Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Peter Dow


Guest Uncle Liam

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 865
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a bit harsh, actually. people who feel socially excluded often form an emotional attachment with someone they know of - celebrities etc. Love's a healthy human emotion, and in the absence of intimacy in a person's private life, an object of affection is often found in the form of a public figure.

Teenagers, in particular, develop their emotions by forming a crush on their favourite celebrity, and it's akin to being in love for the first time.

As long as it stays loving from afar, of course, and doesn't develop into stalking or harrassment, it's harmless.

Touching a teddy bear can improve the social lives of the socially excluded, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet a constitution can say the exact same thing with a monarch as head of state and a PM wielding the power (as we have currently in the UK), so there's no advantage with a president there.

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The issue of concern is what can citizens do when the head of state and his/her ministers are not doing the duties to keep the country and the people free?

care to tell me how anything about that is changed by replacing Liz with an elected president? :rolleyes:

The citizen is powerless if the kingdom's constitution from hell is respected.

and nothing changes if the USA's constitution from hell is respected. :rolleyes:

There is no provision in a kingdom for removing a monarch whose ministers and officers are attacking and denying the freedoms of the people as Queen Elizabeth's have been all her reign.

And there is no provision in a republic for removing a president whose ministers and officers are attacking and denying the freedoms of the people as every president of the USA has done in each of their terms. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No, not a good well written democratic republican constituion couldn't.

and the same applies with a well-written constitution for what gets called our 'constitutional monarchy'. :rolleyes:

So far, not one jot of what you've said is of any relevance to us having a monarch as head of state. All of the same 'bad' things can and do happen in republics.

And in reverse to that, a well-written constitution will perform just as well for 'the people' regardless of whether the head of state is a monarch or an elected president.

It's the powers of that head of state which makes the difference. A executive-power-less queen is absolutely no different to an executive-power-less president (as exists in countries such as Ireland, Germany & Italy).

I am arguing in favour of a good democratic republican constitution which makes it clear that whatever the details may be, if the people find themselves in the predictable situation of a state which is denying the people their democratic freedoms then the final solution, if peaceful methods fail, is to assassinate the head of state and keep right on assassinating heads of state, keep right on waging war against the state which has made itself the enemy of the people, until such time as the state is either destroyed and replaced or it changes its ways so that the state now respects the freedoms of the people.

mmmm ... fruitcake for lunch.

Now sure, a good written constitution will provide for peaceful methods to remove a bad head of state but a badly written constitution which tries define ways to keep a bad head of state in place is a bad constitution which should be binned.

so you intend to create the world's first perfect republic? How quaint of you.

Do you have a draft of that idea written down? And if you do, can I get 10% of all I make in flogging it to comedians?

Republicans don't support bad constitutions,

the reality of the USA proves you wrong. Four failed French republics prove you wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Above the rule of law comes the rule of the constitution.

Above the rule of any constitution comes the rule of freedom and democracy.

No matter what the rule of law say, the rules of freedom and democracy overrule the rule of law, lawyers and courts, at least they do for those who believe in and fight for freedom.

I've got ya.

You say you believe in democracy but don't, and you don't believe in the rule of law either.

This is some utopia you're hoping to build. :lol:

If lawyers and the courts don't defend freedom and democracy then the court room battles are over and it is time for a war of liberation.

or alternatively, it's time for you to go on a course to understand what law is and how it has to operate.

Only when basic freedoms are respected

like the freedom of people to have a different view to you? Just a thought.

I imagine that a US citizen who had been as abused as I have been would feel the same about the US president or US governor whose state abused them.

they probably do.

And the fact that they're a republic changes nothing about any part of it. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so in your version of 'democracy', "the people" aren't allowed to vote in a 'bad' (whatever that means) govt? PMSL. :lol::lol:

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, just a quick point, when you start talking about shooting people etc it makes you look like a foaming at the mouth crackpot. Arent we a little bit more civilised than shooting those we disagree with?

Just putting it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is nothing within any constitution that I know of which says a president can say what is a good or bad govt and have them removed on just his say so that they're 'bad'.

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I do but I am a particular kind of republican - a democrat, who supports democratic republics particularly and who points out the flaws in undemocratic republics and in the ideas of persons such as yourself who claim to be a republican but who support very undemocratic kinds of republics and presidents.

Oh do piss off. :lol:

You're definitely "a particular kind of republican" - one who doesn't approve of democracy, as you've made 100% clear with your comments about banning the BNP.

No, I am simply supporting proper democratic republicanism which would make a huge massive difference for the better.

unless of course they want to vote for something you disapprove of, and then you'll have them locked up - because that is *EXACTLY* what you've said.

No the kind of republic you support is a nominal republic, as fascistic and undemocratic in its own way as the kingdom, which changes only a figure head monarch into an elected figure-head president.

In the absense of knowing something, just make it up out of nothing. Oh, I see you already have. :lol:

I've said nothing about supporting a republic of that form, I've merely pointed out that swapping Liz for some elected establishment prick changes nothing at the sharp end of things.

And the same issue remains if we were to have a USA-style executive president running things instead of a PM as we have now. It's what they do which matters, not who they are or how they got there.

Sorry but that is maybe 20% of what a republic is. Good start but there is 80% still to understand.

I understand the facts of republics far more than you do, despite you believing it to be your area of expertise. The crap you've posted here puts that beyond doubt.

No you need to think in terms of the Windsors banned from this country and none of the PMs you have ever heard of taking power.

which means fuck all without knowing what thge replacement people would actually do. :roilleyes:

If they did all of the same things - and the opinions of people, you know, those people at the heart of any democracy, get to say they would - then switching to a republic makes nothing better.

It doesn't even save the taxpayer money, cos Liz and co are cheaper to run than a long list of ex-Presidents as the facts from other countries get to prove (that financial issue shouldn't be the decider of course, but it's true all the same).

Everything would be different in a real democratic republic.

In your version, yes it would. It wouldn't be democratic for a start, you've made that clear.

Keeping the monarchy means a lot more innocent people dying while you are changing some things very slowly.

so do please tell me who the monarchy has killed that a republic wouldn't. :lol:

I really want to save all the people everywhere in the world that we can so that means the monarchy needs to go as soon as possible.

Democracy has got to show that those people don't believe they need saving - by you or by anyone else.

Have you tried running that idea thru your warped idea of democracy? What was the answer you got out? I'll guess at you shooting them until those that remain agree with your idea of democracy. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact fascist republican constitutions such as the Irish republican constitution claim that it is always a constitutional crime to wage war on the state whereas in democratic theory it is the duty of all republicans to wage war on a undemocratic state which is violating the freedoms of the people.

Therefore we can see that the author of the Irish republican constitution was a bit of a fascist.

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...