Animals & Nature4 mins ago
Here Comes Totalitarianism.
Big Brother speaks.
Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please just because they obey the law, David Cameron has said.
http://
But this doesn't apply to fat cats, right wing press barons, and bankers of course.
Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please just because they obey the law, David Cameron has said.
http://
But this doesn't apply to fat cats, right wing press barons, and bankers of course.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Please explain to me, OG, how the current Council Tax system can be fairer than the Community charge.
The current system levies charges based solely on the comparitive value of the occupied property. It takes no account of the number of people living there (apart from the 25% single person's discount). The Community Charge was based on the number of people living in the property. Four adults living in a property paid twice as much as two adults living in a property.
Neither system is particularly fair as neither takes any account of ability to pay but surely it must be more just to levy the charge on a per head basis, mustn't it?
The current system levies charges based solely on the comparitive value of the occupied property. It takes no account of the number of people living there (apart from the 25% single person's discount). The Community Charge was based on the number of people living in the property. Four adults living in a property paid twice as much as two adults living in a property.
Neither system is particularly fair as neither takes any account of ability to pay but surely it must be more just to levy the charge on a per head basis, mustn't it?
The silence from OG is deafening, of course, NJ, because he can't. but to be fair to his mistakeness, he, and nobody else who holds this wrong opinion, can explain.
Chatpratpu "What a damn cheek to call them 'the great unwashed', but oh so typical of the sheer arrogance of tory voters !!
The arrogance of the country!
Chatpratpu "What a damn cheek to call them 'the great unwashed', but oh so typical of the sheer arrogance of tory voters !!
The arrogance of the country!
Passively tolerant? If you speak out about anything or anyone you are classed as sexist or racist or ageist or any other ist that could be imagined.
Anti religion (take your pick), anti certain types of education, anti home owners, anti renters, anti monarchists, anti republicans.
I am who I am, I have opinions on many things. I am old. Nobody cares.
Anti religion (take your pick), anti certain types of education, anti home owners, anti renters, anti monarchists, anti republicans.
I am who I am, I have opinions on many things. I am old. Nobody cares.
"Reading some of the posts here one could be forgiven for thinking people don’t want the government to tackle extremism"
No, I don't. I don't think it's their job.
Having extremists around is a price worth paying for living in a society where you can say what you want. Even now, well-intentioned laws against hate speech have generated whole grey areas of society where people are not sure what to say. I think that's wrong.
And yes, even if it is provably so, I would be willing to accept a society that was slightly less secure in exchange.
No, I don't. I don't think it's their job.
Having extremists around is a price worth paying for living in a society where you can say what you want. Even now, well-intentioned laws against hate speech have generated whole grey areas of society where people are not sure what to say. I think that's wrong.
And yes, even if it is provably so, I would be willing to accept a society that was slightly less secure in exchange.
If you care about extremism, the people who really matter are people like the Quilliam foundation who engage in public discourse and who give former extremists a platform.
If extremism scares you, do that. Fight it yourself - sometimes, that's what we need to do. Don't look up at the state and demand that it introduces sinister and invasive laws to police ideas. They're not the right people to do that. It's a task for society.
If extremism scares you, do that. Fight it yourself - sometimes, that's what we need to do. Don't look up at the state and demand that it introduces sinister and invasive laws to police ideas. They're not the right people to do that. It's a task for society.
None, I suppose. But extremism isn't an issue that should (in my opinion anyway) be resolved with "power." Power involves forcing people to do something - in this case, forcing them to not think or say something. I think that's wrong.
Tackling extremism should be for the rest of us who aren't involved in "power" to challenge it everywhere we encounter it, and for the state to get involved only if someone commits a crime.
That may well mean that there are more extremists around to endorse violence. It may well mean that there are more people around to say awful things. And even as someone who is in a group which is near the top of virtually all extreme ideologies' hate lists, I say - so be it. I think it's worth it.
Tackling extremism should be for the rest of us who aren't involved in "power" to challenge it everywhere we encounter it, and for the state to get involved only if someone commits a crime.
That may well mean that there are more extremists around to endorse violence. It may well mean that there are more people around to say awful things. And even as someone who is in a group which is near the top of virtually all extreme ideologies' hate lists, I say - so be it. I think it's worth it.
Krom, your idealism is blinding you to reality. The general population doesn’t truly encounter extremism until someone with a bomb in his rucksack boards a train and blows himself and his fellow passengers to smithereens. Well intentioned laws against free speech have created grey areas, where people are no longer sure of what they may or may not say, in a variety of walks of life – much of it as a result of the incessant imposition of potty political correctness. However, unlike you I am not willing to accept a society that is less secure – or even slightly less secure - in exchange for allowing enemies of this country the privilege of any freedoms whatsoever. Terrorists with murder in their hearts warrant no such consideration. Regardless of lofty ideals, I will support any measures the government takes, however harsh they are perceived by the ‘liberally’ minded to be, to ensure that this country remains safe and secure, and its people alive.
I know the Quilliam foundation.
I know the Quilliam foundation.
Everyone in this thread is being idealistic, to one extent or another, even those who think that this will make a difference. Not in any material way. Make society less tolerant, and it just drives extremists even deeper underground. Not permanently, but enough that it's possible for them to hide anyway.
I find films like the Bourne series, or Enemy of the State, to be terrific entertainment, but while they are a gross exaggeration it's apparent that there are some truths to be found in them, in that once the state starts interfering in the lives of extremists, it is inevitable that it will interfere in the lives of everyone else, too. Is that a price worth paying? Perhaps it is. But it's not unreasonable to argue that it's not.
What should worry people is the phrase "views that differ from Britain's consensus". A bit vague, that, and perhaps something to keep an eye on. We don't want a situation where anything -- anything -- that challenges the consensus is regarded as inherently dangerous.
Also, what does Theresa May mean by this?
"She said the measures [unveiled by David Cameron] would focus on 'seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in'."
Hmm...
I find films like the Bourne series, or Enemy of the State, to be terrific entertainment, but while they are a gross exaggeration it's apparent that there are some truths to be found in them, in that once the state starts interfering in the lives of extremists, it is inevitable that it will interfere in the lives of everyone else, too. Is that a price worth paying? Perhaps it is. But it's not unreasonable to argue that it's not.
What should worry people is the phrase "views that differ from Britain's consensus". A bit vague, that, and perhaps something to keep an eye on. We don't want a situation where anything -- anything -- that challenges the consensus is regarded as inherently dangerous.
Also, what does Theresa May mean by this?
"She said the measures [unveiled by David Cameron] would focus on 'seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in'."
Hmm...
Perhaps it's nothing, of course. Still, something we should keep an eye on.
In the long run, though, I trust the state will be too incompetent to organise a massive conspiracy of the Bourne type anyway. Then again, that's not very promising either...
And it's not like this is just confined to films either. Independent of whether or not you agree with what he's done, some of the revelations about the extent of US surveillance due to Edward Snowden are deeply troubling. The problem is that to find the people you do want to look for, you have to intrude into the lives of people you don't. Again, the question over whether or not that is a price worth paying is a legitimate one.
In the long run, though, I trust the state will be too incompetent to organise a massive conspiracy of the Bourne type anyway. Then again, that's not very promising either...
And it's not like this is just confined to films either. Independent of whether or not you agree with what he's done, some of the revelations about the extent of US surveillance due to Edward Snowden are deeply troubling. The problem is that to find the people you do want to look for, you have to intrude into the lives of people you don't. Again, the question over whether or not that is a price worth paying is a legitimate one.
I know full well that I'm being idealistic. But if we're in a position where the most powerful man in the country is criticising the idea that law-abiding citizens should maybe perhaps be left alone by the government, perhaps we need to be a bit more idealistic.
But I live in the real world, too. It's possible to do both. I've lived and worked in countries which were not in practice governed by free speech (China in the past, and now Russia). I like the fact that my country is different. I'm not much of a patriot, but it's a source of pride to me.
You know those crazy Muslim religious nuts who sometimes turn out in the street? Not the famous ones, just the run-of-the-mill nuts? We had some of those in an area I used to live. We've also got plenty of crazy (but not quite as crazy) Christians at my family's home in the UK. I've gone up to each of those groups on numerous occasions, told them I was gay, and asked them why it was wrong. I've spent hours and hours talking to them. Was it fruitful? Not particularly. But it may surprise you to learn that even though I hate their ideas, I'm willing to defend their right to say as they please - even if they want to say that I should die because of who I have sex with and how I do it. That's about all I can do as an individual person.
People like Quilliam are way way better than me. They organise and give a voice to some very potent anti-extremists and even change a few minds. I'd rather go their way than have their government introduce creepy and possibly irreversible laws designed to treat all of us like criminals.
But I live in the real world, too. It's possible to do both. I've lived and worked in countries which were not in practice governed by free speech (China in the past, and now Russia). I like the fact that my country is different. I'm not much of a patriot, but it's a source of pride to me.
You know those crazy Muslim religious nuts who sometimes turn out in the street? Not the famous ones, just the run-of-the-mill nuts? We had some of those in an area I used to live. We've also got plenty of crazy (but not quite as crazy) Christians at my family's home in the UK. I've gone up to each of those groups on numerous occasions, told them I was gay, and asked them why it was wrong. I've spent hours and hours talking to them. Was it fruitful? Not particularly. But it may surprise you to learn that even though I hate their ideas, I'm willing to defend their right to say as they please - even if they want to say that I should die because of who I have sex with and how I do it. That's about all I can do as an individual person.
People like Quilliam are way way better than me. They organise and give a voice to some very potent anti-extremists and even change a few minds. I'd rather go their way than have their government introduce creepy and possibly irreversible laws designed to treat all of us like criminals.
Perhaps the word 'extremism' is too vague, how far does a view have to go before it is considered (by the man on the Clapham omnibus) to be extreme?
What we are talking about really is 'Treason' - disloyalty to the state, of which there are clearer definitions. It is a little known fact, by the way, that it is still punishable by death in the UK.
What we are talking about really is 'Treason' - disloyalty to the state, of which there are clearer definitions. It is a little known fact, by the way, that it is still punishable by death in the UK.
