Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He’s no Wordsworth, is he?
It’s unfortunate that people are asked to be sensible when they are least equipped to be. That is, when they are drunk. A tragic accident.
Over acting?
I’d say that seething complicity is a fairly recent thing. Our grandparents’ general strike was very nearly a revolution and certainly made the government take notice. Before them, our people had fought tooth and nail to get every right that we indifferently squander. Wat Tyler was English. Mrs Pankhurst was English. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were English. The victims of Peterloo were English.
There is always that temptation for any government, I’d agree. It’s almost a force of nature, the natural order of things. It certainly wasn’t the Tory’s only shot at it, either. Remember the farce of noctovisual companies forced to use actors’ voices to dub over Irish politicians words? From around the world we could mention the cruel authoritarianism of a thousand governments.
It must be the Briton’s role, surely, in appreciation of his history and tradition, to remain steadfast in the defence of his liberty. Guard against his own government’s excesses. It’s a long struggle amongst our people. Isn’t it what Magna Carta was about? Isn’t it what the Civil War was about? Even the American Revolution started as a defence of the natural rights of men as Britons.
I reckon we, as a generation of subjects, have failed to safeguard our liberties thus far. We make barely any fuss except when we are whipped up by the Daily Mail brigade and demand even more of our liberty is taken away. The government are acting perfectly normally. They wouldn’t be able to get away with it if the population weren’t such a cowed, lazy, materialistic mess. It is us, the people, who are amiss in our responsibilities. We’re more interested in Big Brother controversy these days, aren’t we?
You don’t think internment was a dilution of liberty?
Still, at least it was only a chav. You’ve got to look at the bright side. Also, paralysed from the neck down, he shouldn’t be reproducing. A welcome dose of chlorine in the gene pool.
Fascinating stuff. I always think there’s too much of a tendency to leap to an extra terrestrial hypothesis when considering these matters. For instance, might it not be just the explanation that occurs to the modern mind where a medieval mind might have seen fairies?
It may be that we simply don’t have the faculties to understand the phenomena in any useful way. Does a moth understand a lightbulb, even though it might have a very real and dangerous encounter with one?
That’s interesting. I always thought it was cumulative mercury poisoning that did the noggin damage in the hatting game.
@*Sian wrote:
Awww me ikkle pikel 8)
Why don’t you start us off? :wink:
Hallo, Runway. You know I’ve always felt it would be a proper pleasure to get you going.
The point is, though, I think, that of course there are things that shouldn’t be joked about. Otherwise we should relegate ourselves to giggling imbeciles. Where’s the nobility in that? Yes, dark humour as a coping mechanism in the face of a personal loss can be valuable but it is entirely different to cheap mirth at someone else’s tragedy. It is disingenuous to link the two. Weren’t people not so far from this thread taking the opportunity to take that Anita chap to task for joking about Frank Lampard’s recent loss? That has to be double standards at the very least, surely.
