Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,457 comments
  • 770,890 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Meanwhile in Northamptonshire....

upload_2015-8-29_11-29-51.png
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/drone-british-citizens-syria-uk-david-cameron


A Reaper drone. The RAF has been carrying out drone strikes against targets in Iraq as part of an international coalition against Isis. Photograph: Steve Bain/MoD/PA

The killing of two British citizens in a targeted drone strike in Syria marks a major departure for the UK. While killing its own citizens by missiles fired from drones is not new for the US, this is the first time such an attack has been carried out by Britain.

:cheers: :rolleyes:
 
Dotini
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/drone-british-citizens-syria-uk-david-cameron


A Reaper drone. The RAF has been carrying out drone strikes against targets in Iraq as part of an international coalition against Isis. Photograph: Steve Bain/MoD/PA

The killing of two British citizens in a targeted drone strike in Syria marks a major departure for the UK. While killing its own citizens by missiles fired from drones is not new for the US, this is the first time such an attack has been carried out by Britain.

:cheers: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They were apparently planning terrorist attacks on the UK, so assuming that's true it seems perfectly justified (Even if it's not, it's still no great loss). And it's not exactly comparable to US drone strikes where they attack targets who aren't in a war zone, and that kill more innocent people than they do actual targets.
 
Really? So the UK Government, elected by less than 25% of the electorate, can murder its own citizens on undisclosed evidence and that's okay with you?

We live in a country that is supposed to be governed by Rule of Law. What happened to due process?
 
Tired Tyres
Really? So the UK Government, elected by less than 25% of the electorate, can murder its own citizens on undisclosed evidence and that's okay with you?

We live in a country that is supposed to be governed by Rule of Law. What happened to due process?
Click to expand...

I'm not really too bothered about terrorists being killed in a war zone with no civilian casualties, no.
 
Spurgy 777
I'm not really too bothered about terrorists being killed in a war zone with no civilian casualties, no.
Click to expand...

You are assuming they are terrorists. You don't KNOW they are terrorists. That's the issue.
 
Spurgy 777
Well if they're fighting with ISIS, then I'm pretty sure they're terrorists.
Click to expand...

You don't KNOW they were fighting for ISIL. You've been TOLD they were. "Someone Said" does not constitute EVIDENCE.

You had better be more than pretty sure when you decide to kill someone. That way is called Rule of Law. Think long and hard before giving it up.
 
Tired Tyres
You don't KNOW they were fighting for ISIL. You've been TOLD they were. "Someone Said" does not constitute EVIDENCE.

You had better be more than pretty sure when you decide to kill someone. That way is called Rule of Law. Think long and hard before giving it up.
Click to expand...

I think you're clutching at straws now, I haven't seen a single news article even remotely question that they were fighting for IS, which makes it extremely unlikely that they weren't. Unless they've all lost touch with reality and turned into propaganda machines for the government and are just making up stories based on no evidence. What's in question here seems to be whether they were planning attacks on the UK, because if they weren't then the attacks weren't legal, but frankly if they were fighting for IS, which it's very likely that they were, I don't really care.
 
Tired Tyres
You don't KNOW they were fighting for ISIL. You've been TOLD they were. "Someone Said" does not constitute EVIDENCE.

You had better be more than pretty sure when you decide to kill someone. That way is called Rule of Law. Think long and hard before giving it up.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that rule of law interests him.

Spurgy 777
...whether they were planning attacks on the UK, because if they weren't then the attacks weren't legal...
Click to expand...

Oh, wait.

I should add that in this case Britain is claiming legality. We've always been right when we've said that before, of course. Ish.
 
Last edited:
Spurgy 777
I think you're clutching at straws now, I haven't seen a single news article even remotely question that they were fighting for IS, which makes it extremely unlikely that they weren't. Unless they've all lost touch with reality and turned into propaganda machines for the government and are just making up stories based on no evidence. What's in question here seems to be whether they were planning attacks on the UK, because if they weren't then the attacks weren't legal, but frankly if they were fighting for IS, which it's very likely that they were, I don't really care.
Click to expand...

You are the one with the issue here. What the media is reporting is what the government TOLD them.

I tell you what. If someone points the finger of accusation at YOU. Do YOU want your day in court to face your accuser or do you want YOUR government to call YOU a threat (zero evidence of course) and eliminate YOU with a drone strike?
 
Spurgy 777
ISIS
Click to expand...
Tired Tyres
ISIL
Click to expand...
Spurgy 777
IS
Click to expand...
So to the important point... can we agree on a name to call them?

Personally I favour "Da'esh", which is both the contraction of the Arabic version of their name before translation into English and a name they find so offensive (due to homophony) that they have been known to flog people caught using the name in "their" areas. Plus it lends a whole load less credence to the concept that they're a legitimate "state".

Though I refer to their combatants as "Isissies".
 
Famine
Personally I favour "Da'esh", which is both the contraction of the Arabic version of their name before translation into English and a name they find so offensive (due to homophony) that they have been known to flog people caught using the name in "their" areas. Plus it lends a whole load less credence to the concept that they're a legitimate "state".
Click to expand...

That's brilliant, I hadn't realised that! Da'esh it is. Or isis.

In other Great British news (cue stirring music), the Queen is alive, long live the Queen. Very long, actually. I bet Charles is pleased. A rundown of all the leaders she's outlasted, courtesy of the Beeb. Now salute, ya buggers*!

EDIT: Perhaps it's time for a Song of Patriotic Prejudice?



*I shan't join you though, I'm afraid...
 
Tired Tyres
Really? So the UK Government, elected by less than 25% of the electorate, can murder its own citizens on undisclosed evidence and that's okay with you?

We live in a country that is supposed to be governed by Rule of Law. What happened to due process?
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Even a Blue-on-Blue wouldn't face the death penalty if they somehow escaped being shot in the incident.

If we have intelligence of what these people are doing, and believe they are a legit target then it has to be declared prior to their execution. It's not good government to be killing citizens without trial. And the immediate threat is completely over played IMO


-------------

In separate news, my my the spiders are big this year.
 
July? September?

Let's not get confused about exactly who is being killed here and when.

COXTUAKWsAA1L7r.jpg


COXTUAMXAAAyKO9.jpg


---

In other news, there is a new longest reigning monarch. Well, there it is.

Honestly? I don't think Elizabeth is that bad. Maybe it's good PR work but she always comes across rather effervescently in the admittedly pro-Royal press. As much as I'd like it to be a case of her being a complete scumbag she seems to be a dithering old lady who has to deal with all these cretinous family members around her and slimy pseduo-nobility toffs trying to run the country. But there are many things I really dislike about it all and it's far too uninteresting to go into right now.

So, y'know, fair play on lasting this long but... this isn't how a country should be run.
 
Personally I don't really have many feelings towards the Queen. But she is the Queen and for that she has my respect. Sure, she doesn't really do what some people hope she would but then that is all politics and I don't like politics. My favourite royal is Prince William, so when he becomes King then I'll judge the royal family. But until then, Long Live The Queen (and poor Charlie of course, who at this rate will never become King.)
 
ECGadget
Personally I don't really have many feelings towards the Queen. But she is the Queen and for that she has my respect. Sure, she doesn't really do what some people hope she would but then that is all politics and I don't like politics. My favourite royal is Prince William, so when he becomes King then I'll judge the royal family. But until then, Long Live The Queen (and poor Charlie of course, who at this rate will never become King.)
Click to expand...

So yo think it's proper and correct that one single family should hold the right to sit at the top of parliament, be funded to an excruciating extent by the taxpayer, sit outside the law and automatically command the armed forces? Based just on their bloodline? And that we should grovel, curtsy, bow and follow silly protocol in their presence for fear of offending them? Blimey...

Watching public budgets slashed while she rides around in a gold carriage surrounded by servants in the most insanely-expensive uniforms is more than a little galling, imo.
 
TenEightyOne
So yo think it's proper and correct that one single family should hold the right to sit at the top of parliament, be funded to an excruciating extent by the taxpayer, sit outside the law and automatically command the armed forces? Based just on their bloodline? And that we should grovel, curtsy, bow and follow silly protocol in their presence for fear of offending them? Blimey...

Watching public budgets slashed while she rides around in a gold carriage surrounded by servants in the most insanely-expensive uniforms is more than a little galling, imo.
Click to expand...

That's more like the tirade I'd like to go on but I'm trying to be placable today.
 
TenEightyOne
So yo think it's proper and correct that one single family should hold the right to sit at the top of parliament, be funded to an excruciating extent by the taxpayer, sit outside the law and automatically command the armed forces? Based just on their bloodline? And that we should grovel, curtsy, bow and follow silly protocol in their presence for fear of offending them? Blimey...

Watching public budgets slashed while she rides around in a gold carriage surrounded by servants in the most insanely-expensive uniforms is more than a little galling, imo.
Click to expand...
Is it nonsense when people claim that the tourism money created by the royal family outweighs the cost of having one?
 
TheCracker
I'd say its impossible to quantify.
Click to expand...

I'd say it probably does; Britain' royal history wouldn't go away with the abolition of the monarchy... I suspect that very little real profit would be lost with the loss of their physical presence in a royal role. People come to wave at Buck House and buy ****** London souvenirs whether the Queen's in her gaff or not.

The Daily Express, the last surviving home of Lady Di, would have it that the royals cost us about £36m a year. Some republicans put it 10 times higher than that... without even counting lost revenue from all the public land or other property that's been given to them on the basis of their bloodline.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
So yo think it's proper and correct that one single family should hold the right to sit at the top of parliament, be funded to an excruciating extent by the taxpayer, sit outside the law and automatically command the armed forces? Based just on their bloodline? And that we should grovel, curtsy, bow and follow silly protocol in their presence for fear of offending them? Blimey...

Watching public budgets slashed while she rides around in a gold carriage surrounded by servants in the most insanely-expensive uniforms is more than a little galling, imo.
Click to expand...

Well not exactly, I am supportive of governments. I do like the whole idea of a King or Queen though, but mostly because it is just like a very fancy thing. What I am not supportive of is the way the current governments are, and I think that instead of an elected PM you should have elected members who work under the King or Queen. That way they actually do a whole bunch of work and have some better purpose. But I really am in two minds about it all. On one hand I like the idea of the Royals. On the other, I find that we as taxpayers give too much to them for them to barely do anything... But I tend to not dabble in politics that much, it really isn't my forte at all.
 
ECGadget
Well not exactly, I am supportive of governments. I do like the whole idea of a King or Queen though, but mostly because it is just like a very fancy thing.
Click to expand...

I like the Ferrari Enzo, it's a very fancy thing. I think they're expensive too though, nobody should be forced to run one.

ECGadget
I think that instead of an elected PM you should have elected members who work under the King or Queen.
Click to expand...

Which you have now.

ECGadget
On one hand I like the idea of the Royals. On the other, I find that we as taxpayers give too much to them for them to barely do anything...
Click to expand...

So, without holding an opinion on their political position, which of the two do you think is fairer for the public in general?
 
@TenEightyOne Fairer to the public in general I think is no Royal family. However, if we were to phase them out I can imagine a lot of very unhappy Britons. I don't think I'd be too happy either. I suppose tradition and all have a high weighting in this. I most certainly wouldn't vote to have no Royal family, but thinking about it I probably wouldn't vote for one either...
 
ECGadget
@TenEightyOne Fairer to the public in general I think is no Royal family. However, if we were to phase them out I can imagine a lot of very unhappy Britons. I don't think I'd be too happy either. I suppose tradition and all have a high weighting in this. I most certainly wouldn't vote to have no Royal family, but thinking about it I probably wouldn't vote for one either...
Click to expand...

I've never quite understood why the Royal Family always do so well in popularity polls. Especially after watching the most recent state opening of Parliament, I knew I was completely done. All so submissive and pompous.

You do see these polls saying how popular they are, and you will meet a lot of people who like them or are apathetic in a "sure, why not?" kind of way. But as I've grown older, particularly as I meet other Brits abroad, I seem to be finding a lot more lefty republican types.
 

Latest Posts

Back