Make your land like ours!

[Arthes]

In two recent cases, protesters have been arrested under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act.

[url:yycqhdea]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1584140,00.html[/url]

Bonkers.

Does that mean every time I go into a bar, whether for coffee or something stronger and some drunken so and so decides to harrass me I can have him arrested....now I know how to get rid of them......'go away, before I have you charged under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act.....'
'whatsat - are you drunk or sommit' 'say that again please' - :lol: :lol:

[Caius Fabius]

When I go to a different country, I try and learn the language, at least enough to get by. Here in the USA the signs are being placed in stores in Spanish and English (AMERICAN ENGLISH). The computer kiosks at banks and shops ask if you want instructions in "English" or "Spanish". Wal-Mart has checkout machines that ask what language you prefer, but only offer English and Spanish.

Sorry, if you come to a land that speaks English, then learn English if you want to live there. I have been to so many homes where the parents and grandparents cannot speak a work of English, no wonder the students have a hard time.

We have dozens of languages within an hour's drive of my home, and I do see various Native Americans speaking to each other in their tribal languages, but the stores don't cater to their needs. My wife and her friends speak Russian as a first language, but Wal-Mart doesn't offer Russian, Cherokee, Choctaw, Sac & Fox or Shawnee language at the checkout. Some folks are even asking that all laws be written in both English and Spanish. Enough is enough! I am against having to speak Spanish or read Spanish to cater to a group of immigrants! My grand parents had to learn English when they came here, as did my wife. The immigrants can all learn the language of the land, or expect to have problems in communication.

[Tarbicus]

I have been to so many homes where the parents and grandparents cannot speak a work of English, no wonder the students have a hard time.

Actually, that is the best argument I've ever heard so far for a requirement to learn fundamental language basics, but I'd be really interested to see data to confirm whether later generations are inhibited by the lack of in their preceeding ones.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Does that mean every time I go into a bar, ... and some drunken so and so decides to harrass me ...
'whatsat - are you drunk or sommit' 'say that again please' - :lol: :lol:

What are you doing hanging out in places like that when your age given is 4?

Gaius
(R. I.)
who still has not been given a decent response on the auxilia drummer boy question... and was he an immigrant?

[hoplite14gr]

Dan of Britannia expressed a point that applies to all people and places.
And Charles re-enforced it.
And I belive we all try to stress the point against absurdity of being arrested for trying to gind out the names of those who died to keep you free.
(Goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Since we all manage to keep the controversy in cilvised manner, may I suggest that the admins give one Karma point to those that partisipated?
Kind regards
Stefanos

[Praefectusclassis]

Since we all manage to keep the controversy in cilvised manner, may I suggest that the admins give one Karma point to those that partisipated?

Fair enough. 16 Members have received one karma point.

[Robert Vermaat]

True host workers are sometimes too spoilt as Robert suggested but the fact remains -as the Russians say: when you go somewhere, forget your own rules at your home!

I agree to that! But that's difficult, even when you're just a tourist..

But I insist that local laws should be enforced. If you do not like the rules of the house dont pass the door..or the window for that matter!

Amen to that.

Plus it is immoral to use the law to force yourself on someone. To be tolerant is moral to be receptive is personal choice!

Yes, that would be misuse of the law. Live and let live I say, being tolerant means leaving room for somebody else's weird customs.

But personal space is a difficult thing: my space begins where yours end! Most of the time it's a question of communication and agreement, for none of us are islands (although live on them ) and we are bound to run into each's other's space often.

But I will never agree to someone forcing their own opinion on someone else!
And yes boys 'n girls, that not just about women being circumsized, but also about Human Rights!

[Robert Vermaat]

Well as I see it - I'll vote for any government that leaves me the hell alone.

Hmm.. there are some folks like that in the US, Texas and Rocky Mouintains I believe.. Stocking up on food and ammo, waiting for the UN to take over the US.. no really!

If they want to take taxes then they should just be concerned with defending us (with a properly equipped & empowered army and police force) , emptying the rubbish/trash, making sure that our hospitals are not rat infested and that our schools actually teach kids something.

I agree. If I pay taxes I can demand an efficient government. Too bad some government seem more concerned to please some conservative groups, meaning they won't collect enough taxes to even begin to be efficient!

All the other stuff about how to think, what to say in public where to not smoke and what to eat is our own damn business.
If they treated us with a bit of respect and like adults they'd know that 99.9% of people will act decently to each other - safe in the knowledge that the police will deal effectively with the 0.1% who don't.

If only we could rely on that. Too often, people do as they please, tules or no rules. Take smoking in public - even with rules, some smokers (more than 0.1%!) don't give a toss, and ignore that their habit kills my lung cells.

But I agree about overregulation - that'kills everything!
Over here we have a famous example: one law tells a restaurant to have smooth floors (so they can be kept clean), while another law tells the same restaurant to keep the same floor rough (so no worker will slip and fall)!! hock:

Almost daily we are shown how people enter the UK (sometimes from wealthy countries) to have free operations, get state care, in fact some have the cheek to check into UK hospitals, have their babies on our free National Health Service and check out then fly back to their own countries without ever paying any tax contributions... so when our taxes go up due to pressure like this... one can understand the resentment.

Indeed! No payment? That's just plain weird....

Civilization has an unwritten pact built into it... when you put your faith in your government to defend you and your way of life - you give up the means to defend yourself... when the government is seen not to defend you and your friends/family it is understandable that many people start to deal with situations themselves ....often with the most tragic results!
I'm not suggesting that anyone should do this, but as an observer I can see it happening and I certainly know people that have said that they've done it.

I can understand the sentiment, but everybody should realise that even the slightest act to take the law into your own hands only leads to your own doom, for it causes the law to be eroded and eventually enables others to to exactly the same to you.

Take the example with the supposed child molesters in the UK. A tabloid, pretending 'in the public interest' (as if! copies sold, that's why! :evil: ) to publish the faces and addresses of supposed child molesters, enabled the 'enraged public' to attack a person who was totally innocent. Would you like that to be you, just because you think the governemt is too weak or too slow for your taste? Even if you're right, would you want that the public will be the new law enforcers? God protect us from the public!

Whatever one's view of the Iraq war, I think it is a bit rich that we are trying to export democracy to another country... when we seem to be fast losing it here on a daily basis.

I agree! To 'protect ourseves', we seem almost eager to erode peronal freedoms, such as being held without trial, or trials with secret indictments, or keeping information from defence lawyers because it's 'national security'. Or letting our allies get away with abduction and torture.

I'm not an extremist... you can hear angry conversations on these subjects in most pubs, trains, buses (mainly outside London).

So do I over here. Though most of the angry public don't have a clue what they sign away in regards of their own protection and freedom when they let their government treat supects the way they do now.
it's weird, but almost to a man, they think this treatment will only be reserved for 'suspected terrorists', and they will never be treated like that. But will every government do that? Or will they be tempted too much to restrain themselves from treating other groups the same way? Animal rights protestors, anti-globalist, to start with? Pro-hunting groups, next? Striking civil servants?

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Hmm.. there are some folks like that in the US, Texas and Rocky Mouintains I believe.. Stocking up on food and ammo, waiting for the UN to take over the US.. no really!

[/quote]

I am going to comment on this based on what I have personal knowledge of, or a resource I had access to when I was a cop. This is my personal view when I was on the job. I do not want to start any debate on gun ownership. This is the way it is in the US, and is not likely to change. I am stating things as I see them based on my professional experience.

There are such groups as Robert mentions. They are less active than under the Clinton administration. They are about evenly split between "Constitutionslist" or extreme religious groups, often one in the same. The only contact I have direct knowledge of was non-violent, involving a self-issued driver's license. In 1998 there was a Police officer killed and a protracted man hunt for the three suspects.

Armed groups consist of the following, in what I consider descending order of danger. That is, what I was most afraid of in the area I worked.

Local street gangs:
Poorly armed with low end handguns for the most part, but living a "Gangsta" lifestyle. Involved in the drug trade. Gang members shooting each other is the leading cause of gun violence. These groups are split evenly between citizen and immigrant groups. They are very violent. Every officer that was shot in my department, about one a year starting in 2000, was with an encounter with this group

Organized crime groups:
A. Prison gangs. Armed as above. Involved in the drug trade. These groups are most likely to carry out execution style murders over drug debts. Mostly US citizens. Most of the unsloved murders here are excecution style homicides.
B. Drug smuggling groups from Mexico. Well armed with guns that came in from Mexico, including full-automatic AK-47s that originated in Cuba then through Angola. These groups are extremely violent in Mexico and against immigrants living in the US. (They are less likely to be violent in the US where law enforcement is an actual threat, or where citizens routinely carry weapons, as along the US-Mexico border. Most ranchers, or people living in a rural area carry hand guns or assault rifles for protection. This is legal and practical where local law enforcement is understrength and may be over an hour's drive from your home.)

Independent drug manufactures. These people are heavily armed and mostly kill the competition. They are about 2/3s US citizens and 1/3 foreign nationals.

"Citizen Militias" these are the above mentioned "constitutionalists groups. The local groups are, The Texas Republic, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, and the New Mexico Militia. Frankly, most of these militia groups are a joke. They have a lot of guns, a lot being poor quality SKS type weapons. Mostly, these are nominal law abiding citizens who are waiting for some government conspiracy to haul them off to concentration camps. They have been waiting so long most of them have given up hope the black helicopters will ever come.

These others I do not consider a threat.

The armed citizen: Almost everyone here has at Least one gun. There is a state law that allows for protection of life, and to stop a felonious crime in progress. This has happened four times, as I think off hand. Two elderly women who shot intruders, a bank customer who shot an armed bank robber, and a judge who shot a home invader who didn't like a judgment. Curiously enough most citizens are armed better than the local gangs. There are a lot of ex-military who have "equipment" in the closet. A large number of people feel that in the event of emergency or a natural disaster, there will be an inadequate government response, and order will be maintained by the citizenry. I under stand that during Katrina the initial reports of "armed gangs" in most cases turned out to be the local inhabitants guarding against looters, and were no threat.

Unlike Europe, almost all police officers here have to buy their own handgun, shotgun, and assault rifle. These come from commercial sources.

I would estimate 90% of the local homicides, gun related or not, are the result of drug use and/or drug deals. You are most likely to die from a criminal action in descending order:

- A drug overdose
- Yourself, that is, a suicide
- A drug deal gone bad, and retaliation shootings
- Attending a gang banger party where everyone is doing drugs and waiving guns around.

Most likely if you die violently, it will be from a drunk driver.

In almost every shooting involved criminal case I know about the gun was illegal and/or the person using it was barred from ownership by law.

I am not pro or anti gun. I do not feel it is realistic to try disarm a well armed citizenry, which we have here in the US, because the citizens probably won't comply, for one thing. There was a rumor repeat rumor, in the 1980s that the Clinton administration was going to confiscate guns using the National Guard and military. I heard a significant number of National Guardsmen and serving members (through the rank of general) openly say they would not obey any such order. I was also told that if I obeyed such an order, as a police officer, they would get me too. Every rank and file cop (with one exception) I talked to was against the confiscation anyway.

The US has a bad gun crime problem, but most of this problem is from individuals who are not allowed lawful gun ownership to begin with. This includes incidents like Columbine, which I acknowledge is a uniquely American problem. I don't know what the answer is. As a cop I gave up on it a long time ago.

I stress I don't want this to develop into a gun debate that won't change anything. I am putting Roberts comment into perspective. I does touch on the immigration issue. Which I already said I didn't want to touch.

Gaius Decius Aquilius
(Ralph Izard)

[Robert Vermaat]

I am putting Roberts comment into perspective. I does touch on the immigration issue. Which I already said I didn't want to touch.

Hi Ralph,
Thanks for that overview. But, I was only joking a bit.. :?

[Tarbicus]

To 'protect ourseves', we seem almost eager to erode peronal freedoms, such as being held without trial, or trials with secret indictments, or keeping information from defence lawyers because it's 'national security'. Or letting our allies get away with abduction and torture

Well, here in Blighty the authorities have been trying to change the law to have people detained for 90 days without charge as an anti-terrorism need. They say their hard drives can't be properly unencrypted under the current 14 days of detention, and are absolutely adamant they need more time to retrieve the important data. Sounds fair enough to some in a way, even though the vast majority of detainees have been innocent.

Now read this: www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8410

[hoplite14gr]

I want to give some info that have to do with the ancient time.
In ancient Athens a certain sum of public money was given to the administrtion and above that the citizens voted for any increase of that money. Like all of us going to the poll to say if we agree that the government raise taxes. (Toooo good for executives to allow it to happen!!!!!!)
That would improve things on the issues we all discussed above.
In ancient times there was the concept of the armed citizen soldier.
In U.S. they are struggling to make work. I think the Swiss have done a better job on that. They can put a break on their goverment by referendum.
From what I read form the posts that come from different geographic locations the common problem is "unvoted" executive rules and orders and unrestricted use of authority and funds as the adminstrators see fit.
If you complain you are labeled "extermist".
In my opinion 1st step is to have civilized discussions like us here and then
try to see how we stop "Rulers on the rampage" with in the applied law.
In Networks the system is designed to stop any activity not described in the Access-List. I think this can have application in civic and civil life.
"Authority" is allowed to enforce what is stated in the "Constitution". If it is not there then it is out of order. In case of dispute referendum.
As I said TOOOOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
Kind regards

[Tarbicus]

and then try to see how we stop "Rulers on the rampage" with in the applied law.

Unfortunately, it's only possible through elections. You don't like them you vote them out of power. If they're voted in the nation effectively gives their Members of Parliament their votes for their duration of office. In the UK, without an enforced constitution (we actually have one, and a Bill of Rights, but few know of it and it's completely ignored by the authorities unless challenged in court by its use) we're pretty powerless until election time.
The British Constitution
Sources of the British Constitution
The Bill of Rights 1689
The British Constitution before the 1832 Reform Act

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, here in Blighty the authorities have been trying to change the law to have people detained for 90 days without charge as an anti-terrorism need. They say their hard drives can't be properly unencrypted under the current 14 days of detention, and are absolutely adamant they need more time to retrieve the important data. Sounds fair enough to some in a way, even though the vast majority of detainees have been innocent.
Now read this: www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8410

Indeed! Over here, they tried to convict suspects with information supplied by the secret service. Only, the proscecution would not say how this information was obtained, because 'that would compromise the secret service and national security'. Of course any body could see that such information could be just hearsay or plain lies, which would not be available to the defence and therefore uncontrollable. Of course, the judge threw it out ans set the suspects free. Now they're trying to change the law so that this secret information must be accepted as 'evidence'. Good-bye, freedom and justice! And the masses on the busses and in the pubs want it so. of course they think it won't be happening to them!

[hoplite14gr]

Jim I agree with your suggestion how to stop the "rampage" with votes.
I wanted to stress that citizens shoud be carefull and restrained when the "authorities" seem to giving "handouts", inorder to vote as you suggested and not accepting the "bribe".
Robert you are right, Justice is the last bastion for resolving things in rational and more peaceful manner. Saddly its true that when people loose their trust to it then all the nastiness that we read in history books or see in faraway place on TV seems to manifest itsself infront of our incredulous eyes.
I hope that reason will not die out because I still remeber the news in the early 90s where even in Europe neighbore turned against neighbore wanting his blood. Perhaps I am a fool but I believe that Logic is still defencible.

Kind regards