- Apr 24, 2011
- Reaction score
No thanks, i'd sooner have tea :O
Control C? Copy?God
Yes God ?
'I've decided that the Universe isn't working very well, so I'm giving up on it'
Which Universe God. The one with Earth in it ?
'Yes, that's the one. as from now, no upgrades of patches'.
Shall I press Control C ?
'No, just leave it. They will screw up the whole thing soon without us wasting the energy of a super nova'
I like that, God. You always thinking about the economics.
'Why, Thank you Peter'.
Not comparable.Just seen the news reports of baton-wielding riot police beating up Catalan independence demonstrators in Barcelona.
An ample demonstration that Spain, with its fascist Francoist legacy still very evident, is far closer to a police state than the UK.
For the UK to be in the same ballpark as Spain, the government would have to round up the SNP and Plaid Cymru leaders and gaol them for sedition.
The particular difficulty with the abortion debate is that the two opposing sides are not for and against the same thing.
Anti abortion lobby campaigners against abortion. They consider it to be always the worst option. They choose to prioritise the sanctity of the life of the unborn child over all other considerations. Like all "absolute" positions (including the one I'm expressing about absolutist positions) it has inherent inconsistencies the deeper you look into it. Nevertheless, being anti abortion is a valid and honourable position — as long as you campaign for your beliefs in a legal, non violent and non-threatening way.
The opposite side is not pro-abortion. No one thinks that abortion is a good thing. So we have a dispute that could be characterised as Against X -v- Not pro X. There is bound to be misunderstanding when the subject is so emotive, and the two supposedly opposiing positions are not directly opposed.
The "pro" side is "pro choice". They do not argue that abortion is inherently a good thing to be encouraged, but only that it should be an available option, to be balanced against other conflicting priorities, such as the woman's right to choose, or the health consequences for the mother, or the likely quality of life of the child.
Even these three examples I have given are radically different, and someone who agrees with one or even two of them may not agree with the other(s). For example:
The mother's right to choose. Some people might argue that there are other ways that a woman can avoid pregnancy, and that her "lifestyle preference" does not outweigh the "rights" of the unborn child. I do not believe that (m)any women use abortion frivolously as a back up means of contraception. My personal view is that this is one of those cases where the genuine and sincere diversity of moral views should be recognised, and that one group should not be constrained by the opinions of the other group.
Health consequences for the mother might range from fairly mild through to life changing or even potentially lethal. There is a continuum, and my view is that somewhere along this continuum there comes a point where the rights of the living person outweigh the rights of the potential but as yet unborn person. Rights are given by society, not inherent.
The quality of life of the child is a very difficult one. There are countless of examples of people born with tremendous disabilities, or who have suffered disability later in life, who have been happy and productive members of society. The desire to abort a child because it may be unhealthy or unhappy is questionable. It has a slight tinge of eugenics to it, and I suspect that at least in some cases, it is a fig leaf for the parents' preference not to have a disabled child. Thankfully, I've never been in this position, and I do not feel qualified to judge.
Getting back to the subject line of the thread: "Britain: police state?" the fact that all sides feel able to express their opinions and arguments freely in a forum like this on such a controversial and divisive subject is evidence that Britain is not a police state. It is imperfect, but we have tremendous freedoms.
You really think people over here live in fear of the police.?But if, as I think, we are pretty much living now in a country like Nazi Germany where everyone lived in fear of being grassed on (e.g. the Hitler Youth), then that is extremely damaging too, to people's health, especially their mental health.
As to living in a country where people enjoy freedom of speech? Oh, p-lease!
It is interesting to see how "grassing", or "cliping" has now become acceptable in society. This was not always so. There used to be more solidarity between ordinary folks. E.g. a nearby bus shelter exhorts passengers to report anyone seen smoking within the shelter. This practice is abhorrent.You really think people over here live in fear of the police.?
If people do not report the crimes they see around them, how do you expect the police to catch the criminals ?
Methinks you may be just a tad paranoid.
More accurately, paranoiacs 'believe' that some authority is watching them. Even if they may have no real grounds for this fear.It is interesting to see how "grassing", or "cliping" has now become acceptable in society. This was not always so. There used to be more solidarity between ordinary folks. E.g. a nearby bus shelter exhorts passengers to report anyone seen smoking within the shelter. This practice is abhorrent.
Paranoia is a consequence people suffer as a result of being under constant surveillance. In short, constant surveillance damages people's mental health. In fact, that people in our society are so distrustful of each other and that the authorities are similarly distrustful of people is a clear indication that paranoia is rife. And yes, I did used to suffer paranoia. But no more. That is how I recognise paranoia when I see it. If you want examples of paranoia, read Kafka's The Burrow or some of Denis Wheatley's novels on the occult.
a) Big stick (Georgian era). Handcuffs (Victorian). Documents (Mediaeval). Gloves (Ditto). Torch (Victorian). First aid kit (You’re welcome). (CS/PAVA, so you don’t have to be hit with the big stick). Taser (Possibly. Replaces the revolvers of which, back in the Thirties, stations used to keep a boxful for untrained officers to carry on nights if they wanted).a) ...waistbands bristling with who knows what.
b) I do not like the way the police very publicly invite members of the public to "grass" on each other. People are invited to "grass" on drunk drivers, to "grass" on potential law-breakers...
I know it's hardly the most important aspect of the points that you raise, plus I bow to your professional expertise, but the conflation of "detection" with "solving" seems a particularly bizarre mangling of language. Surely an undetected crime is one that you don't even know has been committed?
I anticipated such a response, hence my bracketed inclusion of "solving" as clarification. The use of "detected" in this context is police terminology.I know it's hardly the most important aspect of the points that you raise, plus I bow to your professional expertise, but the conflation of "detection" with "solving" seems a particularly bizarre mangling of language. Surely an undetected crime is one that you don't even know has been committed?
I quote from one of my posts on another thread where I gave a description of the film The Ruling Class, the most relevant point underlined:
The antidote to fearing or disliking the British police is to experience a range of police forces overseas.I'm ok with the police, like any place anywhere there will be bad uns, but i think the good outweigh them, they are human just like you and I.
Another point re the low detection rate might be that there is more crime today, this in part due to what must surely be a greater opportunity for crime. I refer here to digital technology. It seems to me that digital technology is a godsend to criminals, and therefore unless police numbers are increased significantly to cope with this, low detection rates may well be inevitable.
As a result of my travels, I have had experience of a range of police forces. For example:The antidote to fearing or disliking the British police is to experience a range of police forces overseas.