The two visions of britain

as desired by our leaders


britain under the Tories





britain under labour

Decisions decisions....no wonder so many people are depressed.

Britain under Tories:







Britain under Labour:

I presume Sassy is a Labour voter.

How did you guess?

I'm dead sharp me.

Syl wrote:I presume Sassy is a Labour voter.

Which means I'm not a racist idiot, and have always considered myself a citizen of the world.

sassy wrote:

Syl wrote:I presume Sassy is a Labour voter.

Which means I'm not a racist idiot, and have always considered myself a citizen of the world.

I think racists come in all shapes and sizes as do Labour voters.

sassy suffers from a serious condition

called believeapoliticianitis

no-one and I mean NO ONE goes into politics for anyones benefit but their own

So any one who doesn't vote Labour is a racist idiot?

We are all citizens of the world... problem with Sassy and labour is that they think all should be allowed to be citizens of the UK...

Well Britain told all the people in all the colonies that we conqured that they were all British citizens whist we plundered their wealth - and then we pulled the rug out from under them.

Tommy Monk wrote:We are all citizens of the world... problem with Sassy and labour is that they think all should be allowed to be citizens of the UK...

Citizen of the world means no nationalism, man made borders and freedom of movement between countries.

Irn Bru wrote:Well Britain told all the people in all the colonies that we conqured that they were all British citizens whist we plundered their wealth - and then we pulled the rug out from under them.

That was then...this is now.

Syl wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Well Britain told all the people in all the colonies that we conqured that they were all British citizens whist we plundered their wealth - and then we pulled the rug out from under them.

That was then...this is now.

And now...was then. All effects have their causes.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That was then...this is now.

And now...was then.  All effects have their causes.

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That was then...this is now.

And now...was then.  All effects have their causes.

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

The son should also not perpetuate the sins of his father, right? We live in societies that are this very moment still unequal, because of things done by our ancestors.

Or did I not read just the other day about the ascendency of a political party in Britain fighting for equal rights for women?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

The son should also not perpetuate the sins of his father, right? We live in societies that are this very moment still unequal, because of things done by our ancestors.

Or did I not read just the other day about the ascendency of a political party in Britain fighting for equal rights for women?

Right.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And now...was then.  All effects have their causes.

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

All true in general. The problem is when you simply declare the change, but do nothing to effect it. I'm reminded of the old fable of the king who ordered the waves to stop...and they didn't stop just because he ordered it.

We are concerned about the past precisely because in the absence of any change, the past becomes the present. That's axiomatic. It's the rule of inertia. You can't be pollyannaish about it, and merely just pick flowers, sing hymns and declare all is over. It takes work to clean up the present vestiges of past discrimination. What was built in a past discriminatory era, is present in the remaining institutions.

In the US, one day we ended slavery...and then entered 150-years of Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, the KKK, segregation, and the residual racism of the Republican Party: the McConnel-Boehner doctrine (as long as we have a Black president, we will work to oppose the proper functioning of the US as a nation).

Just as a functional marriage takes work, so does a post-racist society. You can't party and not clean up the mess.

Lord Foul wrote:sassy suffers from a serious condition

called believeapoliticianitis

no-one and I mean NO ONE goes into politics for anyones benefit but their own

I don't agree
I think most politicians go into politics for exactly the right reasons and along the way, they realise that no one single issue is truly a "left" or "right" decision.
Politics isn't black or white, it's grey. Every area in every issue is grey because nothing is that straightforward
Also you can't please all the the people all the time.

I think politicians get tired and disillusioned and then they lose their way.

It's tough job.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

All true in general.  The problem is when you simply declare the change, but do nothing to effect it.  I'm reminded of the old fable of the king who ordered the waves to stop...and they didn't stop just because he ordered it.

We are concerned about the past precisely because in the absence of any change, the past becomes the present.  That's axiomatic.  It's the rule of inertia.  You can't be pollyannaish about it, and merely just pick flowers, sing hymns and declare all is over.  It takes work to clean up the present vestiges of past discrimination.  What was built in a past discriminatory era, is present in the remaining institutions.  

In the US, one day we ended slavery...and then entered 150-years of Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, the KKK, segregation, and the residual racism of the Republican Party: the McConnel-Boehner doctrine (as long as we have a Black president, we will work to oppose the proper functioning of the US as a nation).

Just as a functional marriage takes work, so does a post-racist society.  You can't party and not clean up the mess.

How far should the guilt go back though? The Brits did the pillaging. plundering, conquering and colonising centuries ago. We (the here and now) had as much say in that as the modern day Americans and Australians had in beating down the indigenous population in their countries.
Of course we have to work at making the world a better place....I think we do that by dealing with present day problems with present day solutions.

Present day probs with present day solving is the way forward, what has gone has gone.
The FUTURE of our island and its inhabitants is paramount.
This is a new dangerous era which must be fought and won by our armed forces, I know the innocent will die, suffer, this takeover, danger to us must be won at all costs..

Muslums and their ilk are NOT to be trusted or even given one inch, they will stab you in the back as soon as look at you.

Syl wrote:How far should the guilt go back though? The Brits did the pillaging. plundering, conquering and colonising centuries ago. We (the here and now) had as much say in that as the modern day Americans and Australians had in beating down the indigenous population in their countries.
Of course we have to work at making the world a better place....I think we do that by dealing with present day problems with present day solutions.

The remedy should match the injury. You go back as far as necessary to uproot the damage and right the wrong. The rule in the American Courts is, ...the civil rights law is a remedial act.

How and how much was education deprived? Give that much back. The same with employment...give that much back. The same with criminal justice. The same with all aspects of life. It's tough, I know. But it was tough on the victims, too.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The world and it's inhabitants change.
Our ancestors acted in one way we cant forever be trying to correct what they did.
"The son should not suffer for the sins of his father" (I'm paraphrasing) I think it's a very astute way of handling modern day strife.

All true in general.  The problem is when you simply declare the change, but do nothing to effect it.  I'm reminded of the old fable of the king who ordered the waves to stop...and they didn't stop just because he ordered it.

We are concerned about the past precisely because in the absence of any change, the past becomes the present.  That's axiomatic.  It's the rule of inertia.  You can't be pollyannaish about it, and merely just pick flowers, sing hymns and declare all is over.  It takes work to clean up the present vestiges of past discrimination.  What was built in a past discriminatory era, is present in the remaining institutions.  

In the US, one day we ended slavery...and then entered 150-years of Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, the KKK, segregation, and the residual racism of the Republican Party: the McConnel-Boehner doctrine (as long as we have a Black president, we will work to oppose the proper functioning of the US as a nation).

Just as a functional marriage takes work, so does a post-racist society.  You can't party and not clean up the mess.

How far should the guilt go back though? The Brits did the pillaging. plundering, conquering and colonising centuries ago. We (the here and now) had as much say in that as the modern day Americans and Australians had in beating down the indigenous population in their countries.
Of course we have to work at making the world a better place....I think we do that by dealing with present day problems with present day solutions.

So you do understand Australia Didn't free itself from paying Britain until the 1990's and British Lords were Still Claiming ownership of Traditional aboriginal lands, the handing back didn't start until the 1970's.
While most Brits had nothing to do with it, British lords WERE still exploiting the colonies until almost the end of the 20th century.


This ---- Lord Vesty, that Took legal action to try and Preserve His Supposed RIGHT to not only take the Gurindji peoples land but that had the right to Demand they worked for him for keep if they stayed on their traditional land.. And there he is a Position of honor in the Royal horse guards in 2009!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Vestey,_3rd_Baron_Vestey

You Guys Act like it was is In the PAST Not Riding a Horse in the Queens Birthday Parade

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:We are all citizens of the world... problem with Sassy and labour is that they think all should be allowed to be citizens of the UK...

Citizen of the world means no nationalism, man made borders and freedom of movement between countries.

No it doesn't... it means that although we are all part of an overall world population etc, national groups of people should retain their national status and identities etc, and have their own collective group control over their own nations and people so as to be able to be free to live the way they want to do so!

Citizen of the world means that you see the world as your country, not one tiny bit of it.


A person who wishes not to be tied to any one nation. These people see humanity as one and do not like the idea of nationalism, patriotism, racism, or any other segregating ideology. A world citizen sees themself first as a member of mankind.
Many famous philosophers including Socrates, H.G. Wells, Albert Einstein, and Jules Verne each considered themselves to be a world citizen.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=World+Citizen

LOL
Tommy

you are not a citizen of the world
but neither am I. 
Aussie Aussie Aussie OI OI OI 

Sassy... you'd be the first to complain if the queue was too long to get a doughnut from Greggs... imagine a complete open door free for all for the whole worlds population to instantly go wherever they wanted...


And hundreds of millions of people suddenly arriving in your local area...!!!


Even if global free movement was approved by a world govt agreement... controls on numbers moving about would still be imposed... much like it is already!!!

Some of you people here are showing naive idiocy beyond belief of any sanity...

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy... you'd be the first to complain if the queue was too long to get a doughnut from Greggs... imagine a complete open door free for all for the whole worlds population to instantly go wherever they wanted...


And hundreds of millions of people suddenly arriving in your local area...!!!


Even if global free movement was approved by a world govt agreement... controls on numbers moving about would still be imposed... much like it is already!!!

Some of you people here are showing naive idiocy beyond belief of any sanity...

As I don't eat doughnuts and make my own bread, I'm afraid you should have found something else to illustrate your point. 

Tell me, would you move hundreds of miles for the sake of it?

Funnily enough, neither would most people.  Refugees move because they have to, not because they want to, and most people in the world want to live exactly where they are.  Mind you, you do have thousands of Brits who live abroad because they can't stand the weather here.

Different Arguments Sassy...


Refugees can already move to neighbouring countries... although many try to use it as excuse to go to other countries that they think would be more economicaly beneficial...thus only then being economic migrants...


But you avoid the main point being that although you cry for global free movement... you ignore the devastating impact that it would have... and would then be the first to cry for return to controls... cos you're a twat who has no intelligence of foresight...

Sigh.  Not much point in having a discussion would would be incredible deep with someone who can't grasp the actual concept.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:How far should the guilt go back though? The Brits did the pillaging. plundering, conquering and colonising centuries ago. We (the here and now) had as much say in that as the modern day Americans and Australians had in beating down the indigenous population in their countries.
Of course we have to work at making the world a better place....I think we do that by dealing with present day problems with present day solutions.

The remedy should match the injury.  You go back as far as necessary to uproot the damage and right the wrong.  The rule in the American Courts is, ...the civil rights law is a remedial act.

How and how much was education deprived?  Give that much back.  The same with employment...give that much back.  The same with criminal justice.  The same with all aspects of life.  It's tough, I know.  But it was tough on the victims, too.

The remedy can never match the injury because the people who suffered then are dead and gone.

The best way now is to treat everyone with dignity and fairness.....there should be no discrimination between people when it comes to that countries education, employment, laws etc. Obviously there still is, so deal with it here and now.
Learning by the mistakes of the past, making sure they are never forgotten is better than bending over backwards trying to make up for wrongs that can never be righted.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

How far should the guilt go back though? The Brits did the pillaging. plundering, conquering and colonising centuries ago. We (the here and now) had as much say in that as the modern day Americans and Australians had in beating down the indigenous population in their countries.
Of course we have to work at making the world a better place....I think we do that by dealing with present day problems with present day solutions.

So you do understand Australia Didn't free itself from paying Britain until the 1990's and British Lords were Still Claiming ownership of Traditional aboriginal lands, the handing back didn't start until the 1970's.
While most Brits had nothing to do with it, British lords WERE still exploiting the colonies until almost the end of the 20th century.


This ---- Lord Vesty, that Took legal action to try and Preserve His Supposed RIGHT to not only take the Gurindji peoples land but that had the right to Demand they worked for him for keep if they stayed on their traditional land.. And there he is a Position of honor in the Royal horse guards in 2009!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Vestey,_3rd_Baron_Vestey

You Guys Act like it was is In the PAST Not Riding a Horse in the Queens Birthday Parade

Well f I had my way I would rid Britain of all it's Lords, Ladies and titles that ensure people can scrounge for life....they take from everyone and give sod all back.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

So you do understand Australia Didn't free itself from paying Britain until the 1990's and British Lords were Still Claiming ownership of Traditional aboriginal lands, the handing back didn't start until the 1970's.
While most Brits had nothing to do with it, British lords WERE still exploiting the colonies until almost the end of the 20th century.


This ---- Lord Vesty, that Took legal action to try and Preserve His Supposed RIGHT to not only take the Gurindji peoples land but that had the right to Demand they worked for him for keep if they stayed on their traditional land.. And there he is a Position of honor in the Royal horse guards in 2009!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Vestey,_3rd_Baron_Vestey

You Guys Act like it was is In the PAST Not Riding a Horse in the Queens Birthday Parade

Well f I had my way I would rid Britain of all it's Lords, Ladies and titles that ensure people can scrounge for life....they take from everyone and give sod all back.

Bleedin eck Syl, you are the feisty one, keep it up, I love it.
Ya sound like me or I sound like you, whoever is the elder. lol

Errr...you are.