the method in the UK has been changed recently, crime data is based on convictions. If no-one was caught and convicted then no statistic is
logged.
Yes, a nutcase will sit down and build a bomb. Columbin was planned for weeks ahead of time, and other students knew of the threat...... It was
headuptheirarse faculty that ingnored the warning signs.
peeps,
has anyone actually read the bill of rights?
i believe we are discussing the second amendment, are we not?
anyway, found a copy on the net.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
does the second amendment actually allow individual civilians to keep and bear arms, or is it actually talking about "a well regulated
militia"?
seems to me that there is quite a bit of discussion taking place on this forum between people who are not in full possession of the facts.
seem to remember another discussion where a particular manufacturer was criticised about it's wishbones and there wasn't even a photograph
of the offending article available, let alone a failure analysis.
during a discussion about the merits of butter over margarine, it was stated by one individual that butter was healthier than margarine and that all
margarine contained hydrogenated/trans fat.
trivial examples maybe, but examples of uninformed/uneducated discussion that leads where, exactly?
are you not familiar with the saying?
"if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
so now that we are in possession of the facts, i would be interested to hear what the various interpretations of "a well regulated militia"
are.
kindest regards,
dom.
not a clue about the militia, but amendment 8 is a blinder...
quote:
Originally posted by type r1
"if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
dom.
quote:
Originally posted by theconrodkid
there are a lot more peeps shot over here than the powers that be would like you know about.
i used to go to murder scenes at least twice a week to pick up cars used in murder/shootings,multiply that by the amount of peeps doing the same job as me over the country and it probly nearly 1000.
only time they make news is when its in broard daylight in the high street
I believe New York (city) and Washington DC (city) have laws that prevent possession of, let alone use of, a handgun, and their rates of crime with
handguns are among the highest in the US.
At the other end of the continuum, you'll LOVE this:
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Yep, DC and New York are some of the most dangerous places not only to live but to exercise your 2nd amendment right.
Just after the 1976 DC gun ban, an incedent occured where 3 female roomamtes in a townhouse were broken in on during the night. 1 lived downstairs and
2 had upstairs bedrooms. The assailants got to the lady downstairs and her struggles woke the roomates upstairs. The 2 upstairs called 911 (emergency
number for police fire etc.) and crawled out the upstairs window to hide and watch for the police. After 15 minutes a police car drove by slowed in
front of the house and went on. Then 1 of the ladies climbed back into the house and called 911 again. This time the police came back 20 minutes
later. By then the downstair roomate had been gang raped repeatedly, and the suspect were gone.
The women sued the police for failure to answer the call in an efficient manner. The court ruled that a citizen has no reasonable right to expect the
police to protect them.
But you still will go to jail for owning a gun in DC..... unless your're a Senator or Congressman, they can carry for self-protection.
The militia statement in the Bill of Rights must be considered in context. America at this time had no standing army, nor any plans to form one. The
states were pretty much autonomous at that point, and most had laws which REQUIRED citizens to keep and maintain weapons suitable for use in war.
These laws specified the calibur and size of weapon, required you to have certain support equipment such as bullet moulds and powder, and required the
state to provide refills of these provisions, if a war did arise.
Some pundits claim this militia refers to our National Guard reserves, but they wern't formed till the early 1900's.
For some good info on the context of the Bill of Rights, the communictions between the authors has been preserved and these documents are know as the
Federalist Papers. the FP are readily available on the net.
dudes,
the points made by 'the shootist' (not sure of his real name as he doesn't mention it at the end of his post) are not entirely
relevant.
no one is denying the fact that violent crime exists. most of us live in societies where there are those who flout the law, and in that process,
violate the human rights and civil liberties of others, even take their lives. that doesn't mean that it's o.k. for people to own guns
(except for sport). two wrongs don't make a right.
it is not the responsibility of the general public to enforce the law or to punish criminals, that is the job of the police force, the judiciary and
the penal system.
we are entitled to defend ourselves, using reasonable force, nothing more. we are also entitled to expect any law enforcing agency, that we pay for
through our taxes, to do the job they're paid to do and protect us.
as 'the shootist' says, the bill of rights was written before there was a national guard. but the national guard is "a well regulated
militia" which serves the citizens of the u.s. as proscribed by the second ammendment.
no civilian anywhere in the world (the u.s. included) has the right to deprive another person of their life, whether they are a criminal or not. so
why would they want to own a gun? (playing devil's advocate here a bit, to stimulate the discussion).
thoughts anyone?
regards,
dom.
quote:
Originally posted by type r1
dudes, . . . we are entitled to defend ourselves, using reasonable force, nothing more.. . .no civilian anywhere in the world (the u.s. included) has the right to deprive another person of their life, whether they are a criminal or not. so why would they want to own a gun? . . .
quote:
Originally posted by carcentric
quote:
Originally posted by Hugh Jarce
Is this all fairly representative of the current American psychi? . . .
I'm just very glad we have lots of deep water between us - and metal detectors at our borders ........
(In no particular order) Rambling #1.
I have a business associate that was shot in the face with a shotgun in a restaurant in america. He was having a meal with a client, when the partner
of a waitress came in with the intent to kill her, which he duly did. He then blew away the owner and his wife, then started to shoot around the
restaurant. My aquaintence ducked behind a table, and only got partial force. The guy then shot himself. The police asked my associate to come back a
couple hrs later to describe what happened. When he got back to the UK his face was full of black dots. They don’t dig pellets out
– they wait for them to grow out.
Now, if guns were not available, perhaps the guy might have hit her about a bit and moved his life on. Instead, four people died. For a lovers
tiff.
Rambling #2. How are you folks who'd never kill (even in self-defense) gonna prevail without hurting t'other feller? Are you all Kung Fu
masters (or stage hypnotists)?
Hurting the other fella isnt the point. The reason ‘the state’ and law exists is to have a mechanism that punishes criminals. In
UK law you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to kill or maim, even in self defence. All you are allowed to do is to use reasonable force. That doesn’t
give you the right to end someones life cos they were trying to steal your video recorder. How could that make any kind of sense!!!!!! A guy that
shot a burglar (tony martin) running away from his home was given several years jail. Yes, he shot a ‘scumbag’ but the guy was
shot in the back running away from a house after being chaed out with a shotgun. He was 16. Was that a fair response to a burglary?
Rambling #3. If the assailant "only" has an 18" long iron pipe for a weapon, am I using unreasonable force to hit him with a 24"
pipe? And if he swings and misses, must I also swing and miss - to be "fair?"
Again, UK law states reasonable force.
Rambling #4: Have any of the Charles Bronson movies (e.g., any of the five "Death Wish" films) ever played in the UK? If they have, are they
well received or seen as degenerate?
They may have been controversial at the time, but watching them now they are total cheese and total total total stereotypical crap. Michael Winner
(director) is pretty cheesy too. Yeah, we all like shoot em ups, and Arnie blowing the bad guys away, but again, is the sentence for stealing a wallet
a bullet?
Rambling #5. I believe "reasonable force" is the amount of violence it takes to stop an attack. This may mean you do something harmful, then
stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If he does you do something worse, then stop to see if the attacker resumes the attack. If you're
being attacked by someone high on PCP (or the Black Knight from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie), you must kill him if you can't
outrun him.
In UK law you are pretty likely to end up in court if you get into a major battle like this. You have legs – use them to get out of the
situation.
Getting back to the start of this thread, do any of the PM candidates have a nickname of "cowboy," "the equalizer," "Conan
the Barbarian," or some such? I'm beginning to think that's who I should back in your next election.
The only terms I can think or are ‘two jags’ for john prescott, and something pretty unmentionable for the rest.
is it just me or have we gotten slightly off topic...
boris for pm!!!
boris from goldeneye? he was pretty cool