[stroud458]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 16:38)

Right, the next person breaking the subforum rules will be put on the request list for a temp ban. QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 14:48) That would be a shame, wouldn't it..... It is if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.

I am only here because of SOL and X-Seti. When the SOL forum has no activity, I'm in here because there is nothing else to do.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 19:48)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 16:38) Right, the next person breaking the subforum rules will be put on the request list for a temp ban. QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 14:48) That would be a shame, wouldn't it..... It is if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously. I am only here because of SOL and X-Seti. When the SOL forum has no activity, I'm in here because there is nothing else to do.

Good for you. Please abide by the rules in future and we will all get along much better.

Now, why don't you go into some detail about your views on foreign nationals in the UK? We've all discussed at some length the issue, and dispelled many of the traditional xenophobic myths about immigrants of all kinds, so I'd be really interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 15:35)

QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 19:48) QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 16:38) Right, the next person breaking the subforum rules will be put on the request list for a temp ban. QUOTE (stroud458 @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 14:48) That would be a shame, wouldn't it..... It is if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously. I am only here because of SOL and X-Seti. When the SOL forum has no activity, I'm in here because there is nothing else to do. Good for you. Please abide by the rules in future and we will all get along much better. Now, why don't you go into some detail about your views on foreign nationals in the UK? We've all discussed at some length the issue, and dispelled many of the traditional xenophobic myths about immigrants of all kinds, so I'd be really interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

Sivis, I'm not sure if the warning was directed at me back there but I think this guy is honestly just a troll. He's almost trying specifically to get a rise out of people.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Jul 25 2012, 20:57)

Sivis, I'm not sure if the warning was directed at me back there but I think this guy is honestly just a troll. He's almost trying specifically to get a rise out of people.

It's not directed at anyone in particular, I'm just attempting to move the thread (and others) onward. We shall see in the future if our young friend here is a troll, based on his further comments in this thread and others. In future, rather than risking feeding trolls, it's better to just report the post and I'll deal with it via PM.

[Romans Cousin Niko]

I wholly agree with the OP.

-User was warned for this post

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Saturday, Nov 3 2012, 00:15

[MikeWh]

QUOTE (Butters 2011 @ Monday, Nov 28 2011, 15:10)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Nov 28 2011, 13:45) 2) Burning poppies is not illegal. You can express moral outrage all you want at it, but, save for in occasions where it could be interpreted as breach of the peace, it's not a fundamentally illegal act. Now, if you are arguing that there is some grounds for producing a law for use against individuals disrespecting the UK, then present that rather than just semantics- at least that's a logical line of argument. I know it's not illegal, but surely it should be? I bet if I went to, say, Pakistan, and started burning something that offended their people, I'd be arrested for it. The point to this though is, why do the likes of the BNP get so much censor on them, and only get a mention when they step out of line, usually taken out of context, yet when someone such as Abu Hamza opens his mouth, he's all over the media and the news.

If somebody burnt a poppy in front of me they'd be arrested for S5 Public Order.

Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

It's all about context - if somebody burnt a religious text, country's flag or group's flag (LGBT for example) they'd find themselves coming in on the same charge, then I'd look for other offences such as Environmental Protection too.

So 'its not illegal' - it is, just isn't a specific offence. The event in London saw no arrests because it was public order containment - you can't break your secure cordons to arrest somebody for burning their property, sadly

[Melchior]

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Tuesday, Nov 6 2012, 17:51)

If somebody burnt a poppy in front of me they'd be arrested for S5 Public Order.

Ridiculous. How can you arrest someone for burning a flower?

[finn4life]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Nov 6 2012, 19:40)

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Tuesday, Nov 6 2012, 17:51) If somebody burnt a poppy in front of me they'd be arrested for S5 Public Order. Ridiculous. How can you arrest someone for burning a flower?

Well according to that guy you can, but try not to put it in such a way, it's what the poppy symbolizes, not the actual flower, yeah it is kind stupid but whatever.
Put it this way with people burning flags. Ridiculous! How can you arrest someone for burning some synthetic fabric?

[MikeWh]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 12:07)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Nov 6 2012, 19:40) QUOTE (MikeWh @ Tuesday, Nov 6 2012, 17:51) If somebody burnt a poppy in front of me they'd be arrested for S5 Public Order. Ridiculous. How can you arrest someone for burning a flower? Well according to that guy you can, but try not to put it in such a way, it's what the poppy symbolizes, not the actual flower, yeah it is kind stupid but whatever. Put it this way with people burning flags. Ridiculous! How can you arrest someone for burning some synthetic fabric?

It's not stupid.
The poppy represents those who died in war, not only soldiers but the countless lives that gave everything so we could have something (We includes you, as an Australian as you were part of the empire) - it's far from stupid.

Say I was to go to New York in 2002/3 and remove the ribbons tied to the fence at ground zero and burn them because I disagreed with the actions of a nation? It'd be intentional, to rile them - it'd be distressing and alarming - that's where British law pays dividends!

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

4A, slightly stronger charge instead then.

Section 4A Public Order Act 1986

EDIT: So that's how and that's how I've seen it done. The necessity for their arrest is for their own safety because burning a symbol of British (and commonwealth) forces tends to muster a negative reaction from the public.

This post has been edited by MikeWh on Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 12:37

[Melchior]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 22:07)

Put it this way with people burning flags. Ridiculous! How can you arrest someone for burning some synthetic fabric?

Indeed, how can you?

I know what the poppy symbolises, and I know (or at least I could have guessed) the legal basis for such actions. My question was: how could someone bring themselves to arrest someone for expressing themselves? Burning a poppy is no different to me standing up and saying "our celebration of past military victories is shallow and pointless and speaks to our country's belligerent nature". The former is easier for people to wrap their head around, so they get arrested?

[MikeWh]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 13:34)

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 22:07) Put it this way with people burning flags. Ridiculous! How can you arrest someone for burning some synthetic fabric? Indeed, how can you? I know what the poppy symbolises, and I know (or at least I could have guessed) the legal basis for such actions. My question was: how could someone bring themselves to arrest someone for expressing themselves? Burning a poppy is no different to me standing up and saying "our celebration of past military victories is shallow and pointless and speaks to our country's belligerent nature". The former is easier for people to wrap their head around, so they get arrested?

That shows a level of misunderstanding, it's not to celebrate past military victories (I don't think it's ever mentioned on the Royal British Legion's documentation). Instead it's to honour all the lives lost at war - people like you or I. I don't donate to the RBL to say "we won such and such war" - just "I remember those who fought to stop me speaking German"

QUOTE

"I felt sick inside. It is something that means so much to me and to see what I believed to be a wreath of poppies fall to the ground - it is just despicable."

That's all I'd need for Section 5

QUOTE

About 20 men at the demonstration joined in with shouts of: "Burn, burn, British soldiers, British soldiers, burn in hell."

4A

****
I'd never silence ANYBODY saying war was wrong, I'd never silence anybody as frankly apart from being illegal, it's not my job! But people serving no purpose but to rile and incite hatred, I'd arrest them and feel justified in doing so - just as well the courts in this country aren't people on the internet!

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 13:34)

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Nov 7 2012, 22:07) Put it this way with people burning flags. Ridiculous! How can you arrest someone for burning some synthetic fabric? Indeed, how can you? I know what the poppy symbolises, and I know (or at least I could have guessed) the legal basis for such actions. My question was: how could someone bring themselves to arrest someone for expressing themselves? Burning a poppy is no different to me standing up and saying "our celebration of past military victories is shallow and pointless and speaks to our country's belligerent nature". The former is easier for people to wrap their head around, so they get arrested?

You have to consider the type of people being arrested. Let us be frank, they are Jihadists, their grievances do not stem from any legitimate place and they are - in all likelihood - racists.
They are as English as anyone else in this country, their parents came over here, settled, bred, and we welcomed them, we protected them, we gave them and their children opportunities and chances to intergrate and share our values.
And in the end, they care more about the dead babies in some foreign land than the people in this country who have shown them nothing but generosity, kindness and acceptance. Because they share the same religion, the same skin colour, because no matter what we do for them, they will always place their pathetic religion above their nation.

They are therefore acceptable targets. Meaning that they can have their rights infringed and the general populace, and the media, will neither care nor question what that means for their own civil liberties. It's the same way for other groups, such as gypsies and pedophiles. The state could generally act against them however they wanted and both the newspapers and the average man on the street wouldn't care what laws or procedures have been broke.

Fairness and civil rights only exist because the people perceive them to exist and they have a very easy time closing their eyes when those rights are denied to certain people.

[Straznicy]

QUOTE (Typhus)

You have to consider the type of people being arrested. Let us be frank, they are Jihadists, their grievances do not stem from any legitimate place and they are - in all likelihood - racists.

I would not be so quick to term any Muslim standing in opposition to the Poppy Appeal as a 'Jihadist', nor would I assert that Muslims form the majority of critics in this regard. The Poppy is divisive in areas like Northern Ireland, Glasgow and Liverpool as well; and those in opposition are white, and as integrated as you could reasonably hope for someone to be.

The fact of the matter is, the Poppy does not just commemorate those who 'died for us'. That tired old rhetoric just does not slide. World War Two and the Falklands are honestly the only engagements the UK has engaged in in recent history that had real legitimacy or adequate reason in my mind.

Why should I be compelled into honouring individuals who were utilised as tools of oppression against my family and friends, as in Ireland? Why should a Muslim get on the jingoistic bandwagon when it is their kin and fellow Muslims who are being made victims in the east? It is a conflict of interest and opinion that is simply irreconcilable, and no outdated sense of nationalism should trump an individual's loyalty to their family, heritage and values.

The Poppy Appeal has really become as much about drumming up support for current/future wars as it is about commemorating the fallen. November has turned into a month-long melodrama of poppies, silences and old men lining the street in their regalia. It instills a certain impetus in the public; that these young men abroad are making the 'ultimate sacrifice', and they are doing it for 'us'. It gets shoved down our throats to the effect that anyone not participating is perceived as unpatriotic, uncaring or even 'as part of the problem'. All this for taking issue with the arguable motives and scope of the appeal.

What exactly is being achieved by our presence in Afghanistan? What was achieved in Iraq? Regime change, and increased private sector involvement in an under-exploited region of the world. We were made no safer from the perceived Islamist threat by such action, if anything, it made us a far more obvious target for the vengeance of Islamic grievances.

With all that said, I am not sure I agree with Poppy burning. It strikes me as particularly inciteful and unecessarily aggressive. But I agree with the sentiment behind such actions. People should not face criminalisation for a political demonstration; our society pretends to consider this an inalienable right, yet calls for blood when 'unpopular views' utilise it. Things like demonstrations at the return of dead soldiers are distinct; that amounts to an assault on the basic respect we should show for the dead and their families.

I would rather see an adoption of the white poppy, because in my mind, surely that is the greatest legacy we can provide for the fallen. Encouraging the idea that no-one should never have to give up their life as they did.

QUOTE (Typhus)

They are therefore acceptable targets. Meaning that they can have their rights infringed and the general populace, and the media, will neither care nor question what that means for their own civil liberties.

They are acceptable targets for not towing the State line, for taking a viewpoint radically different from that of the general populace? That is not how a democracy should function. Minority opinions ought to be protected and have expression enabled. Rights are not some interchangeable concept that can be applied to some people in some circumstances; they are absolute and inalienable, and even though State action does not always reflect this, it should.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Straznicy @ Thursday, Nov 8 2012, 23:51)

QUOTE (Typhus) You have to consider the type of people being arrested. Let us be frank, they are Jihadists, their grievances do not stem from any legitimate place and they are - in all likelihood - racists. I would not be so quick to term any Muslim standing in opposition to the Poppy Appeal as a 'Jihadist', nor would I assert that Muslims form the majority of critics in this regard. The Poppy is divisive in areas like Northern Ireland, Glasgow and Liverpool as well; and those in opposition are white, and as integrated as you could reasonably hope for someone to be. The fact of the matter is, the Poppy does not just commemorate those who 'died for us'. That tired old rhetoric just does not slide. World War Two and the Falklands are honestly the only engagements the UK has engaged in in recent history that had real legitimacy or adequate reason in my mind. Why should I be compelled into honouring individuals who were utilised as tools of oppression against my family and friends, as in Ireland? Why should a Muslim get on the jingoistic bandwagon when it is their kin and fellow Muslims who are being made victims in the east? It is a conflict of interest and opinion that is simply irreconcilable, and no outdated sense of nationalism should trump an individual's loyalty to their family, heritage and values. The Poppy Appeal has really become as much about drumming up support for current/future wars as it is about commemorating the fallen. November has turned into a month-long melodrama of poppies, silences and old men lining the street in their regalia. It instills a certain impetus in the public; that these young men abroad are making the 'ultimate sacrifice', and they are doing it for 'us'. It gets shoved down our throats to the effect that anyone not participating is perceived as unpatriotic, uncaring or even 'as part of the problem'. All this for taking issue with the arguable motives and scope of the appeal. What exactly is being achieved by our presence in Afghanistan? What was achieved in Iraq? Regime change, and increased private sector involvement in an under-exploited region of the world. We were made no safer from the perceived Islamist threat by such action, if anything, it made us a far more obvious target for the vengeance of Islamic grievances. With all that said, I am not sure I agree with Poppy burning. It strikes me as particularly inciteful and unecessarily aggressive. But I agree with the sentiment behind such actions. People should not face criminalisation for a political demonstration; our society pretends to consider this an inalienable right, yet calls for blood when 'unpopular views' utilise it. Things like demonstrations at the return of dead soldiers are distinct; that amounts to an assault on the basic respect we should show for the dead and their families. I would rather see an adoption of the white poppy, because in my mind, surely that is the greatest legacy we can provide for the fallen. Encouraging the idea that no-one should never have to give up their life as they did. QUOTE (Typhus) They are therefore acceptable targets. Meaning that they can have their rights infringed and the general populace, and the media, will neither care nor question what that means for their own civil liberties. They are acceptable targets for not towing the State line, for taking a viewpoint radically different from that of the general populace? That is not how a democracy should function. Minority opinions ought to be protected and have expression enabled. Rights are not some interchangeable concept that can be applied to some people in some circumstances; they are absolute and inalienable, and even though State action does not always reflect this, it should.

This is all that needs to be said, great post.

[Typhus]

QUOTE (Straznicy)

Why should a Muslim get on the jingoistic bandwagon when it is their kin and fellow Muslims who are being made victims in the east?

Because we took them in, gave them a peaceful land to raise their family in and accepted them as our own. We accommodated them, loved them, treated them as brothers and sisters and they betrayed us. And why? Because of that 'heritage' which somehow cancels out all we've done for them, their parents and their descendants after them.
And despite all our kindness, they stab us in the back, because we're not the right religion, because we're not the right race, because they see the lives of Afghans are being of greater value than the soldiers who defend their homeland.

QUOTE (Straznicy)

It gets shoved down our throats to the effect that anyone not participating is perceived as unpatriotic, uncaring or even 'as part of the problem'. All this for taking issue with the arguable motives and scope of the appeal.

I agree completely. But it's a necessary evil. People demand their little shows, after all. So they have a day of remembering the dead, pretending to be solemn and dignified and then go back to their business, content that they've done their part and are good, compassionate people. Of course, every year we're reminded of the high cost of war and how these memorials try to ensure we 'never forget' the horrors of it all. It's all bunkum, of course. But, as I said, the people grow accustomed to these yearly spectacles.

QUOTE (Straznicy)

They are acceptable targets for not towing the State line, for taking a viewpoint radically different from that of the general populace? That is not how a democracy should function. Minority opinions ought to be protected and have expression enabled. Rights are not some interchangeable concept that can be applied to some people in some circumstances; they are absolute and inalienable, and even though State action does not always reflect this, it should.

The State has to make examples of dissenters from time to time. It's an important way for the Government to show its relevance and ability to listen to the people. Do you think the ordinary Englishman cares a bit for his freedom or his 'civil liberties'? Of course not. Because the average Englishman is anti-intellectual, hedonistic and naturally accepts authority. Arresting poppy burners, having the occasional person shot, it's all a way to show the rabble that we can still revert to Barbarism. Which is what they want. Just think how often they clamour for the return of Capital Punishment, how often they mindlessly want to bomb another country or their universal disdain for foreigners.
The state tries to enforce tolerance amid a people too uneducated and simple to accept it. The sad truth is that it is the unrestrained power of the mob that is the real danger to our rights, not the government. Because, rest assured, if the general public had their way, we'd have the BNP in charge. They are that stupid.
So, I think a few token arrests and injustices are a small price to pay for placating them.

[Heisenberg]

On a more general note outside of the UK's immigration issues, I think multiculturalism is best to be avoided. It would only work in a globalised world where not one culture and language dominates (here, American/British chains, and the English language), but rather a heterogeneous society. A lot of the conflicts stem from ignorance and the notion of superiority of one culture to the next, from my personal experience in any case I can tend to have less patience with people outside of my culture, but I'm aware that's down to either party unwilling to integrate equally (e.g. for Turkish relations to thrive in Germany, both Turkish and German citizens need to benefit from the situation in job opportunities, education, language etc. over each country. It seems to me the biggest issue lies in the fact immigrants get all the benefits of a more developed German society, whereas the Germans won't get the same treatment in a country such as Turkey, where the majority of immigrants come from).

[sivispacem]

I agree with you in theory, but the problem is that people generally don't like the idea of "net draws" or comparative lack of gain. If you look at political decision making on the international stage, it is predominantly based around the idea of presenting an enshrinement of a status quo as a net victory for a national or other defined group. The same can be seen, to a lesser extent, in national politics. The issue arises from the difficulty in drawing proper comparative interpretations of equality. Basically, history teaches us that actual equality- that is, equality in outcome between two different subgroups is not in fact seen as an act of equality but an act of detriment to both sides. Simply put, equality is not perceived as equal when looked at from the subjective perspective of one group in the equation. Therefore, a completely logically and even mathematically fair act would and often is seen as inherently unfair and prejudicial by both sides.

I don't think this represents a case of intrinsic chauvinism, bigotry or xenophobia- it really is just a case of the grass appearing greener on the other side. Looking back across history, it is quite astonishing the number of conflicts and human tragedies that can be summed up as "an attempt to create mathematical equality has appeared to be detrimental to both sides". Case in point, Israel and Palestine. The establishment of a status quo which would have had net benefits for both sides has failed because neither feels that their views are fairly represented by an equidistant compromise.

[TenEightyOne]

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the tabloids love these stories and propogate them endlessly. Why people even pay for this soft-porn pulp in modern times is completely beyond me.

Police asking people to remove England shirts? Made up. Health-and-safety caused games of conkers to be banned? Made up. World War II Bomber Found on Moon? Okay, that was from the Sunday Sport and obviously false, but you see what I mean.

We need to fight fundamentalism in all its forms. That means Islaamic extremists, Christian extremists, Nationalist extremists... sadly the tabloid media (and to an extent their broadsheet brethren) polarise these debates in a way that simply doesn't help.

And another thing... what really gets me is the idiots who put up England flags with the word "England" across them. If you're going to despoil our flag then at least do it with a word that doesn't insult the intelligence of the English themselves

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (TenEightyOne @ Saturday, Nov 10 2012, 23:16)

Police asking people to remove England shirts? Made up. Health-and-safety caused games of conkers to be banned? Made up. World War II Bomber Found on Moon? Okay, that was from the Sunday Sport and obviously false, but you see what I mean

Most of them are either entirely untrue individual allegations, or have been taken completely out of context/blown out of proportion. The press love them as nothing riles up the readership like a good story about how this country is losing it's way, but the side effect is that someone gets the blame- usually minorities- and all they really end up doing is encouraging jingoism and xenophobia. It's one of the (many) cases where the classic "public interest defence" of the tabloid media falls flat on its face, because on what planet is it in the public interest to know that drunken lout Garry, 29 year old Sun reader and "patriot" (read xenophobe) believes he was arrested for waving an England flag after a football match when in reality he was arrested on a public order offense for being a vile xenophobe.

[feliciano2040]

QUOTE (Vercetti27 @ Sunday, Nov 27 2011, 18:52)

xenophobic? people like irviding are the problem. patriotism is not xenophobic, flying flags isn't xenophobic, being proud of where you come from isn't xenophobic and displaying poppies or any other english/british memorbilia isn't being xenophobic.

Patriotism and nationalism favor xenophobic behavior, why ? When an issue involving your country occurs, rationality gets clouded, it becomes more important to stand by your nation than to see things from an objective, reasonable perspective, I have endless examples here alone in Latin America.

As a personal comment, it seriously puzzles me why in this day and age people would feel proud about something they were born with, what the f*ck is the point of that ? If you're born without a left eye, do you yell from the mountaintops that you are proud of being partially blind ?

Patriotism doesn't make any sense, we should value CHOICE over...........whatever the f*ck it is patriotic people think.

This may sound a little insane, but instead of forcing children to sing anthems and abide by the rules of a country they didn't pick, we should allow teenagers to choose their own nationality at a certain point, hell, we should allow free change of nationality without the irrational amount of bureaucracy it exists today.

So yeah, excuse the personal rant, but multiculturalism is PRECISELY one of the cures this world needs.