Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 12,481 comments
- 501,019 views
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
The score is entirely based on how you answered the questions, and how that answer relates to a political position.
I found most of my answers varied between "agree" and "disagree", not particularly strongly, and then I gave plenty of "agree strongly" and "disagree strongly" answers on the last few pages, which were all about subjects that politicians should keep their damn noses out of, like sexuality, abortion and so-on.
I suspect your result in the green is more or less for similar reasons to some of the similarly green posts from earlier in the thread. Famine makes a good explanation of it here.
It perhaps means you've picked on gut instinct on a few questions, but not necessarily thought about the wider implications of what your answer actually means.
You being against pornography is actually a good example of that - if pornography depicts acts involving consenting adults, why should it be made illegal? Apply the same theory to anything else that doesn't affect anyone outside consenting adults - homosexuality, for example - and you can see why making pornography illegal would be a slippery slope. Start banning stuff you find "wrong" even if it doesn't affect you, and it opens the floodgates to other "wrong" things, even if they aren't actually "wrong".
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
I never pick on gut instinct. I'm highly analytical of things, and generally my actual view (although not always what I say. Sometimes saying what you actually think doesn't make for a convincing argument) is a compromise between what I (and I hope everybody else) believe a "perfect" society would be like, with everyone living healthily and happily, and what is actually possible to achieve. That's why I was so surprised.
Perhaps the test shows what my ideal would be, but not necessarily how I would actually run a country, considering the dynamics of a real world situation.
Since this is the official Britain thread I'll use a British example. I believe that ideally people should at no point have to pay for their education, and that knowledge should be freely available to all. (Unless having it freely available to all is in some way dangerous. ie. how to make a nuclear bomb that could take out half of Switzerland) But the reality is that people currently have to pay for higher education and there is little sign of that coming to an end any time soon; so, while people have been complaining about the rise in student fees from a maximum of £3000 to £9000 a year, people have generally ignored the fact that said fees only have to be repaid once the student is earning £21000 a year, rather than the £15000 minimum set previously.
Adding up the numbers shows that if someone paid back 1 years worth of fees per year for 3 years then at the end of each year (assuming there are no changes to their salary during this period) they will be left with £12000 at the end either way, so no real change has occurred, and the new system is arguably fairer, since the chances of an individual actually paying back a years worth of fees per year once they are at the salary where they must pay it back are not certain, and one who pays back £4500 a year can still be left with more than someone on the previous system paying back £1500 per year.
I'm not against pornography being legal. I personally find something deeply wrong about it though. If others want it it's up to them; and if they want to make it it's up to them. What goes on between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Last edited:
- 84,452
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Here comes the Communications Act again, to save us from the "grossly offensive"...
Yeah, I just came across that.
Well, to be fair to people who serve in the Armed Forces, it is likely to be something that is offensive, but as an item that burns easily, its not really that newsworthy or requiring an arrest.
But it wasn't even clear if it was the person himself or a random picture that he sourced to put on his Facebook page.
Its a little bit too much of a police state.
Well, to be fair to people who serve in the Armed Forces, it is likely to be something that is offensive, but as an item that burns easily, its not really that newsworthy or requiring an arrest.
But it wasn't even clear if it was the person himself or a random picture that he sourced to put on his Facebook page.
Its a little bit too much of a police state.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
That's rediculous! Seriously.
You dont pay back that much per year. You pay back 9% of (your gross income minus 15795). These figures are from my brother in law who is an accountant. I've made a website which can calculate everything for you. NI, Student loan, Income tax is all calculated. http://www.myreturns.co.uk/taxcal.php
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
Here's me, seems about right.
- 3,664
- Bristol
- priesty_lfc
Beeblebrox237
where is the test?
- 1,049
- England
I wonder, is there a list of things which are considered to be "grossly offensive" so the public can know what they can and can't post or talk about online? Or is it all open to interpretation?
From that artical, According to the website of the CPS, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1, "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient"
Does that mean anytime someone of religious belief tells another person online that they will go to hell for "insert X reason here" they should and could be arrested or prosecuted? Seeing as it's hell is suposed to be a horrible place it is a threat, and its intent was to cause distress and anxiety to the recipent to re-think their actions?
- 2,046
- Wales
- GTP_Tyrrell
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I tried it again, exactly the same in terms of height but I've swung left a bit, which I expected. Closest party is Plaid Cymru.
Still find myself agreeing on most issues with the right (Conservative) much more than the right (Labour) and certainly more than the left (Plaid).
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,723
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
Pot, kettle, black:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
So much for freedom of speech in the Netherlands.
- 16,433
- United Kingdom
Huh, I would not have guessed this...
- 28,546
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
So, the DG has resigned after 54 days and another Newsnight report debacle.
And regarding the North Wales child abuse case, the man who accused Lord McAlpine as being involved in the affair has backtracked said his claim is untrue. But there are still rumours of a top Tory offical being allegedly involved in the whole thing. Most people involved in the affair are now dead. A chilling echo of another story we've had in the news recently.
And regarding the North Wales child abuse case, the man who accused Lord McAlpine as being involved in the affair has backtracked said his claim is untrue. But there are still rumours of a top Tory offical being allegedly involved in the whole thing. Most people involved in the affair are now dead. A chilling echo of another story we've had in the news recently.
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
Interesting, never knew that. It seems a strange thing to regulate against. Not that I don't think holocaust deniers are among the lowest of the low, but even idiots have a right to free speech. It's a toughie. I suppose its legality is based on the assumption that holocaust deniers have the potential to act upon it, or that holocaust survivors would no doubt feel a little violated that people are able to deny they were every mistreated.
Open question to all: What is the correct way to deal with such people? Or should they be dealt with at all? What system could be put in place to deal with something so grossly ignorant, or should there be no system?
- 84,452
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Individually.
If I were poppy-burner's boss, he wouldn't have a job. If I were a colleague I'd refuse to work with or associate with him. If I worked where he did business, I would refuse his business. If I were on his Facebook friends list, I'd call him a Vettelling Raikkonen. If I were Facebook, he wouldn't have an account any more.
Others may support him and they should be free to do so. It is up to the individual.
There should never be any system limiting what opinions people can hold or express. The consequences of them doing so should be up to each individual who encounters their expression.
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
Keef
Premium
- 24,551
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Freedom of expression is a bitch sometimes but it must be allowed. If somebody gets so offended they still have the option of filing charges and claiming some sort of rights violation via physical or mental harrassment. Such cases should never be decided willy nilly, especially cases of mental abuse since it's so hard to measure objectively.
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
Nanny state strikes again.
You know the Toyota 86 advert? Where the most harmful thing about it is some slightly creepy CGI and the warblings of Edith Piaf? The ASA has banned it, because it "promotes dangerous driving".
How many complaints to ban it, out of the millions who'll have seen it on TV?
2.
I didn't particularly like the ad (for the aforementioned dodgy CGI and warblings) but banning it on the grounds that two miserable tossers thought it was too racy is utterly, utterly insane.
Here's the ad, for those not in territories where it's shown:
You know the Toyota 86 advert? Where the most harmful thing about it is some slightly creepy CGI and the warblings of Edith Piaf? The ASA has banned it, because it "promotes dangerous driving".
How many complaints to ban it, out of the millions who'll have seen it on TV?
2.
I didn't particularly like the ad (for the aforementioned dodgy CGI and warblings) but banning it on the grounds that two miserable tossers thought it was too racy is utterly, utterly insane.
Here's the ad, for those not in territories where it's shown:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The Ka one was never an official ad, simply a viral campaign run online, as such the ASA couldn't touch it.
Its was a similar thing with the BMW films a few years back (which were are brilliant), they would never have got passed by the ASA (who have stupidly strict codes for car adverts) but the ASA couldn't touch them as they all were on-line.
Oh and this:
100%
