I have faith in the EU's ability to screw this up with hundreds of committees, panels, discussion fora for the next century or so, after which, they might begin to deport a handful.
The Decline of Western Civilization
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
I enjoyed my time living in the UK and I truly appreciate the British patrimony that they have given us: equality before the law, English Common Law, divided government, a Bill of Rights, a sense of fairness (sometimes more honored in the breach than the observance).
Now, I am grateful I am to Britain for showing us so clearly just how dangerous it is to not have a written constitution. Sorry the Brits have to suffer, but they let it happen to themselves.
In Russia in 2018, 400 people were arrested in Russia for what they had written on social media. In Britain, the total was 3,300.
I found that very interesting, so I spent some AI time on it. After killing a forest, the 3000 number reflects basically reflects all digital communications, email, texts, social media, etc. Very few of these people were ever sentenced to any punishment and even fewer were jailed. And... They all broke the law. Most specifically: Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (sending messages that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing) and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
You can definitely be arrested for digital harassment and threatening in the US. However, a simple post on Facebook rarely results in an arrest, unless in Tennessee where law enforcement ends up paying you 800k for arresting you after stating your political beliefs and is found guilty of violating your Constitutional rights.
You can definitely be arrested for digital harassment and threatening in the US. However, a simple post on Facebook rarely results in an arrest, unless in Tennessee where law enforcement ends up paying you 800k for arresting you after stating your political beliefs and is found guilty of violating your Constitutional rights.
"Grossly offensive" seems to be the problem. Way too vague of a category, liable to abuse by overzealous government officials. If Parliament creates a loophole, then government can (and apparently will) drive a truck through it. I'm sure King John found the magna carta to be grossly offensive. The Catholic Church found the idea that Jupiter had moons not visible to the naked eye to be grossly offensive. I'm sure that some found Copernicus' pronouncement on the heliocentric universe to be profoundly offensive. Church leaders found Darwin's Origin of Species grossly offensive.
I find every political ad by a pro-abortion candidate for public office to be grossly offensive, but that is no reason to ban them. I certainly would not trust anyone in government (who has the compulsive force of the state behind him) with that power.
Already done. I do not live there today, though.
Still, when you see a friend making a mistake, a sense of friendship would lead to pointing out to the friend the error. I like and admire Great Britain and hate to see them screwing up.
I'm sure I've said this before here on this board, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. I had a professor at Alabama asked why we speak English in Birmingham, but they don't speak Creek or Cherokee in London. He was being slightly flippant, but he's trying to make a serious point. I think I significant part of western civilization's "secret sauce" was the free discussion of ideas and debate, and the best ideas rise to the top. This is a rare characteristic amongst world societies. But it gave rise to the incredible advantages western civilization had over all those other civilizations when they met.
Now to suppress that principal in an effort to stop people from being offended, I think is counterproductive and quixotic.
Well, Keir Starmer is gone as PM.
I'm sure the chattering class will chalk this up to any of a number of reasons, but I would have to say mismanaging immigration and the suppression of free speech would be on the list.
I'm sure the chattering class will chalk this up to any of a number of reasons, but I would have to say mismanaging immigration and the suppression of free speech would be on the list.
Just saw where Starmer resigned. I was wrong in my previous thought that a PM's resignation triggers new national elections. It doesn't, though it probably should. It means that Labour has to select a new party leader who would take over as PM.
Meanwhile, Starmer's stated plan is to remain in office pending the selection of a successor. IOW, be the ultimate lame duck.
Thing is, the Starmer government had been under heavy fire for some time. In local elections just a few weeks ago, the Reform party kicked both Labour's and Conservative's teeth in. The overriding reason is PC having gone too far. Immigration is the poster-child symptom, but policing speech is also an issue.
So I'm not sure the populace will make the next Labour PM's life any easier -- assuming the successor is Labour.
There's no telling how many directions this could go over the next six months. Buy popcorn.
Meanwhile, Starmer's stated plan is to remain in office pending the selection of a successor. IOW, be the ultimate lame duck.
Thing is, the Starmer government had been under heavy fire for some time. In local elections just a few weeks ago, the Reform party kicked both Labour's and Conservative's teeth in. The overriding reason is PC having gone too far. Immigration is the poster-child symptom, but policing speech is also an issue.
So I'm not sure the populace will make the next Labour PM's life any easier -- assuming the successor is Labour.
There's no telling how many directions this could go over the next six months. Buy popcorn.
Last edited:
Starmer resigns - he has been a truly disgraceful Prime Minister.
I do not believe him to be a good man or a patriot.
He has deliberately and rapidly accelerated the destruction of our Britain, of our home.
History will not remember him kindly, nor should it.
I sat in Parliament, looking him in the eye, listening to him attempting to justify his decision to block a national inquiry into the mass rape of young British girls.
I will never forgive him. For that, and so much else.
What comes next, I do not know.
Whatever that is, Restore Britain will be ready to offer the British people a democratic route out - a better way, the only way.
But Starmer is gone.
And that is a good thing.
Enjoy it.
This could so easily fall into the "careful what you ask for" potential for madness, but let us hope that it does not do so. I had basically written off the U.K. (and make no mistake, he was only one problem among many) but maybe I can be a little hopeful.
I do not believe him to be a good man or a patriot.
He has deliberately and rapidly accelerated the destruction of our Britain, of our home.
History will not remember him kindly, nor should it.
I sat in Parliament, looking him in the eye, listening to him attempting to justify his decision to block a national inquiry into the mass rape of young British girls.
I will never forgive him. For that, and so much else.
What comes next, I do not know.
Whatever that is, Restore Britain will be ready to offer the British people a democratic route out - a better way, the only way.
But Starmer is gone.
And that is a good thing.
Enjoy it.
This could so easily fall into the "careful what you ask for" potential for madness, but let us hope that it does not do so. I had basically written off the U.K. (and make no mistake, he was only one problem among many) but maybe I can be a little hopeful.
I got curious and looked it up. Several, "Yeah, buts" in the scheduling of national elections in the UK.
Elections have to be held no less often than five years after the preceding vote. In this case, the last national election was in August of 2024. So the next national election will be no later than August of 2029.
Yeah, but....the PM can ask the King to dissolve Parliament and call for a national election before that.
Yeah, but...the PM can now do that only with two thirds of Parliament agreeing.*
* At one time, the PM could ask the King to dissolve Parliament and call for elections at almost any time, but no less often than 5 or six years from the previous one. According to the article below, that once-unilateral power was greatly watered down between 2011 and 2022.
Here's an article from the BBC explaining:
www.bbc.com
Note that their political campaigns are limited to 25 days. Wouldn't that be glorious?
Turns out I was wrong about Starmer's government being a coalition. It was not. Labour has a significant majority in Parliament. It's just that they're beginning to hear the population's general outrage and know that they can't continue under Starmer.
Elections have to be held no less often than five years after the preceding vote. In this case, the last national election was in August of 2024. So the next national election will be no later than August of 2029.
Yeah, but....the PM can ask the King to dissolve Parliament and call for a national election before that.
Yeah, but...the PM can now do that only with two thirds of Parliament agreeing.*
* At one time, the PM could ask the King to dissolve Parliament and call for elections at almost any time, but no less often than 5 or six years from the previous one. According to the article below, that once-unilateral power was greatly watered down between 2011 and 2022.
Here's an article from the BBC explaining:
When is the next UK general election and who decides?
UK general elections must be held no more than five years apart although the PM can call one earlier.
www.bbc.com
Note that their political campaigns are limited to 25 days. Wouldn't that be glorious?
Turns out I was wrong about Starmer's government being a coalition. It was not. Labour has a significant majority in Parliament. It's just that they're beginning to hear the population's general outrage and know that they can't continue under Starmer.
Last edited:
The UK has been on a sharply downwards course for the past 20 years.
Austerity spending and Brexit have greatly accelerated the decline. But the Labour party hasn't helped anything.
They have a chance to rebuild and regroup, but I don't see that happening under the grifty and authoritarian rule that they are likely to end up with under Neil Farage and the Reform party.
Austerity spending and Brexit have greatly accelerated the decline. But the Labour party hasn't helped anything.
They have a chance to rebuild and regroup, but I don't see that happening under the grifty and authoritarian rule that they are likely to end up with under Neil Farage and the Reform party.
No WAY are they going to let an election happen before 2029. Labour is screwed in the next general and they know it.
It's just stunning to me that the citizens allowed it to get that bad. Say what you will about our issues in the US - we have many - but both freedom of speech and freedom from invasion are where most Americans draw the line.
A Parliamentary system is a funny thing.
The PM could lose his job any day for any reason. All it takes is a vote of no confidence in Parliament. Now, the members of his party know that if the polling indicates a loss of power, they are not agreeing to a VNC. They will work behind the scenes to get an unpopular PM to "voluntarily" step down. If the polling indicates the incumbents winning, then they can call for snap elections whenever they want (but they must do so at least every 5 years).
What this means is a lack of a safety net for the PM. If he screws something up, he's gone.
When I got to the UK in July 2005, my British colleagues asked me if Geo. Bush, Jr. was going to survive Katrina. Rather than explain the vagaries of federalism and "bottom up, not top down" nature of the U.S. emergency management procedures, I just said, "Sure. Unless he gets impeached and removed, he'll be President until January 2009." The Brits told me a PM would lose his job over something like Katrina. The result of the parliamentary system is pretty severe risk aversion by prime ministers.
The delay in Starmer's case is that Labour knows if they hold snap elections now they will get clobbered, so they had to convince Starmer to step down rather than hold snap elections and Keir was reluctant to do that.
Back a few years ago, we had a senatorial race in Virginia and I was deluged with political text messages from both sides and from PACs. I was overseas at the time and text messaging costs were higher than if I was in the States. I was so relieved when the election happened because the texts would stop.
Then a few days later, I got a text, "Please help my daughter welcome Senator Tim Kaine to town for a Veterans' Day address at a local military school." I did not recognize the number, so I was furious. I responded, "Please stop wasting my data."
Turns out it was a high school friend of mine and his daughter really did work in Kaine's office and Kaine really was coming to town to deliver a Veterans' Day address. Oops.
I have not heard from my high school friend since.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Targeting, OPI tweaks among rule changes for '26- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Northwestern football receives $35M donation
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: College football 2026: How much does a Power 4 starter earn?
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Former NFL QB Carr joins UCLA as special adviser
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: SMU's Jennings limited in camp with jammed finger
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Link: Quinnen Williams becomes the 3rd highest paid DL in NFL history- Started by sanjosecrimson
- Replies: 0