In the style of channel four, here comes this thread! Not in the style of channel four they are in no particular order. These are just coming off the top of my head so please anyone feel free to add to them. I will not add the Elgin Marbles, but if Sir Byronas wishes to then he is quite welcome.

1. When giving colonies independance we pulled out the entire civil service at once. 40 years on we look at countries in disarray due to civil war and economic crisis and act gracious in cancelling debt. Hmmm, how very kind.

2. We invented concentration camps. Dutch Boers were the first victims, in a war which we started for our own colonial gain. Thousands of women and children died in them.

3. We have no right to silence. Under the 1995 Criminal Justice Act if a defendant says nothing in court the judge has a duty to explain to the dury that it is probably due to their guilt.

4. The government currently sponsors arms fairs for British companies in both India and Pakistan. Tony Blair then goes to both in front of as many cameras as possible to try and start peace talks.

5. 92 members of our legislative are decided by birthright. It is the year 2002 and we retain 92 hereditary legislators, I love this country...

6. First Ireland then Northern Ireland... need I say more...

7. Our electoral system dictates that an MP represents a constituency, he must represent that even if it contradicts the wishes of his party. The Doctrine of the Mandate clearly destroys this principle.

8. Our education system states that if a couple earns £40,000+ a year combined then they are perfectly capable of financing a child through university. MPs earn £45,000 a year approx depending on their position and status in the House. They are currently campaigning for a rise as they can't cover their costs.

9. The Lord Chancellor sits in all three branches of the constitution, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. The current Lord chancellor has stood for election twice and lost both times. However he was deemed, out of all the judges in the country, most capable of this obviously contraversial position. The fact that he was Tony Blair's first employer is obviously unconnected. Similarly unconnected is the fact that the Solicitor General used to be Blair's flatmate.

10. Only 28% of young people from poor social economic backgrounds go to university (latest figures, talking this from the front of the newspaper in front of me). Guess which is the worst university for intake of poor students? Thats right - LSE! And guess where I am...

Off the top of my head. I am sure there can be found more through digging a bit. I am sure Norompolansis would like Mr Thatcher added as one of the reasons, but I really didn't want to type out all of the reasons I hate her. I am now going out for the evening (Monday = Burger at local Pub night) but when I get back I shall expect a large list of reasons from other people. I'm counting on you! May the hatred be with you!

The brittish royal family is as inbred as chipmunks in a zoo..
*Aii saaayy*

j/k [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Sir ReGiN ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
The brittish royal family is as inbred as chipmunks in a zoo..
*Aii saaayy*

j/k [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Sir ReGiN ]<hr></blockquote>

I do agree with you, I really dont see why England needs a monarchy anymore, all the queen does now(in my opinion) is warm a seat in Buckingham palace and spend lots more unearned money, she does do some charity work but still the amount of money she recieves is ridicules. Then again football players and fashion models spring to mind (SO much money being wasted). BTW Regin do you happen to be a fan of Terry Pratchet, your sig mentions foul old Ron and your name reminds me of a character I met in one of the Discworld games.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sigmar:


I do agree with you, I really dont see why England needs a monarchy anymore, all the queen does now(in my opinion) is warm a seat in Buckingham palace and spend lots more unearned money, she does do some charity work but still the amount of money she recieves is ridicules. Then again football players and fashion models spring to mind (SO much money being wasted). BTW Regin do you happen to be a fan of Terry Pratchet, your sig mentions foul old Ron and your name reminds me of a character I met in one of the Discworld games.<hr></blockquote>

My oh my, you're the FIRST person the understand my name, bravo [img]smile.gif[/img]
And yes, I am a great fan of Terry Pratchett, that man's an absolute genius if you ask me ;)
And as for the monarchy, it's the same here in Sweden..
All the monarchy does, is cut ribbons, yawn at the Nobel Awards and getting on the placards..
Prety pathetic if you ask me, and they only waste money..
As do athletes, like you say ;)
Peter Forsberg makes 100 000 dollars a month...
100 000 dollars a month..
I make 1000..
And meanwhile, the hospitals aren't functioning properly because lack of funding, the schools can't teach properly because of lack of funding and it's getting so expensive to have your own apartement that most people don't leave home until 26..
Maybe people should've adapted more of Marx's economic theories, aye ;)

Oh and isn't their some sort of celebration in Britain right now, involvingthe queen? :confused:

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Sir ReGiN ]</p>

In England right now there is a lot of heated debate over the lack of funding that the NHS (national health service) receieves, why the hell should the queen and company get more ivory back scratchers while people are suffering and some are even forced to leave the country to seek medical help. There is NO excuse for that, I'm sure football players (as well as other athletes as you pointed out) and fashion models could afford to lose a few thousand pounds to help support the NHS as well as other things such as the education system. I wish people would look at the bigger picture sometimes. As for the celebration involving the queen I dont know anything about that.

If you ain't got nothing good to say, just say nothing. Ridiculous thread to start...Knob.

UKs TLDs (top level domain names) It just makes no sense that they as the only country in the world have a domain name that more looks like its a subdomain

The english accent for attracting females, and me for not having it

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: DiabloRex ]</p>

<font color=orange>I can think of no reason to hate the UK. Sorry!</font>

And of course the political parties in Britain are among the most right wing in Europe. Even the Liberal democrats are a bunch of pansy centre-lefts. And we still don't have proportional representation.

Reasons to hate england

11)It rains
12)It to damn cold in winter
13)It to damn hot in summer
14)It both to damn hot and cold not to mention damp in between.
15)It' small
16)It full of english people
17)It has crappy shopps
18)We get everything late
19)Everything cost to much
20)I live there
21)The accents are inpossible
22)Everything is bad
23)People have no understanding of how long things take
24)The phone companies suck, as do the gas
25) TESCO!!!

Well that my reasons.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I am sure Norompolansis would like Mr Thatcher added as one of the reasons, but I really didn't want to type out all of the reasons I hate her.<hr></blockquote>

mr thatcher... lol barry [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

what do i hate about england? well, i said a few things in the other thread but i was mostly kidding. but since i already stated what i dont like, ill say what i do like.

when i was there (lived in torquay and the torbay area for a while) the people were very nice, helpful and polite. i also really liked the food. no matter what they say, i thought it was great, fresh and tasty. i also like its football, rough and with no diving. i love the fact that all roads seem to have been carved straight through the forests, and the way they care about the greenspots. also, its surrounded by ocean, which is never a bad thing.

oh, and of course, john cleese absolutely rules. :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

1. When giving colonies independance we pulled out the entire civil service at once. 40 years on we look at countries in disarray due to civil war and economic crisis and act gracious in cancelling debt. Hmmm, how very kind.<hr></blockquote>

I really don't know much about any of these,but...


Countries who achieve Independance usually aren't interested in having the old "rulers" around. Leaving civil servants behind without protection probably isn't a good idea. Unless they left the former colony after they had been asked to stay and help I can't blame them much on this one. Staying behind to make sure everything "worked" out doesn't really leave anyone independant does it?

The problem with colonization, as a whole, is that it drags nations, who are unprepared, out of their "present" and into their own "future" at a seriously unnatural rate of speed. They aren't ready and neither is the world.

Oh yeah, the thing about not testifying at your own trial and the judge telling the jury it's an indication you're guilty SUCKS!

See Barry, we can agree :D

Top 3 Reasons why I hate England

3. The fact it takes so G***** long to swim to it from holland
2. Spice Girls
1. Liverpool FC

eh ;)

Ya know you could write a list about any country in the world
None of them are prefect and none ever will be

"Hate" is such a strong powerful word that a lot of people seem to use far too liberally

If you find the UK too sickening I suggest you do something about it.....move countries, go find your perfect land, lots of people emigrate from different places so its not a big deal and would rid your heart and mind of such hatred.

I am defintely not a royalist so I can see that the English Royal family are an expense etc........BUT they are a huge source of tourist income and help bring in a lot of revenue and I do believe they do some good PR work between UK and other countries.
Also if we were to get rid of them I think there would be a time in the future that people would look back at the assholes that got rid of a part of English history......
Is a far bigger picture than the fact that they are a bit of a joke really.

Not testiying in court tells me you are guilty.....an innocent man has nothing to hide [img]smile.gif[/img]
I know some court systems in other countries that are certainly worse than ours....or appear so

Having travelled all over Europe with the Army I can say I appreciate England, I don't mean to put other countries down, just that you get used to and miss your homeland.
You normally find people who shout loudest are those that don't know any different

My advice is leave the Uk or commit suicide, as I can't see how you can continue life with such hatred in your heart [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
My oh my, you're the FIRST person the understand my name, bravo [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Sir ReGiN ]<hr></blockquote>

Now hold on a minute! I know who Regin is! He is Count von Uberwald's Manservant in Discworld Noir right? It bugged me for a while but I got there... An amazing game I have to say. If there are people on here who haven't played then I strongly recommend that they do. Think of the earlier Discworld games but then think much much better and less cartoony. And it is also hilariously funny:

"Mother told me I should have been a tax collector! "It's good money Mooncalf." she said!".

And to the various people who mentioned the royal family did you know that they cost each tax payer £1 a year? That may not sound much but then consider that there are only 13 of them...

Tarox - as to what you were saying about the royal family. The money they bring in through tourism cannot be quantified. There is no way of knowing that they specifically account for any amount of it. The kind of money they bring in is stuff like sales from of hotdogs outside Buckingham palace, or sales of mugs with the Queen on them. That money is not usually seen by the economy anyway, it is all done on the never-never in the first place. Just a quick question to the foreigners out there (i.e. the majority of people on this board) would you be swayed in your decision to visit a country by whether or not they retain the monarchy? Just a quick question.

Gabriel, I agree with all of yours except for the too hot one. Where do you live....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DiabloRex:
UKs TLDs (top level domain names) It just makes no sense that they as the only country in the world have a domain name that more looks like its a subdomain

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: DiabloRex ]<hr></blockquote>
I agree this is shameful. You have no idea how much this keeps me awake at night. :D

Oh this is a GREAT thread!
Woohoo, a chance to moan about England at last (as if I never did before!)

Gabriel mate, I can't agree on the too hot business, it is always too cold here!

Royal family - they would generate just as much money, if not more, from tourism if they were dead and all the palaces were open to the public all year round. Plenty of republics have good tourism, if you think the queen is the only reason to come here then you're missing out! What about the great art galleries, museums, ancient sites, beautiful countryside - that would all be there without the monarchy. The Tate Modern and British Museum get *way* more visitors than buck palace - and if we had no queen we could still keep the palaces as tourist attractions anyway.

But my main gripe about the royals is that they are unelected - and the Queen *does* have a constitutional role, OK so it has never been used in recent times, but she can suspend parliament or refuse to swear in a new government - it makes me very uncomfortable that she has that right - I also agree with the point about hereditary peerage - that has no place in modern society. Did you also know that England only recently did away with the death penalty?? Yes, it was kept on the books for 'High Treason' which could include plotting against the monarchy - yet you could kill Blair and just do your 25 years in the nick.

Plenty of good things about England too, just in case anyone thinks I am all negative - I love the fact that we have ancient history, and once you get out of the stinking pit called London the countryside is so beautiful! (London isn't that bad, but something MUST be done about the traffic!).

Epona, our Queen has, in theory, the same power as yours (she can suspend the government etc), but I've never felt uncomfortable knowing that. It's a token power, the minute they'd try to wield it, they'd be stopped in their tracks (unless perhaps we were at war or something).

Sorry, can't agree, but then I don't live there. The country that produced Shakespeare, Churchill, Wellington, Saki, Dorothy L. Sayers, Jonathan Gash, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles is all right with me. I'm sure that you have problems, but then, who doesn't? (hums "England swings like a pendulum do...)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galadria1:
Sorry, can't agree, but then I don't live there. The country that produced Shakespeare, Churchill, Wellington, Saki, Dorothy L. Sayers, Jonathan Gash, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles is all right with me. I'm sure that you have problems, but then, who doesn't? (hums "England swings like a pendulum do...)<hr></blockquote>

oh god thanbk you
How does that song go and who's is it?
I've been wondering that ever since i saw a Friends rerun of Ross' marriage

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sigmar:
[QB]

I do agree with you, I really dont see why England needs a monarchy anymore, all the queen does now(in my opinion) is warm a seat in Buckingham palace and spend lots more unearned money, she does do some charity work but still the amount of money she recieves is ridicules. Then again football players and fashion models spring to mind (SO much money being wasted). QB]<hr></blockquote>

We don't need them, they are paid to do a job and are useful to us.

Each year The Queen and other members of the Royal Family undertake nearly 3,000 visits to many parts of the United Kingdom. Official functions often feature prominently in such visits, including opening new buildings, meeting local dignitaries and visiting businesses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings as well as visiting hostels for the homeless, local community schemes, military units and other organisations.

The Queen and other members of the Royal Family have close associations with a wide range of charitable organisations covering many areas of national life. As patrons of over 3,200 charities, the Royal family visit a large number of charity organisations and projects each year.

Liz, Charlie and Anne generally do a good job. Anne performed over 600 official engagements. The rest of them are a bunch of tosspots.

They also bring in shed loads of money via the tourist industry.

As for sportsment and models losing thousands of pounds to support the NHS - they do, we call it income tax (over 50%).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DiabloRex:
UKs TLDs (top level domain names) It just makes no sense that they as the only country in the world have a domain name that more looks like its a subdomain

The english accent for attracting females, and me for not having it

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: DiabloRex ]<hr></blockquote>

IMHO .co.uk looks so cool
If i had to coose I'd choose that over any other domain name
imagine
http://www.iwaeq.f2s.co.uk
so cool...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galadria1:
(hums "England swings like a pendulum do...)<hr></blockquote>

Oh good grief, we'll be into chirpy cockney singing any minute, please please please don't let anyone think that is what English culture is about, oh no what a terrible thing to happen to this thread... *sob*

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


Oh good grief, we'll be into chirpy cockney singing any minute, please please please don't let anyone think that is what English culture is about, oh no what a terrible thing to happen to this thread... *sob*<hr></blockquote>

But it's such a happy song [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


Oh good grief, we'll be into chirpy cockney singing any minute, please please please don't let anyone think that is what English culture is about, oh no what a terrible thing to happen to this thread... *sob*<hr></blockquote>


Har Har! I can't resist this :D :D

ENGLAND SWINGS
England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

Now, if you huff and puff and you fin'lly save enough
Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea
Take a tip before you take your trip
Let me tell you where to go
Go to England, oh

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

Mama's old pajamas and your papa's mustache,
Falling out the window sill, frolic in the grass,
Tryin' to mock the way they talk, fun but all in vain,
Gaping at the dapper men with derby hats and canes.

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children


Those were the days! England Swings

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Donut ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Melusine:
Epona, our Queen has, in theory, the same power as yours (she can suspend the government etc), but I've never felt uncomfortable knowing that. It's a token power, the minute they'd try to wield it, they'd be stopped in their tracks (unless perhaps we were at war or something).<hr></blockquote>

I agree. We fought the Civil War to affirm the right of Parliament to rule. There is no possibility that they would try this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:



Har Har! I can't resist this :D :D

ENGLAND SWINGS
England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

Now, if you huff and puff and you fin'lly save enough
Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea
Take a tip before you take your trip
Let me tell you where to go
Go to England, oh

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

Mama's old pajamas and your papa's mustache,
Falling out the window sill, frolic in the grass,
Tryin' to mock the way they talk, fun but all in vain,
Gaping at the dapper men with derby hats and canes.

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children

England swings like a pendulum do
Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
Westminster Abbey, the Tower, Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the little children


Those were the days! England Swings

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Donut ]<hr></blockquote>

You git [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

LOL, I had no idea what I started. Sorry, Epona, but I have always liked that song. I'm an Anglophile sinxe I was 13 and read Sherlock Holmes for the first time. And then James Bond.... (Sean Connery, sigh, to quote Garnet FalconDance)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galadria1:
LOL, I had no idea what I started. Sorry, Epona, but I have always liked that song. I'm an Anglophile sinxe I was 13 and read Sherlock Holmes for the first time. And then James Bond.... (Sean Connery, sigh, to quote Garnet FalconDance)<hr></blockquote>

Well, Anglophile is fine, but that is not IMHO a good example of English culture, and it saddens me that people see songs like that as coming from the same culture as Shakespeare!

Oh just call me a snob. I can't help it, I should just accept that I'm descended from cockneys and not get so worked up about it.

Aaawwwl togevver naw...

Knees up muvver braaawn
Knees up muvver braaawn
Under the table you must go
ee-i-ee-i ad-e-o
An if I catch ya bendin
I'll saw ya legs right orf...

Didn't like that one, OK, lets try another,

Awwwww, my awd mans a dustman
ee wears a dustmans 'at
ee wears gorblimey trawwwsers
an ee lives in a cawwwncil flat
eee looks a proper narna
in is great big obnail booots
its such a job to pull em up
that ee calls em daysie rooooots, oi

Embrace your roots *barf*

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]</p>

Look on the Briught side of England Folks

Manchester United
ehm
The beatles
Blur
:D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:


Well, Anglophile is fine, but that is not IMHO a good example of English culture, and it saddens me that people see songs like that as coming from the same culture as Shakespeare!

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]<hr></blockquote>

England Swings was written and performed by an American (Roger Miller, he of 'King of the Road' fame). At the time it was written England, and especially London, was the centre of the world for music and fashion with the Beatles and Carnaby Street etc. The lyrics are an americanised view of England at that time.

Galadria, as Sean Connery is an Anglophobe, him being a 'sweaty sock' (bit of cockney rhyming slang thrown in for no apparent reason) I doubt he would appreciate being feted by an Anglophile. :D

All the people who said that the royalty have no say practical say in politics I sort of agree with. But it isn't entirely true. There are so many holes in our constitution that one of the functions the queen holds is to decide which precedent to follow. For example in the 1974 election there was no overall majority, the Labour party had fewer votes but more seats than the Conservatives. The queen had the choice of which one to invite into government. She gave Heath a weekend to form a government before she let Wilson have the same chance. Effectively she chose the government in 1974. The only reason the conservatives didn't retain power was that Thorpe wouldn't play ball and neither would the Unionists (both were needed to form a majority government, the Liberals having been returned with a whopping 13 MPs from 20% of the vote - another reason to hate the UK).

Ronn - sorry I hadn't replied to your post earlier. I entirely forgot when I was writing my earlier post. I know what you mean about countries not wanting us around any longer but i didn't fully explain my argument. Upon giving a country independance we pulled out everything at once. There was no constitution for these counties and for years their entire economies had been based on providing for britain. In most of these nations what naturally followed was civil war as rival factions all thought they should be in charge. This leads to death and famine if no one wins. When someone does they immediately run the country for their own personal gain, taking IMF loans to be put into bank accounts in Switzerland. Then we require the money back so who has to pay for it? Thats right, our old colonial slaves are left with the bill. The only place this rough pattern hasn't happened is the Belgium Congo. There an impartial civil service was left in place after independace was given, allowing the country to actually continue to run after we left. So it didn't have to happen the way it did in most places. We could have saved an awful lot of lives if we hadn't been so spiteful about the whole process. The way we colonised and then granted independance absolutely stinks in most places, the nations will be buggered for years to come, all for the British economy.

Umm Why exactly is it...that if you through some chance or circumstance are under the suspicion of committing a crime and refuse to tell your side of things....it is a bad thing to be assumed guilty? If you won't speak up and say you are innocent, I think it is a fair bet that you are guilty. If you are too stupid to lie convincingly and the truth won't set you free you should not be given a free pass...It is a rare case when innocent men get framed for a crime where their testimony if innocent would not set them free.

I never understood why a person would have the right not to incrim inate himself, its like having the right to not be stupid. Unless it were to forfend the possibility of coercion...of course coercion is already against the law...so I guess this is just an issue of the US having too many lawyers and thus needing many redundant laws to confuse the issue.

If you are inocent how can telling the truth not be a good thing?? I think it only natural that if you to refuse to speak you ARE going to make yourself look more guilty. The judge pointing it out is just commenting on common sense..just in case some Juror doesnt have any!

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Epona I take it you are not really from London although you live there now?
Just seem to have a northern view of our Capital

Unless you live in some backward surreal community you'll find no one actually sings those songs......just for like TV shows and Theatre type stuff as a joke or portrayl of olden times in London

This thread could go on forever and ever and ever
Are we gonna go round the world and say all the bad things about each country I wonder...the forum will be chocker ! hehe

MagiK - it destroys the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Should you wish to say nothing, and then the prosecution put forward a bad case against you then you will be assumed guilty. Even if the case against you is flimsy you will be assumed guilty by the judge and jury. So the principle is effectively guilty until you speak and prove yourself innocent.

What about people who don't speak the language very well, or people who will be under threat if they do speak what they know. Just because you are silent does not mean you are guilty. Basically what you advocate is the state having the ability to arrest anyone and make them prove their innocence. That is basically what happens over here (particularly with reference to suspected IRA members who the law was brought in specifically to penalise). Not a system I like, not a system Amnesty International like, not a system the European court on human rights likes, and not a system Charter 88 like either. I can understand your argument, I just think there are more worrying conotations of it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tarox:
Epona I take it you are not really from London although you live there now?
Just seem to have a northern view of our Capital<hr></blockquote>

I am from Guildford, about 40 miles south west of London, don't you need a passport to travel north of Watford? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Unless you live in some backward surreal community you'll find no one actually sings those songs......just for like TV shows and Theatre type stuff as a joke or portrayl of olden times in London<hr></blockquote>

I live in Hoxton, which (I'm told) is now the trendy-centre of the universe. I do of course realise that not many people sing these songs now other than as a joke, that is the point of me pointing out how untypically English they are. However, my grandparents and great-grandparents did. Also until Hoxton became trendy, there were a number of pubs locally where the older populations would gather and sing stuff like this, not around an 'old joanna' as in the olden days, but usually accompanied by a man with a wobbly voice and a synthesiser with preprogrammed rhythms. There were also men who would come round wearing stripy aprons and offering the pub patrons small tubs of cockles and winkles. These things did really happen as little as 5 years ago, and I have witnessed it with my own eyes. As the older population dies off, retires to Eastbourne, or gets pushed out by rising house prices, these old traditions die. Don't think it never happened, because it did! - not so surreal...

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
MagiK - it destroys the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Should you wish to say nothing, and then the prosecution put forward a bad case against you then you will be assumed guilty. Even if the case against you is flimsy you will be assumed guilty by the judge and jury. So the principle is effectively guilty until you speak and prove yourself innocent.

What about people who don't speak the language very well, or people who will be under threat if they do speak what they know. Just because you are silent does not mean you are guilty. Basically what you advocate is the state having the ability to arrest anyone and make them prove their innocence. That is basically what happens over here (particularly with reference to suspected IRA members who the law was brought in specifically to penalise). Not a system I like, not a system Amnesty International like, not a system the European court on human rights likes, and not a system Charter 88 like either. I can understand your argument, I just think there are more worrying conotations of it.<hr></blockquote>

I see what you mean barry but in my experience it is a very rare thing that a totally innocent man is in the middle of a serious crime.
And I grant that it is defined as a right int eh bill of rights, but it galls me to no end that criminals can belet go on such irritating technicalities [img]smile.gif[/img] When I posted I was just fantasizing about a world where the bad guys didnt profit from the principles of the good guys [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well then, here is my reasons,

1) Bad food (To my taste at least)
2) Terrible weather

[img]smile.gif[/img]

okay .....really pissed off madman here.....not ina while have i seen such a display of ignorance arrogace and idiocy i aint gonna say ay names cos i dont wanta fight but come on!

FIRSTLY - there is more to the UNITED (< keyword) KINGDOM than just england .
- There is much beauty and good shit in the country

- i am hardly a fan of the monarchy but tourism.! ill continue later but ANGRY

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Epona:
[QB]

Well, Anglophile is fine, but that is not IMHO a good example of English culture, and it saddens me that people see songs like that as coming from the same culture as Shakespeare!<hr></blockquote>
[img]smile.gif[/img] Epona, it's not supposed even to be English. As Donut says, an American, Roger Miller, wrote it, as an appreciation of England. Next time, I'll hum the Messiah. :D As for Sean Connery, Donut, he'll have to take my Anglophile adoration and like it. Anyway, we have a reproduction of Lady Butler's "Scotland Forever" hanging in our den, just like his tattoo. Right opposite "Wellington at Waterloo."

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Galadria1 ]</p>