IntenseDebate - tangentreality

14 years ago @ The Tory Diary - Cameron claims minimum... · 0 replies · +3 points

I would like the Prime Minister to explain to me why I, as a responsible drinker, should be forced to pay more to account for the irresponsibility of others.

Raising the price of alcohol will make virtually no difference whatsoever, as the reason people who binge drink do so is to get drunk. They're not particularly bothered about how much they spend. All this will do is punish the responsible majority.

If the Prime Minister wants to get a handle on binge drinking, then he should look at the pubs and clubs which engage in sales practices which encourage it: selling shots on two-for-one offers just before closing time, heavily discounted alco-pops, continuing to serve people who are visibly inebriated etc.

14 years ago @ The Tory Diary - Has Cameron's EU ... · 0 replies · +52 points

It's relatively simple. Do we uphold international treaties to which we are not signatories? And do we tolerate breaches of treaties from countries which are signatories?

If the French and the Germans use EU institutions for their fiscal union, it is a clear breach of international law, in the form of the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. If they are doing to disregard those treaties, then so should we.

Make it clear to them. If the EU does not continue on membership terms which are favourable to us, then we will cease to be members. END OF. Grow a backbone, Cameron.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Do as you want, or do ... · 1 reply · +12 points

I have already written to my MP, reminding them that I will not vote for them again if they don't vote the right way. I have also urged everyone I know to do the same.

I am sick of these despicable traitors. It's time to get rid of them.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Get out of that castle... · 0 replies · +16 points

I have to admit, I am surprised that they didn't get retrospective planning permission. But still, if enough locals object to it... and it's their community that's going to be affected by it.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Get out of that castle... · 5 replies · +16 points

The travellers at Dale Farm are being evicted because they constructed properties without first seeking planning permission. Those properties need to be demolished in accordance with the law.

There is an argument that you should be able to do what you like with your own property, but there has to be some recognition that what you do to your own property may have an effect on others. Planted a 20-foot hedge in your front garden may improve your privacy, but it could result in problems for your neighbours.

That's what the planning system is for - not to restrict what you can do with your property, but to allow people who it will affect to have a say. I agree that it's not perfect, and probably needs changing, but we can't make an exception for the travellers. The law is the law, and it must be applied as it stands.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Untouchable Corruption · 1 reply · +19 points

If some tinpot African or Middle Eastern dictator passed such a law, it would be roundly condemned by them all, but it's OK for them to do it. The hypocrisy is literally eye-watering.

Who will rid us of this turbulent EU? (apologies to Shakespeare)

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - You wanted equality, y... · 0 replies · +7 points

If you're earning less than £25,000 a year, it already isn't. Much cheaper to just hatch a sprog.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Round them up. · 5 replies · +5 points

I sympathise with your point, OH, but however distasteful the concept of a State is, humans really do need some sort of construct to guarantee the rule of law. I agree that our current State goes way, way, WAY beyond that, but the absence of a State effectively means chaos and anarchy.

That said, I fail to see why these people being rendered 'stateless' is a massive problem. Surely, with the existence of a State, there is an implicit contract between the citizen and the State? Which basically boils down to: we, the citizenry, agree to obey the law of the State, in exchange for having a say in making it. In exchange, the State agrees to guarantee our fundamental rights, and protect us from enemies. And if we break that contract, we are punished.

Fair enough - although as an aside, it would be an interesting debate as regards as how the State would be punished for breaching its side of the deal.

My point with this is, if these people have broken the laws of their previous States to such an extent that their States have effectively disowned them, why the hell is that our problem?

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - Majestic Silence · 0 replies · +17 points

Regardless of whether he's a Prince or not, he's a soldier. Is that true of all of them? I wouldn't fancy doing the job myself, so I'm not going to belittle anyone that does do it.

14 years ago @ http://www.oldholborn.... - God told me to do it... · 0 replies · +1 points

To put it another way, if you really, in good conscience, do not want to mutilate your son's genitals, then God, if and when you eventually meet Him, will understand.

And if He doesn't understand, then He's not God. So it doesn't matter.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with tangentreality

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

tangentreality