Top Ten Reasons to Hate the UK

[Donut]

quote:

---

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 ]

---

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.

[Barry the Sprout]

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]

[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

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

[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.

[Epona]

quote:

---

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

---

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]

quote:

---

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

---

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 ]

quote:

---

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.

---

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]

[Durwyn]

Well then, here is my reasons,

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

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Madman-Rogovich]

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

[Sigmar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Madman-Rogovich:
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

---

I suppose I'm one of the names so I will reply to this. I understand that the royal family attracts tourists but in my opinion I think we do not need them anymore.I'm sure people will still come and visit England for many other reasons, surely everyone is not attracted to the Eiffel tower in France or the White house in Washington D.C, there must be many other reasons people go to the places that they do then to see certain landmarks. Donut good points (especially about the income tax) but the amount of money they get is still incredibly unfair, someone who walks up and down a walkway wearing a strange costume actually recieves more money then a person who saves somebody's life (perhaps more then once a month/ a skilled doctor/surgeon).

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Sigmar ]