PDA

View Full Version : Beer Bellies Banned?



Damocles
07-27-2006, 08:35 AM
Before you go baring that beer belly in public, you’d better check to see if your need to be free flies with the locals.

This summer’s skyrocketing temperatures have led local lawmakers in the UK to consider bans on public nudity of the middle-aged shirtless man variety, The Daily Mail reports.

"There is a problem," government minister Nicholas Bennett said. "In my part of the country we are trying to revitalize the main shopping precinct.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205777,00.html

Jarod
07-27-2006, 09:03 AM
People can divert there eyes.. I dont see the reason behind this law... but it makes more sense than banning topless women....

Damocles
07-27-2006, 09:05 AM
I figure that allowing topless women would acheive the same goal!

charver
07-27-2006, 09:07 AM
This certainly is not the law and if a local council attempted to pass a by-law preventing me from taking my shirt off i'd have them up before the court to strike it down before you could say "your breasts are bigger than you wife's"

I know looking at very red gentlemen with breasts down to their knees is not a pretty sight, but some of us have something to show off. Liposuction is not cheap you know.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 09:14 AM
People can divert there eyes.. I dont see the reason behind this law... but it makes more sense than banning topless women....
If you're going to ban topless women you pretty much have to ban topless men too. Fair is fair.

Damocles
07-27-2006, 09:17 AM
If you're going to ban topless women you pretty much have to ban topless men too. Fair is fair.

I always prefer to go in the opposite direction... Let others enjoy the benefits other people do rather than restrict them equally.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 09:24 AM
I always prefer to go in the opposite direction... Let others enjoy the benefits other people do rather than restrict them equally.
Oh, I agree. Though even that option has a downside: I can think of several women who really need to keep their tops on in public, lest they frighten the horses and children.

:eek:

Damocles
07-27-2006, 09:26 AM
Oh, I agree. Though even that option has a downside: I can think of several women who really need to keep their tops on in public, lest they frighten the horses and children.

:eek:

Why is it always those particular women that take up the charge and walk the streets of the city topless? Why can't it be one of the girls on Supernova?

Jarod
07-27-2006, 09:29 AM
Oh, I agree. Though even that option has a downside: I can think of several women who really need to keep their tops on in public, lest they frighten the horses and children.

:eek:



Agreed, so why discriminate based on sex... Discriminate based on body fat percentage.

Pass a law that anyone with a Body fat percentage over "X" cannot go shirtless.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 09:38 AM
Agreed, so why discriminate based on sex... Discriminate based on body fat percentage.

Pass a law that anyone with a Body fat percentage over "X" cannot go shirtless.
Enforcement nightmare. Especially since too many cops would fail to make the grade.

Just let it all hang out, I say.

Damocles
07-27-2006, 09:59 AM
Agreed, so why discriminate based on sex... Discriminate based on body fat percentage.

Pass a law that anyone with a Body fat percentage over "X" cannot go shirtless.

Added benefit: It incentivizes healthy body fat...

Negatives: Nobody wants to see anorexia exposed...

Jarod
07-27-2006, 10:01 AM
Added benefit: It incentivizes healthy body fat...

Negatives: Nobody wants to see anorexia exposed...


Okay so a range, you may take your clothing off if your body fat percentage is between "X" and "Y". This would be much easier to enforce than say speeding. The cops would just need one of those little pincher things nutritionists use to determine body fat, they could hang outside dunken donuts and measure topless people as they came out.

LadyT
07-27-2006, 10:17 AM
Honest question here, do public beaches forbid women to go topless?

Jarod
07-27-2006, 10:33 AM
Honest question here, do public beaches forbid women to go topless?



The Supreme Court has held that public nudity is only prohibitable if done for a sexual purpose, otherwise its free speach. Even though all the laws that do not account for this are unconstitutional...they still exist, and if you got naked at most beaches you would be arrested for indecent exposure... you would likely be convicted and would have to take the case to the higher court for a ruling (an expensive proposition, but you would likely win). Anyway while technically illegal to go naked in most public places... the prohibition is UNCONSITUTIONAL.

Care4all
07-27-2006, 10:35 AM
it's all in the eye of the beholder...
i watched a discovery channel special where men in the deep jungles of africa were shown outlined drawings of women's shapes, and asked to pick the silhouette that was sexiest to them...

they randomly polled different aged men in the villages they were in....and ALL OF THEM picked the picture of the woman that was apple shaped...(big droopy boobs, rounded fat stomach, with a butt just as round), vs. the pear shaped or thinly shaped silhouettes that most men in the western world picked...
they thought the shapes of the women that were picked by men in the western world were just DOWNRIGHT UGLY!

lol!
i did find this interesting!

LadyT
07-27-2006, 10:41 AM
The Supreme Court has held that public nudity is only prohibitable if done for a sexual purpose, otherwise its free speach. Even though all the laws that do not account for this are unconstitutional...they still exist, and if you got naked at most beaches you would be arrested for indecent exposure... you would likely be convicted and would have to take the case to the higher court for a ruling (an expensive proposition, but you would likely win). Anyway while technically illegal to go naked in most public places... the prohibition is UNCONSITUTIONAL.

I'm not talking about nudity per se - just going topless. In reference to state and township beaches specifically, I know its okay for men to go on them without tops, is it okay for women to walk around without tops as well?

Jarod
07-27-2006, 10:44 AM
The Supreme Court has held that public nudity is only prohibitable if done for a sexual purpose, otherwise its free speach. Even though all the laws that do not account for this are unconstitutional...they still exist, and if you got naked at most beaches you would be arrested for indecent exposure... you would likely be convicted and would have to take the case to the higher court for a ruling (an expensive proposition, but you would likely win). Anyway while technically illegal to go naked in most public places... the prohibition is UNCONSITUTIONAL.


I know a municipality that banned T backs. (The type of bathingsuit that shows most of the ass. The law required the bathingsuit to be a certan amount of inches wide in the back. Police had to measure if they suspected the suit was illegal... That law was soon repealed.

Jarod
07-27-2006, 10:46 AM
I'm not talking about nudity per se - just going topless. In reference to state and township beaches specifically, I know its okay for men to go on them without tops, is it okay for women to walk around without tops as well?



Depends on the municipality, some make it illegal, even though doing so is unconstitutional.

LadyT
07-27-2006, 10:49 AM
I know a municipality that banned T backs. (The type of bathingsuit that shows most of the ass. The law required the bathingsuit to be a certan amount of inches wide in the back. Police had to measure if they suspected the suit was illegal... That law was soon repealed.


ewwww, who's job was that?

Jarod
07-27-2006, 10:51 AM
ewwww, who's job was that?


Pinellas County Sheriffs Office or Clearwater Police Department.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 11:25 AM
it's all in the eye of the beholder...
i watched a discovery channel special where men in the deep jungles of africa were shown outlined drawings of women's shapes, and asked to pick the silhouette that was sexiest to them...

they randomly polled different aged men in the villages they were in....and ALL OF THEM picked the picture of the woman that was apple shaped...(big droopy boobs, rounded fat stomach, with a butt just as round), vs. the pear shaped or thinly shaped silhouettes that most men in the western world picked...
they thought the shapes of the women that were picked by men in the western world were just DOWNRIGHT UGLY!

lol!
i did find this interesting!
Yeah, that's amazing stuff. Culture is immensely powerful. We are all quite literally products of our culture. We tend to like, dislike and believe what our culture deems appropriate, and to a degree that many westerners find disquieting.

OrnotBitwise
07-27-2006, 11:27 AM
Pinellas County Sheriffs Office or Clearwater Police Department.
Wait, let me guess. One of the reasons it was repealed was because of . . . selective enforcement, let us say? Like probably 90% of those, er, busted, were young women between the ages of 18 and 24?

Care4all
07-27-2006, 12:15 PM
Pinellas County Sheriffs Office or Clearwater Police Department.


okay, my guess is uscitizen? :D

Or maybe Ironhead alias Magpie?


yes, but I do not believe it was the Beach that they were banned, was it the beach too? I lived there then, so you did too? come onnnn...give us some other hints on who ya are....? ;)

I thought it was the t-backs on the girls selling hotdogs on the side of the highways or intersections.....cuz of traffic accidents....hahahaha :)

Jarod
07-27-2006, 12:57 PM
okay, my guess is uscitizen? :D

Or maybe Ironhead alias Magpie?


yes, but I do not believe it was the Beach that they were banned, was it the beach too? I lived there then, so you did too? come onnnn...give us some other hints on who ya are....? ;)

I thought it was the t-backs on the girls selling hotdogs on the side of the highways or intersections.....cuz of traffic accidents....hahahaha :)



Nope, not Iron or Mag...

Care4all
07-27-2006, 01:38 PM
Nope, not Iron or Mag...


Uscitizen!!! is that you?

you denied, ironhead alias Magpie but you did not deny uscitizen!

ok, time to cough up your identity!

;)

care

Jarod
07-27-2006, 01:40 PM
Uscitizen!!! is that you?

you denied, ironhead alias Magpie but you did not deny uscitizen!

ok, time to cough up your identity!

;)

care


Nope sorry, I am Alex.:cof1:

toby
07-27-2006, 01:47 PM
The population has a right to determine what is acceptable public behavior. It is called society!

Care4all
07-27-2006, 01:47 PM
Nope sorry, I am Alex.:cof1:


Honest to goodness, I wrote Alexx down on a post and then I erased it cuz of my uncertainty!

Welcome Alexx!!!

Jarod
07-27-2006, 01:49 PM
thanks...

Care4all
07-27-2006, 01:55 PM
Yeah, that's amazing stuff. Culture is immensely powerful. We are all quite literally products of our culture. We tend to like, dislike and believe what our culture deems appropriate, and to a degree that many westerners find disquieting.

I had also read somewhere that women during the renaissance ....that would be considered fat in this day and age, were considered beautiful....and thin women were NOT, and this was because most paupers were thin and hungry and the rich women with power and money to spend, were all fatter because they were able to eat well and have servants wait on them hand and foot....and this look of the rich bitch, is what men wanted to have....

weird how that all works, huh?

;)

care

toby
07-27-2006, 02:05 PM
And BTW, this ban has nothing at all to do with what you wear on the beach, but what happens in the main Shopping district! Guess some of you missed that little fact. LOL

toby
07-27-2006, 02:07 PM
And to be entirely accurate, it has nothing to do with beer bellies either.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-28-2006, 12:07 AM
Why would it be unconstitutional to ban public nudity, but constitutional to ban it if someone sticks their penis inside of someone else?

Sounds like a contrived rule...

toby
07-28-2006, 09:11 AM
What do you mean Water? There are laws against public nudity. And yes laws about were penises are stuck.

Jarod
07-28-2006, 05:31 PM
Why would it be unconstitutional to ban public nudity, but constitutional to ban it if someone sticks their penis inside of someone else?

Sounds like a contrived rule...


Read the first amendment. Freedom of speech, (expression) is legal. THe courts have held that nudity in some instances is a constutionally protected form of expression.

Now sticking your penis inside someone, while I can see the expression argument, is done for many reasons and if done against the will of the someone is very harmfull. Freedom of speech has limits, when your speach materially and harmfully affects another person against their will... it can be made illegal. People however can divert their eyes from nudity and thus with a small amount of precausion a person can prevent themselves from being harmed by it!

toby
07-29-2006, 07:20 AM
There are laws against nudity in most public places.

toby
07-29-2006, 07:20 AM
I don't think they have been ruled unconstitutional.

AnyOldIron
07-29-2006, 07:24 AM
It's crazy that chcks can't sunbathe topless in the US.

It should be a basic freedom for every woman to get her schwapps out....

toby
07-29-2006, 07:33 AM
schwapps?????? LOL

AnyOldIron
07-29-2006, 07:43 AM
Breasts...

toby
07-29-2006, 08:28 AM
Is that common useage in the UK are just your special name?

AnyOldIron
07-29-2006, 08:38 AM
Is that common useage in the UK are just your special name?

[b] It's regional, but we have many names for them....

toby
07-29-2006, 08:47 AM
It sounds more like what a man would have. LOL

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:24 AM
It's crazy that chcks can't sunbathe topless in the US.

It should be a basic freedom for every woman to get her schwapps out....
I am so very solidly behind that, my friend. I support a woman's right to bare her breasts whenever and wherever she may choose, just as God intended!

Jarod
07-29-2006, 11:50 AM
IT is uncontitutional to make or enforce such a law... that does not mean thay dont do it. Many Many Many laws are not challanged as it costs real money to do so, and the penalties are minor.

toby
07-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Guess alot of people disagree with you there Jared.

Damocles
07-29-2006, 05:15 PM
I wouldn't be going about with my beer belly hanging out anyway... I'd be embarrassed...

Jarod
07-29-2006, 06:56 PM
I wouldn't be going about with my beer belly hanging out anyway... I'd be embarrassed...


I am with you on that... But I do go topless at the beach.

Hermes Thoth
07-24-2007, 02:41 PM
If you're going to ban topless women you pretty much have to ban topless men too. Fair is fair.

Yeah. And if you're going to teach a little girl to use tampons, you better teach a boy to stick tampons up his ass, fair is fair.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 03:26 AM
This is plain wrong. Britain is going through 'ban-it' mania at the minute, if it moves, they will ban it. Smoking, fat blokes, patio heaters, nothing is safe from the middle-managers we have in power in local and national government.

charver
07-26-2007, 03:33 AM
In one day this thread will be officially one year old.

Happy Birthday thread.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 03:46 AM
This is plain wrong. Britain is going through 'ban-it' mania at the minute, if it moves, they will ban it. Smoking, fat blokes, patio heaters, nothing is safe from the middle-managers we have in power in local and national government.

One day, you guys will realize the usefullness of constitutions as a tool to limit government. This will be whenever you realize that you can't step an inch without incurring several thousand dollars in fines. Until that time, you'll still be blathering on about this nonsense about your "unwritten constitution" (AKA you don't have one and the government can do basically anything it wants).

charver
07-26-2007, 03:51 AM
If we'd had a written constitution someone would have banned it already.

Anyway, constitutions are far too overrated. If a government wants to override it they will.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 04:15 AM
One day, you guys will realize the usefullness of constitutions as a tool to limit government.

You guys have a written constitution and smoking is banned in many places in the US...

What we need is a cull of the 'middle-managers' we have in power...

Hermes Thoth
07-26-2007, 04:57 AM
One day, you guys will realize the usefullness of constitutions as a tool to limit government.

You guys have a written constitution and smoking is banned in many places in the US...

What we need is a cull of the 'middle-managers' we have in power...


There's just no problem who's solution isn't some form of genocide or mass murder, right nazi?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 05:19 AM
If we'd had a written constitution someone would have banned it already.

Anyway, constitutions are far too overrated. If a government wants to override it they will.

Did you know that, out of all the governments in Europe, Britian has the most appeals to the EU human rights court? It is also the only nation in Europe without a constitution. Hmmm...

I mean, what we're saying is, the worst case scenario is that the constitution can do absolutely nothing. That really isn't an argument against it. Your rights certainly become more powerful if they're enshrined in the document.

I mean, what can you do now? Appeal to the courts? The legislature can just strike down the courts. The courts, however, can sit and yell "NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and pretend that they still matter. In that manner, I guess, your government is balanced.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 05:33 AM
There's just no problem who's solution isn't some form of genocide or mass murder, right nazi?

I was being sardonic.

Hermes Thoth
07-26-2007, 05:35 AM
There's just no problem who's solution isn't some form of genocide or mass murder, right nazi?

I was being sardonic.

IS that like being a fuckwit?

charver
07-26-2007, 05:39 AM
Did you know that, out of all the governments in Europe, Britian has the most appeals to the EU human rights court? It is also the only nation in Europe without a constitution. Hmmm...

I mean, what we're saying is, the worst case scenario is that the constitution can do absolutely nothing. That really isn't an argument against it. Your rights certainly become more powerful if they're enshrined in the document.

I mean, what can you do now? Appeal to the courts? The legislature can just strike down the courts. The courts, however, can sit and yell "NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and pretend that they still matter. In that manner, I guess, your government is balanced.

Which court are you referring to - the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights?

Any UK law which breaches the European Convention on Human Rights can be struck down by our national courts since the Human Rights Act 1997. In fact in the EU each nation's Constitution is overridden by the Treaty of Rome.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 06:26 AM
IS that like being a fuckwit?

Say something sardonic and you can find out for yourself....

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 06:30 AM
Which court are you referring to - the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights?

Any UK law which breaches the European Convention on Human Rights can be struck down by our national courts since the Human Rights Act 1997. In fact in the EU each nation's Constitution is overridden by the Treaty of Rome.

Obviously the European Court of Human Rights, Charver. I am actually very well versed in British politics, much more than you're likely to see in any other random American.

I know the UK has that law, but the fact that people in your country have to appeal to it more than anyone else should indicate something, should it not? It's better, at least, to have the national courts and laws not set up to violate human rights in the first place.

charver
07-26-2007, 06:44 AM
Obviously the European Court of Human Rights, Charver. I am actually very well versed in British politics, much more than you're likely to see in any other random American.

I know the UK has that law, but the fact that people in your country have to appeal to it more than anyone else should indicate something, should it not? It's better, at least, to have the national courts and laws not set up to violate human rights in the first place.

Not necessarily. It is quite possible that citizens of the UK have both the the legal knowledge and the financial means to take, specifically, human rights violations to a European Court. Many appeals are, frankly, frivolous and i would be more interested to know the figures on successful appeals.

Remember that the European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU and is adopted by countries such as Turkey and Russia. Are Turkish and Russian courts doing a sterling job upholding the rights of the individual? The point is that even though states are signed up to the Convention their States either prevent appeals or ignore them.

Are human rights violated more in the UK than in equivalent European States? I don't think so.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 06:57 AM
Not necessarily. It is quite possible that citizens of the UK have both the the legal knowledge and the financial means to take, specifically, human rights violations to a European Court. Many appeals are, frankly, frivolous and i would be more interested to know the figures on successful appeals.

Remember that the European Convention on Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU and is adopted by countries such as Turkey and Russia. Are Turkish and Russian courts doing a sterling job upholding the rights of the individual? The point is that even though states are signed up to the Convention their States either prevent appeals or ignore them.

Are human rights violated more in the UK than in equivalent European States? I don't think so.

Who knows? They're certainly more violated than in France and Germany. Maybe you guys hold yourselves to the standard of Russia and Turkey. I really wouldn't care to do that, personally.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:03 AM
The UK really could be falling apart, though, with the SNP being elected.

charver
07-26-2007, 07:04 AM
Who knows? They're certainly more violated than in France and Germany. Maybe you guys hold yourselves to the standard of Russia and Turkey. I really wouldn't care to do that, personally.

The question of legal aid would be where i'd look. I know that the UK government will generously fund appeals to higher courts. I don't know about France and Germany et al.

Even if we had a constitution it would be a vague document allowing as much leeway for government as possible and would result in a massive number of challenges in our own and in European Courts.

What i could say was that despite our lack of a Constitution no UK government could have got away with half the strokes the US has pulled in violating human rights.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:07 AM
The question of legal aid would be where i'd look. I know that the UK government will generously fund appeals to higher courts. I don't know about France and Germany et al.

Even if we had a constitution it would be a vague document allowing as much leeway for government as possible and would result in a massive number of challenges in our own and in European Courts.

What i could say was that despite our lack of a Constitution no UK government could have got away with half the strokes the US has pulled in violating human rights.

What do you mean? Gitmo? Rendition? What is it that the citizens of UK would not accept, that sadly, Americans have accepted. I am curious.

charver
07-26-2007, 07:12 AM
What do you mean? Gitmo? Rendition? What is it that the citizens of UK would not accept, that sadly, Americans have accepted. I am curious.

Don't get me wrong, our government will tacitly go along with it all, don't want to rock the boat and all that. We just couldn't impliment it.

Things like executing minors or the mentally ill wouldn't be acceptable though.

Damocles
07-26-2007, 07:15 AM
If we'd had a written constitution someone would have banned it already.

Anyway, constitutions are far too overrated. If a government wants to override it they will.
You can have ours. Apparently we aren't using it anymore.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:17 AM
Don't get me wrong, our government will tacitly go along with it all, don't want to rock the boat and all that. We just couldn't impliment it.

Things like executing minors or the mentally ill wouldn't be acceptable though.

Ok. I was curious how people there are different than here. It seems that here we'll do anything to be "safe" including as you mention, executing minors. I don't know if that's universal or not.

charver
07-26-2007, 07:18 AM
You can have ours. Apparently we aren't using it anymore.

Exactly, sir.

A Constitution is only as robust as those who are charged to uphold it and, unfortunately, they are all weasels.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:18 AM
You can have ours. Apparently we aren't using it anymore.

Yeah, really.

Which reminds me Damo, when your friend BB has me thrown into Gitmo, I hope you are going to send me chocolates.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:19 AM
The UK really could be falling apart, though, with the SNP being elected.

I wouldn't worry too much. 75% of Scots don't want independence, because they realise how quickly Scotland would become a third world country. The population of Scotland is tiny, a couple of million, which is dwarfed by England's.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:20 AM
The UK really could be falling apart, though, with the SNP being elected.

I wouldn't worry too much. 75% of Scots don't want independence, because they realise how quickly Scotland would become a third world country. The population of Scotland is tiny, a couple of million, which is dwarfed by England's.

Huh, sounds like our South.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:22 AM
Things like executing minors or the mentally ill wouldn't be acceptable though.

Yep, it's very poor form to execute kids and the mentally ill...

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:22 AM
Huh, sounds like our South.

Do they wear skirts and moan about battles that occurred many hundreds of years ago too?

Damocles
07-26-2007, 07:23 AM
The courts ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute minors.

See Roper v. Simmons...

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to strike down executions for any crime committed while under the age of 18.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:25 AM
The question of legal aid would be where i'd look. I know that the UK government will generously fund appeals to higher courts. I don't know about France and Germany et al.

Even if we had a constitution it would be a vague document allowing as much leeway for government as possible and would result in a massive number of challenges in our own and in European Courts.

What i could say was that despite our lack of a Constitution no UK government could have got away with half the strokes the US has pulled in violating human rights.

Like what, Charver? Name one example?

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:25 AM
The courts ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute minors.

See Roper v. Simmons...

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to strike down executions for any crime committed while under the age of 18.

Yes Damo, and the dissenting opinion, written by Scalia?, one of those nuts, was that it was anti-American or some BS to be looking to foreign law to guide our own. All up in arms because someone had the nerve to point out that we are the only so-called civilized nation where it was legal to execute minors.

Four of them were against it. It's so French.

And maybe you are confident it will stand...I am not. Not with the nuts we are putting on the courts these days.

charver
07-26-2007, 07:26 AM
The courts ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute minors.

See Roper v. Simmons...

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to strike down executions for any crime committed while under the age of 18.

Maybe that Constitution thing has a use after all, or until the balance of the bench changes.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:26 AM
Huh, sounds like our South.

Do they wear skirts and moan about battles that occurred many hundreds of years ago too?

Oh, yes, they even have their own flag and song about the long ago battle. The skirts, they wear in doors though.

It's all very repressed.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:27 AM
Don't get me wrong, our government will tacitly go along with it all, don't want to rock the boat and all that. We just couldn't impliment it.

Things like executing minors or the mentally ill wouldn't be acceptable though.

Really? It's legal in the US to execute minors? Please, pull up a document showing a single execution of a minor since that was illegalized by the supreme court (they struck it down in respect to one of our constitutional provisions), and the mentally ill aren't executed but put into mental establishments. At least we don't hold citizens in prison for 90 days.

Damocles
07-26-2007, 07:28 AM
Really? It's legal in the US to execute minors? Please, pull up a document showing a single execution of a minor since that was illegalized by the supreme court (they struck it down in respect to one of our constitutional provisions), and the mentally ill aren't executed but put into mental establishments. At least we don't hold citizens in prison for 90 days.
We also don't have special places in a park to speak out...

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:29 AM
Maybe that Constitution thing has a use after all, or until the balance of the bench changes.

The balance has changed already. It was not our current Roberts' court who handed down this very close decision.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:30 AM
The UK really could be falling apart, though, with the SNP being elected.

I wouldn't worry too much. 75% of Scots don't want independence, because they realise how quickly Scotland would become a third world country. The population of Scotland is tiny, a couple of million, which is dwarfed by England's.

Luxembourg and Ireland have many times less of a population than Britian and are quite much better off than you are financially, actually. I guess you guys just think they're too liberal? Have to impose your authoritarian lack of ANY civil rights on them?

Damocles
07-26-2007, 07:31 AM
It is unlikely to change. Precedent is very important in SCOTUS rulings, even with the current group it would be very difficult to even get them to hear the case.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:31 AM
We also don't have special places in a park to speak out...

Yes, in fact, you can speak out at any place in the park you want. Insanity, I know.

charver
07-26-2007, 07:32 AM
Really? It's legal in the US to execute minors? Please, pull up a document showing a single execution of a minor since that was illegalized by the supreme court (they struck it down in respect to one of our constitutional provisions), and the mentally ill aren't executed but put into mental establishments. At least we don't hold citizens in prison for 90 days.

If that was incorrect i apologise.

There have been cases of mentally ill chaps being bumped off though, it must be true it was on the tv.

btw - we don't have 90 days either.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:32 AM
It is unlikely to change. Precedent is very important in SCOTUS rulings, even with the current group it would be very difficult to even get them to hear the case.

I think you're right that it would be hard to get them to hear the case, but, I have no confidence that the ruling would be the same today. So, it's a pretty fickle system.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:32 AM
Huh, sounds like our South.

Scotland is far more liberal than England in general, Darla.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:33 AM
Really? It's legal in the US to execute minors? Please, pull up a document showing a single execution of a minor since that was illegalized by the supreme court (they struck it down in respect to one of our constitutional provisions), and the mentally ill aren't executed but put into mental establishments. At least we don't hold citizens in prison for 90 days.

We haven't executed mentally ill people here Water?

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:33 AM
one of those nuts, was that it was anti-American or some BS to be looking to foreign law to guide our own.

Most of the US legal and political system is based on foreign documents / ideas...

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:34 AM
If that was incorrect i apologise.

There have been cases of mentally ill chaps being bumped off though, it must be true it was on the tv.

btw - we don't have 90 days either.

Well you have cameras everywhere!

So there!

Just accept we're better! My :FootMouth:

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:34 AM
Scotland is far more liberal than England in general, Darla.

In what way?

Scotland introduced the smoking ban long before England for example....

Damocles
07-26-2007, 07:35 AM
Scotland is far more liberal than England in general, Darla.

In what way?

Scotland introduced the smoking ban long before England for example....
Most smoking bans in the US are in Liberal-controlled States.

It's that whole nanny-state thing.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:36 AM
one of those nuts, was that it was anti-American or some BS to be looking to foreign law to guide our own.

Most of the US legal and political system is based on foreign documents / ideas...

I know, but they don't. We have this whole French thing here. All you have to do is call something French, or say, ohhh the French do that, are you trying to make this France? And you will have millions of angry rednecks on your ass screaming "why don't you move to France if you love the French so much you sissy?"

I can't explain it, you have to be here to know. It's a really weird thing.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:37 AM
We haven't executed mentally ill people here Water?

Eh...

It would depend. If they were defined by the court as mentally ill they couldn't be executed. But I don't think all mentally ill people are given that option, though. Juries prefer an emotional vengeance to any perceived forgiveness in practically any case.

I'd just rather have no executions at all, like in the UK.

Cancel7
07-26-2007, 07:38 AM
Eh...

It would depend. If they were defined by the court as mentally ill they couldn't be executed. But I don't think all mentally ill people are given that option, though. Juries prefer an emotional vengeance to any perceived forgiveness in practically any case.

I'd just rather have no executions at all, like in the UK.

Me too.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:39 AM
one of those nuts, was that it was anti-American or some BS to be looking to foreign law to guide our own.

Most of the US legal and political system is based on foreign documents / ideas...

Probably, being that practically all political philosophers were French at the time. There was Tom Locke. But he was British AND a founding father.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:43 AM
Luxembourg and Ireland have many times less of a population than Britian and are quite much better off than you are financially, actually. I guess you guys just think they're too liberal? Have to impose your authoritarian lack of ANY civil rights on them?

Much better off? Are you sure, when we have the 4th / 5th largest economy in the world?

Lack of any civil rights? We virtually invented the idea. Imagine the US Bill of Rights without the Magna Carta?

Our unwritten constitution has enshrined civil rights to the extent that the comparison between the English notion of personal freedom has been contrasted to continental tyranny since the Civil war...

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 07:50 AM
Probably, being that practically all political philosophers were French at the time. There was Tom Locke. But he was British AND a founding father.

Yup, French and British philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Paine....

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:52 AM
Luxembourg and Ireland have many times less of a population than Britian and are quite much better off than you are financially, actually. I guess you guys just think they're too liberal? Have to impose your authoritarian lack of ANY civil rights on them?

Much better off? Are you sure, when we have the 4th / 5th largest economy in the world?

Lack of any civil rights? We virtually invented the idea. Imagine the US Bill of Rights without the Magna Carta?

Our unwritten constitution has enshrined civil rights to the extent that the comparison between the English notion of personal freedom has been contrasted to continental tyranny since the Civil war...

Any, do you realize how stupid a statistical statement your first point is? You have several times the economy with 20 times more people. WOOT! What really matters is per capita. You have a bunch of money, but far more people to split it amongst than they do. Ireland makes 10K more per a person than your average British citizen, and Luxembourg makes like 30K more. Luxembourg even makes more per a person than the US.

Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

You don't have an "unwritten constitution", you have no constitution. If you want a constitution, write it down. Even you have to admit, it at least can't hurt.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:52 AM
I mean, Any, by your definition the average Chinese citizen is MUCH better off than the average British citizen, being that their TOTAL economy is 4 times bigger.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 07:56 AM
Probably, being that practically all political philosophers were French at the time. There was Tom Locke. But he was British AND a founding father.

Yup, French and British philosophers like Rousseau, Locke and Paine....

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

Paine was an American.

Locke died before America came into existence.

Good thing we had the pragmatism to enshrine their ideas into a definite, written constitution, rather than leaving it as a vague "unwritten constitution" that can be overriden at any time for whatever reason the legislature feels necessary.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 08:11 AM
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 08:16 AM
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?

It would be far, far more inconvenient, and has so far happened much more rarely.

Damocles
07-26-2007, 08:21 AM
Magna Carta can be overriden by a simple parliamentary majority at any time the government feels it inconvient. Also, most of it's provisions relate to lords and is really irrlevant today.

And what prevents the US government from acting unconstitionally, aside from the threat of an uprising of the people?
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 08:30 AM
Paine was an American.

No, he was British, born in Thetford, Norfolk..

He travelled to the colonies, wrote 'Common Sense' inspired the revolution, fell out with the new US leadership, went to revolutionary France, fell out with the leadership, was imprisoned, released and came back to the US to die...

Locke died before America came into existence.

Does that prevent him being an inspiration to the US?

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

He wasn't an idiot even though you might disagree with parts of his writing. His notion that sovereignty can only be held by the people was an inspiration for the overturning of autocratic rule of kings that France had, for so long been known for.

All violent revolutions lead to tyranny, it is in the nature of violent revolutions.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 08:31 AM
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.

Hermes Thoth
07-26-2007, 09:24 AM
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.

Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 09:28 AM
Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.

Guns won't help.

What use will you be with your small arms against a fully trained and armed modern army?

Only power of numbers can do it...

Damocles
07-26-2007, 09:36 AM
Yep. Which is why we need our guns and free speech. Any adulteration of these rights is an act of hostility against the people.

Guns won't help.

What use will you be with your small arms against a fully trained and armed modern army?

Only power of numbers can do it...
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.

AnyOldIron II
07-26-2007, 09:40 AM
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.

Instant civil war....

Damocles
07-26-2007, 09:42 AM
The fully trained and modern army are part of the populace, it would be difficult indeed to get all of them on the same side.

Instant civil war....
And?

Another larger point, you can already see how arms and patience can make a difference with a lesser-armed group. Time and again we have seen it. In VN, in Iraq...

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 11:19 PM
Paine was an American.

No, he was British, born in Thetford, Norfolk..

He travelled to the colonies, wrote 'Common Sense' inspired the revolution, fell out with the new US leadership, went to revolutionary France, fell out with the leadership, was imprisoned, released and came back to the US to die...

Locke died before America came into existence.

Does that prevent him being an inspiration to the US?

Rousseau was an idiot. He had no effect on our constitiuon. His greatest effect was causing the followers of his philosophy to turn France into a virtual dictatorship. You can't be "forced to be free".

He wasn't an idiot even though you might disagree with parts of his writing. His notion that sovereignty can only be held by the people was an inspiration for the overturning of autocratic rule of kings that France had, for so long been known for.

All violent revolutions lead to tyranny, it is in the nature of violent revolutions.

France was better off under Louis the dictator than Robespierre and the reign of terror Rousseau inspired, honestly.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 11:20 PM
The Checks and Balances have served us well for quite some time. The courts cannot be overridden by legislative fiat, if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it is simply struck down.

And we have checks and balances too, but the underlying fact that prevents any authoritarian rule is the threat of an uprising of the people. Checks and balances are pointless unless the people enforce them. They can simply be brushed aside if the people aren't vigilent.

What checks? What balances? Anything the government wants, it gets.

In America, it's difficult to get something unconstitutional passed, even if a vast majority of the populace want it (there is actually a large amount of people that think that free speech goes "too far"). Not so in Britian.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-26-2007, 11:22 PM
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

charver
07-27-2007, 01:46 AM
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

Just out of interest is there much preventing Bush using his "wartime powers" to suspend the Constitution and assume executive power on a sine die basis?

There seem to be an awful lot of political coves jibber-jabbering about it on the internets.

AnyOldIron II
07-27-2007, 02:11 AM
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

You are assuming here that because protections are written down they are more strongly held convictions.

The protections of individual rights (something Britain has been reknowned for for centuries in comparison to continental tyranny) is conducted by a complex system of common law, case history, parliamentary checks and balances, but ultimately, in both cases, what really protects individual rights is the determination and indignation of the people.


Whether the protection is codified or not, the duty to uphold and protect always lies with the people.

AnyOldIron II
07-27-2007, 02:15 AM
France was better off under Louis the dictator than Robespierre and the reign of terror Rousseau inspired, honestly.

Hardly. The reign of terror was something the French had to endure to release itself from centuries of absolute monarchy to become the free secular Republic it is today...

Similar things occurred during our civil war the century before, where we rejected absolute monarchy and killed the absolute monarch and his friends...

Damocles
07-27-2007, 07:38 AM
Are you saying that a system with no cosntitutional protections for rights is just as strong in protecting them as one with written, much more strongly held conventions at protecting them?

You are assuming here that because protections are written down they are more strongly held convictions.

The protections of individual rights (something Britain has been reknowned for for centuries in comparison to continental tyranny) is conducted by a complex system of common law, case history, parliamentary checks and balances, but ultimately, in both cases, what really protects individual rights is the determination and indignation of the people.


Whether the protection is codified or not, the duty to uphold and protect always lies with the people.
For centuries? Yeah.... So what was that Ghandi Fellow all upset about then?