Posts by Cybw

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Quote from Sthenno

    [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Arial]The people who carried out this plot were doctors – do you not think they’ve already been subjected to some pretty stringent security checks?

    In this case it was doctors - but as a more general principle for gaining greater security it makes sense to me to have control over who comes into the country, and to check their backgrounds properly.


    :eek: are you suggesting that just because they live in England Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to retain a sense of cultural identity?!

    I think there's a distinction between religion and culture. On one hand I think everyone should be free to practice their religion without persecution - be it christianity or Islam. However in terms of culture I think ideal is that they feel English, and subscribe broadly to English values - such as equal rights for women or a vauge notion of free speech. A stupidly high number (45% possibly, not sure) said they supported the introduction of islamic law to Britain - which certainly flies in the face of the equal rights part!

    You said the problem wasn't diversity - but if in one nation a group of people have such a different culture to our own then diversity is surely part of the problem. Going back to equal rights for women, the culture in many muslim countries is such that just couldn't understand it. They presumably view it in a similar way that we view the stoning to death of a woman to be barbaric. If they retain that sort of cultural identity, how we deal with it then seems to become merely damage limitation.


    Could you elaborate on that?

    Our current foreign policy seems only one aspect. In 1993 when Islamic extremists first had a shot at the world trade centre we wern't in Afganistan or Iraq. There may have been other foreign policy greivance, I don't know, but that seems to suggest to me a pre-existing hatred. In spite of this after every terrorist attack someone points the finger at our foreign policy to score political points.

    I've noticed that a lot of people who blame policy seem to have a certain agenda. If the foreign policy is the cause of this terrorism, then we're well and truely stuffed because there will always be people who object to that. I think it's very easy to loose sight of the awful nature of their intended crimes and almost start to blame ourselves, like a rape victim who can't quite get it out of her head that she's somehow to blame for being to victim of a horrific assault.

    I think it does come down to cultural identity again to some extent, especially when the terrorists are home grown. If one feels English then would you attempt mass-murder in the name of protest. If you feel like an Iraqi Muslim who just happens to live in England then it'd be easy to take the view that the English, a group of which you are not a part of, are invading your country. Such people are then again prime targets for the extremist leaders.

    I've not put the above sentiments very well, but then again when it comes to the vauge feelings of indentity and culture finding the right expression is always a pain >

    Quote from Sthenno

    So what are you suggesting exactly? Refusing entry to all foreigners on the grounds that they might be a terrorist, or asking them nicely whether or not they are before we let them in?

    Some basic control over immigration might help - and part of that has to include more detailed background checks on people being let in for security reasons.

    Looking at it from a more long term perspective, part of the problem seems to be that some people arriving here have no loyalty whatsoever towards the UK. To hear 3rd generation immigrants speaking of "their culture" shows that the system has failed. If their culture isn't our culture, then it's no wonder that a large number of muslims feel isolated from this country and are prime targets for terrorists to groom.

    That they feel isolated in perhaps in part due to the damage caused by multiculturalism, but also the famously high immigration rate and formation of large groups in modern day ghettos removed any pressure to integrate. If you're the only muslim in a town of native english then you'd probably intergrate pretty fast. If on the other hand you can live amoungst your own people, and get along fine without even having to learn the language what will make you feel british?

    Whilst it obviously adds fire to the flames, I'm also a little disconcerted to hear that it's in effect all our fault because of our foreign policy! It seems almost masochistic, lets all whip ourselves because we've made these people believe that mass-murder is democratic protest!

    Quote from Telegraph

    The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.

    One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.

    While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

    There was me thinking it was because people thought it a good idea to buy a house on a floodplain!

    Quote from Coyote

    Have you SEEN what most people are like? :eek: They are, in the main, thick and tend to have no comprehension of how to be sensible

    Even the less able person surely knows that smoking is bad for them. It could be argued that to smoke in the face of this knowledge is stupidity, but is the cost of this stupidity really that great?

    Smokers die younger, although as the effects are longterm it is likely that many smokers will be economically inactive by the time they suffer consequences - hence less harm to the economy.

    On the plus side, there is less strain on pensions, they contribute more to the NHS than they use, the industry creates jobs for people and a certain ammount of pleasure is presumably gained from smoking by the people themselves.

    We may, for reasons of permitting informed choices and prolonging life, wish to offer education (what smoker doesn't know by now that it's bad for them?) and support if they wish to give up - but is going down a similar route to Huxley's Brave New World the way to do it.

    Quote from Coyote

    There is a VERY strong argument that most people do now need a nannystate.....

    To prevent them causing harm to themselves? Personally if someone wants to harm themselves, and knows the consequences, then I don't see why we as a society should seek to stop them. Perhaps within a family unit urging someone to give up a harmful habit is a sensible option for our own benefit - but why is this a state matter?

    We don't want to be forced to suffer as a result of someone elses desire to harm themself. To this end smoking may be considered a selfish act, in the same way suicide may be considered selfish. It is therefore undesirable, but ultimately, like suicide, should surely be a matter of personal choice.

    From my limited knowledge its not so much that you snack a lot but what you snack on.

    Instead of junk just have a supply of fruit and ricecakes to gorge on - can't do anyone all that much harm though i'd have thought!

    If its not too ignorant - why would anyone want to be a raw vegan?

    Ive just about got my head around the motives behind total veganism, but why eat raw ?

    Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    it's our fault china is doing so much damage.

    How'd you figure that one out? Just because we did it first in ignorance shouldn't make it our fault when others do it knowing the consequences surely?

    **forigve me, still in exam mode**

    Predictably, the Islamic response is an absolute disgrace which muddies the name of the majority of Muslims who seem to be reasonable people. It is therefore the minority of Muslims – the fanatical jihadists that this post is aimed at.

    Burning effigies of the Queen and Mr Rushdie is a mildly amusing response (I’ve long wondered where on earth they get these burnable effigies from, could you make a full time job out of making them?) – but the fact that the Pakistani minister, supposedly a respectable politician, directly said the following is abhorrent.


    If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified.

    However he tried to spin in afterwards, that seems like a fairly clear message to me.

    Sir Salmon might not be everyone’s favourite author, but there is at least a reasonably clear case to knight him. He’s won prizes and via his book became a powerful icon of free speech. There may be people we’d consider more worthy, but at least he wasn’t an entirely ludicrous choice like Sir Beckham.

    Then of course, we must look at who we’ve offended. Muslims are one group that in particular seem determined to take offence at anything. On one hand Iran kidnaps our sailors from Iraqi waters, and on the other takes offence when a distinguished author is knighted in the UK...

    I’m not the biggest fan of their so called “culture” when it involves stoning to death anyone showing a little disrespect for the esteemed prophet in their own countries, but at least that’s a matter for them. However it seems that Muslims from those highly civilised countries come to the UK and other countries with silly anti-islamic ideas like equal rights for women or freedom of speech and seem to be constantly attempting to impose their culture upon the natives. Take the fatwas issued on the lives of the Danish cartoonists for drawing an (albeit not especially funny) cartoon of the said Muhammad. It didn’t even seem to matter that they were produced in the country that many of the Danish muslims had chosen to live in, knowing full well that it had a free press, or indeed that it’s only forbidden for muslims to draw pictures of him...

    That said – as mentioned earlier it doesn’t seem to be so much Islam as a mix of their culture and people using religion to justify their actions. Christianity does after all suggest similar sanctions for minor offences.

    Quote from BBC

    Smokers in Liverpool could be asked not to light up in their own homes during visits from council staff.

    Whilst I dislike the hysteria surround smoking, I dont think that's an unreasonable request.

    If a council officer comes round to your house and politely asks if you'd mind not smoking whilst they are talking to you, then it strikes me as bloody rude to refuse. It isn't a matter for law, but just a matter of basic courtesy to another human being surely?

    Quote from Dapablo

    I view it as similar to the smoking debate, the majority know its not a good thing to do with some die hards complaining about their right to do as they want regardless of the harm to others.

    In a survey of 1,939 adults by GFK NOP for ITV in mid-2006...

    Quote from Telegraph

    Parents aged 35-54 were most likely to have smacked their children, with nearly three-quarters – 74 per cent – saying they had done so, said the research. The vast majority of adults opposed moves for an outright ban.

    Between 80 and 90 per cent of parents and adults without families were against a complete smacking ban. Similar proportions did not consider a light smack the same as "hitting" a child.

    If this is to be believed it seems as though it should be the other way around. Even allowing for a massive margin of error it shows that there is no clear cut majority in support of banning smacking.

    Quote from Zim

    Is it just me that thinks the rule "as long as it dosn't leave a mark" seems to sound a bit like "do what you like as long as you dont get caught".

    I read it more as a limit on how hard one is allowed to hit a child. It appears to accept that it is the parents choice, whilst imposing a basic limit to prevent excess cruelty by allowing the provision to prosecute in cases where a child has really been hit far harder than necesary to get the point across.

    Quote from John

    I was going to write a post about this but your excellent post covers all my points. :thumbup:

    You don't have to be in favour of smacking children to be in favour of a parents right to bring up their child according to their own rules - so long as this wouldn't spill over into abuse or neglect.

    You might not think it isn't how you'd like to bring up your own children, but surely no-one honestly considers a smack that leaves no mark when a child has done wrong to be a case of abuse?

    If it's not a case of abuse - then what concern is it of Nanny to outlaw a method used by very many good parents to bring up their kids?

    Lilylove - im amazed after he emptied your account at 14 he got away with a smack - that shows amazing levels of self restraint!

    I think that a valid point is raised when you recall some of the reasons you've had to give your kid a clip around the ear for. If he raises his hand against you and you (very understandably!) hit him back - then under a law outlawing smacking you'd have presumably broken the law as regards smacking a child - but that's a crazy situation!

    You can bet that after being smacked for running out into the road he'd at least have thought twice about doing it again!

    Quote from Hedgewitch

    It is hard for any governing body to enforce just how hard you should/shouldn't hit a child and for that reason it should be taken away as a discipline completely.

    If it doesn't leave a mark how would anyone know anyway though?

    I couldn't really care either way if people smacked their children or not, but so long as it isn't cruel should be a personal choice surely?

    This just seems yet another nanny state initiative to tell people how exactly to bring up children, and seems to smack (forgive my choice of words) of the attitude of increasing respect for the childs every preference and emphasis on their rights without due responsibility that seems partially responsible for such large numbers of literate, erudite and generally well mannered hoodies even in sunny south-lincolnshire!

    If it is only done occasionally and in moderation does anyone seriously grow up thinking "oh god, how on earth could my parents have smacked me when I was naughty?"

    Quote from Dapablo

    Stop talking about it or I'll come round and slap your little legs young man.

    Very effective way of making me stop i'd have thought :whistle:

    Quote from The Telegraph

    Parents could be banned from smacking their children after the Government announced a full review of the law yesterday.
    Family campaigners immediately denounced the move as "unnecessary state interference" and warned that it could criminalise responsible parents.

    I've yet to appreciate the problem with smacking a naughty child in some cases, providing it is not done with such a degree of force as to leave a mark, as law currently permits.

    Aside from the non-argument that it's not very nice for the child (isn't that the point?) - would anyone care to enlighten me?

    Quote from Dapablo

    They cannot place employees of a business in the position of having to work in a dangerous environment, and working with nicotine smoke has been statistically proven to be hazardous.

    Then don't work in a pub that permits smoking. Drug trials are dangerous, but if you wouldn't do that for money then why would you work in a smoke filled environment for the same?

    The obvious comeback is that it's not that simple - and that sometimes pub work is all people can do. I'd agree if it wasn't for the fact that great numbers of eastern europeans coming into the UK don't seem the face this same struggle to find employment that the English claim... :whistle:

    Disclaimer : The following was written whilst extremely tired at about 3am. It may contain rambling and sarcasm in places. However having wasted all that time writing it im loathed to not post it :harhar:

    Quote from shibari.surfer

    yeah, it was about 1968 or something;)

    Alice just lives about forty years behind everyone else - simple!

    Quote from denhaag

    no it isn't, and it wouldn't

    Not finding the debate interesting is a matter of your personal opinion - but I’m quite shocked that you feel it is a debate that should be effectively off limits.

    Especially considering that we live in a society with an ever increasing mix of races, I’d have thought that asking such questions and taking the time to discuss them was more important than ever! Surely the sign of a society that is comfortable with itself is one where debate is encouraged, and to seek to close down any debate on racism is not only counter-productive, but also unnecessary.

    Both sides agreed that blacks were of equal worth to whites, and should not face abuse or discrimination purely on the basis of their colour. To simply proclaim any dissent as "misinformed white people" is not only patronising, but effectively saying you consider your opinion to be so self-evidently right that you don’t even feel the need to defend it – a view which flies in the face of the genuine disagreement that has been expressed.

    I daren’t make any comments about the merits of a sociology A level having been given a stern ticking off in real life over some comments I made about “film studies” – but needless to say I certainly don’t own any textbooks on it! If I did though – surely the professional sociologists (no, that’s not a paradox) are in a good position to give some informed opinion?

    I also agree with Dapablo that we should certainly take care how it's used!

    Quote from the gardener

    if we asked what love is we would all answer differently, its almost undefinable...

    Very much so!

    I think it's a nice idea to think that love conquers all, but like God I wish I could believe in it. However, I can't believe in a concept I can't define. From my instinctive idea of love I have trouble accepting it as well, but then maybe i'm just hard hearted.

    On a slightly seperate, but related issue. I really do wish people would stop just throwing the word love around in situations that don't merit it. It cheapens the concept and seems mostly duplicitous anyway.

    I *believe* that there's only a specialist firearms unit for cases where guns are required. Unlike France for instance your average plod doesn't have a gun to my knowledge, just a large stick.

    After the stabbing of said policeman last night noticed that some people were suggesting that the police should be armed - a proposal that's left me in two minds really.

    On one hand there will surely be times when a responsible police officer can use a weapon to save their own or others lives. Facing criminals armed with guns and knives armed only with a stick seems to serve only to leave them underpowered.

    Yet at the same time, there are some very strong arguments against. Surely the criminals will simply "tool" themselves up more, making a more dangerous situation. Whilst the majority of police officers are responsible, why make it easier for those who are not. "Look at America" we might say, but then again a lot of countries with more sensible attitudes to guns also arm their police...