General Chat

Yes, EU rules only get lip service in many other countries within the union - and the EU is another prime example of imposition - no on one got the chance to vote on it - it sneaked up on us all.

I wonder how many people ever get to see their MP. When you see their surgeries listed, certainly up here anyway - they are only a 10 minute slot, because they know that hardly anyone will bother to go. In general, the attitude towards holding elected officials to account is one of apathy until a row like the expenses thing surfaces. How many people bother to find out what their EU mp does for his or her money? When you take a closer look, it's scary stuff.

Actually, and rather paradoxically I suppose, I'm personally a great fan of ECHR. It's one of the few safeguards we can call on to preserve freedoms that we take for granted.

Uggers,

Re the EU my answer is both :-)) I voted NO in the 1975 referendum (I have also never personally met anyone who either voted YES or would admit to it). I felt the Commonwealth was more important than a bunch of countries across a strip of water that we had nothing in common with as our 'new best friends'.

The least I say about the EU the better I think!

What records would you have destroyed Uggers?

Sue, isn't that the point of the thread, that we've found ourselves with the world this way without ever having agreed to it? I'm all for putting the genie back into the bottle and having a lot of data records destroyed:)

The EU thing drives me mad. But who's stupid? The EU for making the rules or us for following them?

Well Eldrick we can't put the genie back in the bottle can we?

You will have gathered that I have no issues with covert surveillance, data gathering or ID cards. How many people know what stats are gathered when you visit a website? I know that I could see from the clicks what drew someone to my site, how long they stayed on each page and which links they followed. So we are all capable of tracking each other if we wished to. That's simply the world we live in today.

I do raise issues with my MP that either directly affect me or groups of people that I am included in, the disabled is one obvious example. Probably does absolutely no good at all because most will follow the party line but hey at least I have protested in my own insignificant way.

I do object to being governed by a body that attempts to remove choice re my lifestyle 'for my own good'. Each new directive is designed and promoted by a panel which operates 'in black' and comprises of experts from commercial fields which benefit THEM not necessarily me!

I vehemently object to the cry of 'peoples' civil liberties being infringed' when they clearly have broken the UK law but the court of human rights attempts to override our judicial system because of some ridiculous EU law.

This post may make no sense to others but I know what I mean...lol

Sue

Easily done but you've confused me, Eldrick - if your opinion is that the shooting and hunting bans were put through to get votes, aren't you suggesting that a majority rather than a minority would have been in favour?

I'd quite like to see more referendums on issues like these but I suppose that would be too expensive. Perhaps more of us need to interact more with our elected MPs. And certainly more of us should vote.

But these are single issues, motivated by minority pressure groups. I bitterly resent the hunting ban and pistol shooting ban, which was the object of the exercise in both cases - to totally disenfranchise, upset and criminalise a section of the community for no reason other than to get votes. It's all part of the same thing - intrusiveness and state control over individuals under threat of legal sanction.

I have no doubt that many people will be very pleased that I - and many others of a like mind - are despondent and upset over those particular issues, but that's by the by. I don't care for anyone who thinks that way, it merely shows the shallowness of their intellect.

No one got the chance to vote on these particular issues, and no one has the chance to vote on things like surveillance and intrusiveness into private lives. It's all hidden away in manifestos and, lets be honest - Who reads the party manifestos? Most people vote one way or the other because of single issues and miss the bigger picture.

I may not agree with some things,but would certainly defend others rights to do it.
It is the principle that counts,in my opinion anyway

And there we have it :-)

Some people agree with hunting bans and smoking bans, then there's that eupahmism so beloved by the 'It's for the children' groups - gun control. Guns were controlled. Still are. By extremely strict regulations. It's the divide and conquer thing that is important, not the actual issues themselves. There will always be polarised opinions on any subject. To say 'I agree with this but not that' is neither here nor there.

The person who says 'I agree with it, but on principle I oppose it because it infringes unnecessarily on the freedoms of the people affected' is, to my mind, the more honourable and unselfish attitude to take.

I agree Julia
The pubs in my area are closing fast.
In the smoking areas are more people than are inside the pub. The non smokers seem to prefer being in the smoking area with their friends.
At my work place are smoking rooms for the residents,one upstairs and one downstairs. Staff can not use these rooms,we have to use the garden at the back.This has upset the smoking residents as staff can no longer socialise with them in the smoking rooms as before.The non smoking staff rebel at taking a resident into the smoking rooms,and certainly wont sit there with them.So if non smokers on duty and some residents need assistance to go to the smoking room ,they get no help at all.Some of these people are in their 90s,and have smoked all their life.We have to respect their wishes,if they want to smoke they have every right.But non smokers abuse their power,by not taking them.I think this is wrong.
This is just two effect the smoking ban has had in the work place,Im sure there must be others.I can go without when I have to,but do object to being dictated to.

It's the anti smoking that gets my back up. As a self confessed smoker of some 40 yrs, and a consenting adult with all my faculties, and in sound mind and limb, I think I am more than capeable of making up my own mind up as to where and when I should smoke. I have seen many a pub close in this area since the anti smoking ban came into being,as I am sure many of you have in your area also. Why was society not given an option, instead of a blanket ban, putting many people out of work, and many losing their livelyhoods. I know that long gone are the days when one was allowed to have a cigarette at the dining table with the post prandial brandy, in favour of moving into the 'lounge' area. Even now that privilage has been eroded. Now, to stay in business, many pubs are building-on, structures to accomodate the smoker, in preference to going out of business completely.
Now, it is also happening in the garden centres. Some ten years ago, the owner of my local garden centre, took away the privilage of having a smoke in the tea rooms. I had a word with him, as I served him his cigarettes, and his answer was he was quite happy for smokers to enjoy a cigarette outside with their cup of tea, in the patio area. A happy solution all round. Another one I use, does not mind people sitting outside on the terrace with their tea and smoking. However, an upmarket one I visited last week, does not allow smoking anywhere on the premises. So, on a point of principle, I shall not be visiting this establishment in the future.. Soon, we smokers will not be able to imbibe in this pastime either indoors or out. Some councils also hold the policy of non-smoking in their properties when workmen visit to make repairs. Where will all this end.
Julia in Derbyshire

As this thread has developed into the details of some of the liberties we've lost, I'll add that I generally agree with Kaz:)

I'm a smoker who hasn't found the ban on smoking in public too hard to deal with, although I would have liked to see more compromise. I've lived all my life in the country and was delighted with the ban on hunting with dogs and quite disinterested about the gun laws.

I don't object to CCTV but I do get irate about the infringements into privacy generally - I don't actually know whether the ID card scheme has been abandoned or shelved but I would be very happy if it is, despite the huge waste of public funds. I think the state holds far too much information on us as it is.

As I said, I do completely agree with the general issue of our apathetic attitude to the way laws are introduced. Come the revolution, I will be clapping energetically from my settee.

Janey,
what do I call them then? ethnic minorities? they are of different races........not neccessarily all carribean origin or africans?
and non white could mean anything!

just looked up the codes...

The IC codes are:

IC1 – White European
IC2 – Dark European
IC3 – Afro-Caribbean
IC4 – Asian (in the British sense - ie Indian, Bangladeshi or Pakistani)
IC5 – Oriental
IC6 – Arab/North African
IC0 – Unknown ethnicity

Well hey, Bob, at least you've still got the freedom to say what you think about black people on the internet, eh?

from Eldricks' reply......
""It's ignorance of the issue as a whole that misleads the public and they actually believe the spin. I.E. the streets will be safer after we ban it. But they aren't. ""

what the public, in my opinion dont realise is, that before the pistol ban, the police and the powers that be, had a very good idea of who owned what, and where they used it,and thus could control the usage.. as pertaining to licensed users.
when the government banned pistols and confiscated OUR legally held firearms, the only pistols/handguns were now in the hands of the criminals......

of which, I suspect that the police only had a fleeting idea of who had what, and where........nowadays the majority, I suspect, of handguns are in the hands of the mainly black criminal community........ you only have to count the number of black on black shooting crimes that have been in the head-lines of late.......


Bob

Hmmmmmmm..... have been pondering this one lol

I do think that the amount of cctv in this country is scarily over the top, I am not happy with the idea of ID cards and also thought that had been scrapped. In fact being tracked by mobile phone is even more scarey.
I have read both 1984 and brave new world many years ago but often think of the implications of those books today.
I think not being able to smoke in public places is fine (am a smoker) an was a very happy person when they banned fox hunting.

I do object to being monitered so closely but am not so worried when antiquated rural activities get banned. Not the same thing really!! but big cheers for more nhs dentists lol

xx

Kaz

Quite agree, Joy

I also read this thread - I don't agree with everything Eldrick said, but he did make me think

Which is a good thing

Sue x

One of the posts below actually typifies exactly what I'm talking about. You never could fire guns willy nilly. You still *CAN* fire various firearms if properly licensed. You just cant fire pistols in competition any more. It's ignorance of the issue as a whole that misleads the public and they actually believe the spin. I.E. the streets will be safer after we ban it. But they aren't.

Hi Joy

I've got no problem with anyone knowing who I vote for - they (whoever "they" are) don't have to resort to bar codes - it's a free country.


Sue x

one thing they cant stop.......eldrick doing interesting topics .lol.a real good read...and yes i agree with eldrick.

a lot of my friends wont vote now

because the ballot papers are bar coded
so they could if the wanted to do know who exactly you voted for