Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on November 19, 2004, 10:25:04 AM
-
I'm sure you'll remember how Maggie became too powerful as her third reign wore on, and the Community Charge was railroaded through Parliament.
Now Tony Blair's doing it - not that railroading is new to him or even difficult. He's sitting on what - a 160 majority in the HOC?
But this time he's gone too far. And I think even he knows it. He's banned hunting. Blair had wanted to deploy his usual tactic of delaying any controversial measures until after an election, but the legislation went through too quickly even for him. The Parliament Act was used for only the fourth time since 1949 as a means of circumventing the House of Lords, who would have thrown the bill out. So now Blair can look forward to protests and embarrassment in the run up to May 2005, when we expect him to call an election.
The other forthcoming ban is the ban on smoking in public places. In Britain, smoking is largely a proletarian pastime (oops - I'm sounding like Prince Charles :lol) so any fallout from this latest ban is going to rumble Blair's own supporters. I wonder if he's thought it through.
Manna from Heaven! Bring it on!! 2005 will be an interesting year. :D
-
Somehow picturing an english pub without the smoky haze just doesn't sound much like an english pub... its a shame the nannies have taken over...
IKON
-
The nannies should take note that in England it is not unknown for the master of the house to give them a damn hard rogering.
That time is yet to come, but it is I feel, inevitable.
-
Originally posted by Darkish
The nannies should take note that in England it is not unknown for the master of the house to give them a damn hard rogering.
That time is yet to come, but it is I feel, inevitable.
TWWEEEEEET!!!! Call on the play here. Referee throws flag for use of indecipherable Brit terminology! Five yards penalty until translation is rendered.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Frankly, fox hunting doesn't interest me. What does interest me is that the Reverend T. Blair sees it to be a key issue that needs addressing. What I find disturbing, is that Blair is prepared to push a bill through the House of Lords - something which has been done only 3 times since WW2 - on such a trivial issue. What I find laughable is that smiler seems to find it more important that immigration, education, health and Iraq.
Blair is the super-nanny. He must go or we will get more perversion of the British way of life. It really is as simple as that. More centralisation of the true power, while he pretends that he has de-centralised to the 'regions' with ridiculous assemblies and pseudo-parliaments.
But who will take his/their place? The Tories are leaderless and without a manifesto and the Liberals are a bunch of nappy wearing socialists.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But who will take his/their place? The Tories are leaderless and without a manifesto and the Liberals are a bunch of nappy wearing socialists.
Well, the old adage is that elections are not WON by the opposition party, but are LOST by the incumbent. If only it would come true next time...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
TWWEEEEEET!!!! Call on the play here. Referee throws flag for use of indecipherable Brit terminology! Five yards penalty until translation is rendered.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Maverick, my good man. The meaning is transparently clear. He is warning all childminders that they are liable to be subject to sexual congress of a forceful nature by the head of the household.
Is that clear?
-
hmmm...we have a washed out loser senator from a state quite abit like your uk. Its a tiney, overcrowded, socialist, once important in the world but insignificant in modern times state.....
The state is Massachusets and the washed out loser senators name is kerry, you guys interested?
I think it would be a perfect fit.....:lol
-
Hey Yeager ever been here? Or are you just a t**t?
I've been over to your land and some of its great. met many great people however also met a few with your kind of biggoted views. Try and say something intelligent just for once!
-
riding a horse, chasing dogs that are chasing a fox is not hunting, it's called riding fast cross country, and you can do it with out fox or dog. tally ho.
after i quite smoking, i had to give up going to bars, too much smoke for my clean lungs. after going to a bar, i smelled, my clothes smelled, my car smelled, never noticed it when i smoked.
-
oh lighten up tard :aok
I did not say this, I am not here......
-
It's that Blair is using the Parliment Act for the 3rd time in his 'rule', and the 4th time EVER, to push through a bill that the Act was never designed to be used with. The Act is a tool where by the Commons can bypass the Lords on an issue of urgent, national importance that the Lords are blocking...banning a hundreds of year old rural tradition is neither of those things, at all. The whole mess is his way of making his own grumpy backbenchers happy after he has been annoying them so much over other issues like Iraq, and he has even managed to annoy them over this issue with his dithering.
As for nannyness, he doesn't even believe in this ban, so nanny says "No! Don't do that, it's bad....well, no it isn't, but I'm going to stop you anyway, cos I can, so there!"
Nanny doesn't like smoking, hunting or fatty foods, but drinking is okayish and boxing is fine....geee nanny, you are strange!
Unfortunatly the very best we can hope for at the moment, is for Blair's large majority in the Commons to get reduced significantly, unless he seriously muffs something important up in the next few months (cross your fingers), it looks most unlikely he will lose his job.....partly why the US elections were such a big deal here, you guys had a genuine close race and could send a message, ours is a one horse race thanks to our First Past the Post system, meh.
-
Not that its any of my BUSINESS...but I thought blair was hurt in the last election cycle in the uk. I was under the impression by the few, the loud, the AH bsb Brits!!! that blairs poodling of bush hurt him politically yet you guys are now saying he has a majority?
Yes, I do not understand...and yes, I am not here...and furthermore I did not say this.
-
Blair has been hurt both from inside his own party, and in general by his handling and lies about the war (among other things), BUT the size of his current majority and the poor excuse of an opposition means that it would take a landslide of monumental proportions for him to actually lose the election due next year.
-
The hunting bans going to be great, watching the elite ruling classes and their serfs getting stroppy will do the socialists untold good at the polls. Should be good for the next 3 elections and perhaps hasten the apocalypse yeager is so keen on.
Listened to one of them this morning, thinking of denying the power company access to the electricity pylons that run across his inherited 3000 acres in Hampshire. Thats gonna work well.
-
thanks tali! makes sense
I actually see the hunting ban as a well deserved take away from the elite in UK society. It has long been my understanding the the average joe, wait! that doesnt work....that the average bloke never had a chance at fox hunting because it was a royalty ritual.
Screw that I say! Hunting is a right bestowed upon each person, to collect their required lot. I realize fox hunting is quite abit different but it looks like just bowling to me...anyone who wants to should be able to.
Correct me again, if I am wrong, again.....
-
There is no barrier to who can hunt, apart from living close enough to the right kind of area and being accepted by a given hunt group I guess, it is not 'restricted' to nobility/royals etc. It costs more than it would In the USA, horses, hounds, tack, social commitments and so on is going to add up to more than the cost of a gun and a permit for you over there I'd guess. But as firearms are so controlled over here (not necessarily a bad thing) fox hunting could, and I say could, be seen in the same light as how the US sees say duck hunting, only fox hunting isn't protected by a constitution, just unwritten laws, tradition and unwritten constitution, which in the face of modern political correctness have no chance...but then again nanny Blair likes the old fashioned First Past the Post electoral system that gives his party an approx 3% advantage over the Conservatives, ahem.
I personally am very worried by any law the is a 'You can't' law outside of criminal activity.
I am not sure who in current mainsteam UK politics you think would be 'Socialist', becuase Labour hasn't been that for a while now.
As for actions in protest against the ban, one nice thing that has been done is a few farmers near Salisbury plane have had till now a 'gentleman's' agreement to let the militray use their land, they have now told the army that is no longer the case because of the ban. Nice, legal and news worthy in a non sensationalist way.
-
and perhaps hasten the apocalypse yeager is so keen on.
====
Im not keen on it and one way or another, the end is NEAR!!!!!!
-
Beet,
Blair managed to piss me off years ago. In his first ever election manifesto he made a big deal about bikers, promised all kindsa stuff, so much that even the BMF were supporting the lying git. After the election.....bugger all. Then he scraps all student grants without so much as a by your leave, ignoring all the protests by every students union in the country. And then a couple of years ago I was watching auntie beeb from Holland and witnessed a speach by that 'orrible little man in which he stated "The British people don't need to have a referendum on the Euro." Now read that again in the condescending tone the bastard used.
Er.....what?
Excuse me?
You sayin' you know what I want better than I do?
Well no Mr Blair, you work for me not the other way around, I tell you what I bleedin' well want and you get to see it through. You don't get to tell me what I should want. So bollocks to ya, I'm voting Conservative.
[insert smilie of a rude gesture]
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
No foxes for fun!
-
"No War for Foxes......"
-
Originally posted by Swoop
And then a couple of years ago I was watching auntie beeb from Holland and witnessed a speach by that 'orrible little man in which he stated "The British people don't need to have a referendum on the Euro." Now read that again in the condescending tone the bastard used.
Er.....what?
Excuse me?
You sayin' you know what I want better than I do?
Well no Mr Blair, you work for me not the other way around, I tell you what I bleedin' well want and you get to see it through. You don't get to tell me what I should want. So bollocks to ya, I'm voting Conservative.
Swoop - I think I saw that speech, or one like it, in October last year. Here's the press photo of Blair making it.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/noref2.jpg)
I agree with most that John Major's disastrous government just had to go in 1997, so I didn't vote at all. 2001 - still no-one worth voting for. But now - Blair must go!
What this country needs is a few million more Swoops who recognise that government is there to serve the people, not the other way round. At least the Cons are committed to ending all these tax increases, by shedding all these non jobs in the civil service that have been created by Labour. I heard somewhere (oops, sounding like Lazs) that the number of NHS bureaucrats was equivalent to a city the size of Sheffield. :eek: Unbelievable.
Welcome to the blue corner, Swoop. :aok
-
Can we stick Swoop in preserving fluid, he's a national treasure! :D
Can we stick Blair in a vat of acid at the same time *innocent whistle*
-
Tali - what part of the UK are you from?
-
All y'all who are lookin' fer some gud huntin' c'mon acrossed the pond. I got me some kin in Mississippi who'll set y'up.
(http://www02.so-net.ne.jp/~panic/coontree.jpg)
(http://pkcpetfood.dnsalias.org/coondogs/dogs/abernathy/5%20yrs%20old.jpg)
-
I think Blunkett is as bad as his master Tony: his latest weeze are special courts with no jury or public access for people charged with terrorism - bye bye due process and fari trials.
Then there is his plans for national identity register and one Database to Rule them All.
-
with no jury or public access for people charged with terrorism
====
the horror.......the horror
If you are in a situation where you are suspected of terrororism Im not so sure I want you having common rights.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If you are in a situation where you are suspected of terrororism Im not so sure I want you having common rights.
Yeah, the terrorists want you to chuck out your constitution as well. :aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
with no jury or public access for people charged with terrorism
====
the horror.......the horror
If you are in a situation where you are suspected of terrororism Im not so sure I want you having common rights.
We use the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Not sure how well it works in practice though.
-
Well Beetle, Stalin used the converse with interesting results.
The War on Terrorism is bogus. It's just another chapter in a continuing struggle against those who would destroy our way of life and pervert our laws; except this time, they seem to be winning without us even realising it.
-
I think most people can see this hunting ban for what it is. It isn't about ending animals' suffering. If it were, then they'd have to ban angling too. But angling is popular amongst the working classes, so they don't want to do that.
It's all about ending the role of the old order, the "toffs" who own a lot of Britain. But what does Labour propose to put in its place - a society governed by benefits claimants with nose studs and failed asylum seekers?
-
I am genuinly surprised the Her Blunket actually came out saying he wanted to do those things in a 3rd term, but then again, the opposition and media have been so unadble to do their jobs recently, I doubt it will hurt Labour as much as it should. Notice that the ID card plans are not for the 3rd term, they are going into the Queen's speach, they are for before the election....a move that Labour has absolutly no mandate, there was no hint of ID cards before the last election (or if there was I didn't notice), the government argument that it would be a tool against 'terror' is the most feeble excuse ever, by the time it is actualy enforced and running, say 2 years minimum,any terrorist worth his salt will know about it and have some plan to bypass, forge etc vs it. Not long ago there was the suggestion that in place of a tax on fuel and road tax that we would be charged on a 'pay as you drive' basis, your car will be monitored and you will pay tax based on where and when you drive. Now just combine that with FORCED ID cards....you MUST carry a card with a chip in it when out and about, and your car is tracked for 'tax' purposes....umm, not that I am that paraniod, but are the hairs on your neck standing up too?!
Oh, and the theory that the fox hunting ban is in large part revenge (rather late revenge) for Maggie and the coal pits, well, it's not SUCH a cynical theory, is it!
Oh, and Wiltshire, as you asked (Fox's have to dodge unexploded shells down here, but there is no ban on military use of Salisbury Plane ;) )
-
Beetle, I thought you'd like the fact that The Right Hon Member for Texas North is making good on one of his manifesto pledges? I know it doesn't excuse the 60 tax hikes but at least he is trying.
National ID cards shouldn't be considered without realising the complete balls up any govt will make of it, probably cost about £15 billion in IT charges before or if they ever get it right.
-
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2004/11/23/ixd23big.gif)