why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Falconer spurns campaign to give MPs vote on going to war Patrick Wintour, political editor Saturday April 8, 2006 The Guardian The government has rebuffed the campaign to give MPs a right to vote on Britain going to war, saying it will support neither a new law nor even a new convention giving parliament war-making powers. Cross-party pressure, some from distinguished former soldiers and law officers, had been building for a new power requiring the executive to seek the consent of MPs in a vote, save in exceptional circumstances. But Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, have rejected the proposition as imposing "an unwise and artificial inflexibility" on troops and government. Lord Falconer said his position reflected the collective view of the government, including the chancellor, Gordon Brown. Mr Brown has taken a more flexible stance interpreted by some as supporting giving parliament a legal right to vote. The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has sanctioned a study of whether parliament should be asked to legitimise British troops going to war. The government famously allowed a vote in the Commons before the Iraq war in 2003, prompting reformers to call for the precedent to be codified. But Lord Falconer told the Lords constitution committee: "The government's position is that the current arrangements on the power to deploy UK troops abroad in conflict should continue as it is at the moment. There should be no doubt that the decisions of whether or not armed force is to be used is a decision for the executive. Formal constraints, in statute or convention, do not work when faced with the reality of planning and deployment." Ministers were already accountable to parliament, and MPs could initiate a vote if they wished to do so. "There is not a problem it seems to me in the way that parliament has held the executive to account over the last 50 to 60 years." Lord Falconer insists his defence of the status quo is consistent with the chancellor's position. In an explanation that startled some peers, he said Mr Brown had only been suggesting parliament would inevitably vote on a war if the war was likely to be controversial. Referring to the Iraq war vote, Mr Brown said last year: "Now there has been a vote on these issues so clearly, and in such controversial circumstances, I think it is unlikely that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, a government would choose not to have a vote in parliament." Lord Falconer was supported by the defence minister Adam Ingram, who argued that an endorsement of war by MPs would have no impact on troop morale. The constitution committee has been looking at the complex issues surrounding giving MPs a vote. But the government's blanket rejection looks like rendering the committee's imminent report largely pointless.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1749572,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/i...72,00.html</a> 1 Lord Falconer is nothing. He has never been elected by the people to any position. His power base comes from having shared a flat with Blair when young. 2 Lord Falconer is of course Scottish. He likes guts and gore and death. 3 This matter is being decided in the Lords, which is not a democratic chamber. The elected Commons has NO SAY. And the Speaker uses procedure to keep it that way. The Speaker is of course Scottish. 4 Yet when "The Executive" wants it the other way round they bitch about how the Lords "must give way" to the "democratic chamber". 5 None of the party leaders has anything to say on this. Blair, Cameron and Campbell are silent. Blair, Campbell and Cameron are of course Scottish. So the Killer Queen will go on killing as and when she chooses. She's eighty years old this month and has been killing others all her life. Just last week she killed poor Denis Donaldson. Just as you can't teach an old dog new tricks, nor can you teach an old bitch new tricks. I thank God I'm not British, and that I live in Spain. But I am English and I despair for my fellow countrymen. Don't vote next month. Don't vote for ANY of them. They ALL want the Treason Felony Act.

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:21 am

Very glad you live in Spain. May your stay there be a long one. You said Please do not blame the English. The English are the captives of the Scots. The Scottish Raj rules Westminster and Whitehall. Next time you hear that well known cunt Sir Sean Connery spitting his poison about the English, remember it is HIS crowd that call the shots in London. It is HIS hands that are covered in blood. I hope that others who read this sort of stuff can understand that a paranoid failed capitalist with a persecution complex living far away from the scenes he attempts to interpret, are deserving of scepticism on an intellectual front and pity on another level. Replace Scottish with another race of a different complexion and see what sort of mentality is at work here. Endless newspaper clippings collaged to fill a fantasy narrative in support of racial persecution belong in right wing fantasy blogs People who reduce things to race are are at best worthless and at worst bad news.

by **havanagilla** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:29 am

totally, friend catcher. I think Anti's pain is sometime leading him in the wrong direction. I'd rather stay compassionate since obviously the man is suffering. However, skepiticism is in place.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Very glad you live in Spain. May your stay there be a long one<hr></blockquote> Why thank you, friendcatcher. I can quite understand why you must seek friendship on an anonymous board like this. If it makes you feel happier it is eleven years since I fled England. Next month it will be ten years in Spain. For the record, I welcome challenges. What I do not welcome is an opinion bereft of facts. Do you have any EVIDENCE for what you say? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Replace Scottish with another race of a different complexion and see what sort of mentality is at work here<hr></blockquote> Excellent idea. Replace Scottish with Chinese (or "slitty eyes" as the Duke of Edinburgh prefers) Do a thought experiment. Prime Minister - Chinese "Co Prime Minister" - Chinese Leader of the Opposition - Chinese Leader of the Liberal Democrats - Chinese Speaker of the House of Commons - Chinese Lord Chancellor - Chinese Leader of the Opposition in the Lords - Chinese If that were the case then I think even you might notice something funny going on. And do you know why? Because it is OBVIOUS that they are of a different race. In a way that is not obvious with these carefully cultivated Scots. If you think about it, and I assume that you are capable of thought, it is quite ironic you should accuse me of racism. When the "racial" differences have been meticulously eliminated. How many foreigners know that Blair and Falconer are Scottish? For example havanagilla automatically assumed they were English. Read the first post on this thread. Have you read it? So in reply I wrote <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Please do not blame the English. The English are the captives of the Scots. The Scottish Raj rules Westminster and Whitehall. Next time you hear that well known cunt Sir Sean Connery spitting his poison about the English, remember it is HIS crowd that call the shots in London. It is HIS hands that are covered in blood.<hr></blockquote> Now I invite you, if you have any FACTS to counter this statement, put them up now. Put them up here and now. I would LOVE to find I am wrong. So please help me. Not with your opinion, which is as worthless as a grain of sand on a beach. BUT WITH FACTS. Added on edit havanagilla, I've just seen what you wrote. It WAS you that began this thread with <blockquote>Quote:<hr>While i'd be the first to criticize the nazi US allignments who turned Israel into the hell it is now, let us not forget who are the "new and improved" anti war germans and english people<hr></blockquote> Was there something I misunderstood? You ARE blaming the English, are you not? Yet when I point out that the perpetrators are Scottish, I'm going in the wrong direction? How do YOU feel when all Jews get tarred with that brush of Zionism? Have I not seen you try to say that what is happening to the Palestinians is nothing to do with you? Have I not accepted that? We English are in a similar situation. Despised throughout the world because of what is done in our name. And it is no coincidence that our two countries are the only ones lacking a constitution. Did you read the article I posted? Parliament will have no say in war. Is that democracy? Who sais so? A Scot. Who lied to the people about the war? A Scot. Who reversed the opinion of the Attorney General? A Scot. I refuse to have my name associated with habitual murderers. I want facts as to why my position is wrong. But I fear you have let friendcatcher off the hook. Thank you. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/8/06 8:53 am

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:38 am

Thanks Havanagilla, i would hate for anyone to believe any of that stuff without some consideration. When I recommend RI to people and they find loads of that ranting cut and paste stuff on the board it can have a negative effect

by **havanagilla** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:54 am

Anti, the facts are interesting, but the interpretation does not necessarily follow. Why would Scots be worse than Brits ? or are you saying they are doing a hostile takeover of Brittain? I am sure none of the foreigners (none brits) have no clue what you are trying to say unless you make a very careful and reasoned argument about ideological motivations for Brittish citizens of Scottish descent. For instance, you'd find Israelis having similar debates on the composition of power hierarchies, whether most of them are Ashkenazi or Mizrahi and how this reflects on ideologies and racism. But, this would not make any sense unless these facts were accompanied by very strong scholarship on the Ashkenazi hegemony in modesrn ZIonism, and Ashkenazi racist culture etc. Race is important in a political/cultural and historical context. I am not aware of racial tensions bn english and scots, and you haven't referred to any scholarship that deals with it. Your comments therefore seem disparaging to Scots without giving us the context (maybe historical context when the Scots exploited the English ? or anything like that).

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:12 am

Havangilla, Britain is a geographical term for the Islands that make up the uk, The irony of race is that the english are the most mongrel of nations having suffered waves of invasion over the last few millenia, and to use the term english to describe race is always problematic for those who try to. The vast majority of people here do not care what part of the country you may come from except for a certain amount of class snobbery by a few southern English. Being British is a ever inclusive term except for those with axes to grind. People who use race as a source of grievence are best avoided as to argue with them requires submitting yourself to the same system of racial classification.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>or are you saying they are doing a hostile takeover of Brittain?<hr></blockquote> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I am not aware of racial tensions bn english and scots, and you haven't referred to any scholarship that deals with it.<hr></blockquote> There is no racial tension worth speaking of. We have a class system. There are upper class Scots and working class Scots. There are upper class English and working class English. The two upper classes work together, under the sponsorship of the Crown. Did you know that England and Scotland are separate nations? Here is some scholarship for you. Scotland has its own national church. Scotland has its own High Court. Scotland has its own legal system, completely separated from England. Scotland has its own parliament. Those are the tests of nationhood. Politically speaking the only thing that unites the two countries is a common succession to the Crown. THE ONLY THING. And the English Crown was STOLEN in 1937. By the Scottish upper class. I'll give you a similar situation in your part of the world. The "Two State" solution comes to pass, under the sponsorship of the United Nations. Israel and Palestine are run separately. Every single position of power in the new Israel is filled by a Palestinian. Israel becomes even worse, and begins attacking Europe, directed by its Palestinian leadership. Millions of Israelis march against war. But the government ignores them. You can get rid of this bunch, but the UN will ensure that all you can vote for is Palestinians. Yes I know it is ridiculous. But the analogy with the United Kingdom is PERFECT. How do you like it? It's got nothing to do with race, has it? If they have their own country, let them run that, not yours. This is about NATIONS and political power. WHY IS SCOTLAND RUN AS A SEPARATE NATION? friendcatcher, Glad to see you trying to handle facts. Unfortunately you have it wrong. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Britain is a geographical term for the Islands that make up the uk<hr></blockquote> Not true. Great Britain was created in 1707 by the Act of Union between the Crowns of England and Scotland. Nearly a hundred years later the second Act of Union incorporated Ireland and the State became "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". The union was between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Britain has a very specific political and legal meaning: it is the combination of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. But DOMESTICALLY they are not combined at all. They are separate nations, administered separately, with separate worship and separate laws. Just like South Africa. Any more FACTS to offer?

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>People who use race as a source of grievence are best avoided as to argue with them requires submitting yourself to the same system of racial classification.<hr></blockquote> You sanctimonious prig. I'll tell you about race. You heard about de Menezes? The man shot dead by British executioners. They call it "Operation Kratos" They intend to go around shooting whoever they wish. Terrorising the population. BUT ONLY IN ENGLAND. NOT IN SCOTLAND. That's right. No Kratos in Scotland. You can walk the streets in safety. Now, what was that you were saying about racism, you sanctimonious prig?

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:01 pm

Scotland has its own national church. Scotland has its own High Court. Scotland has its own legal system, completely separated from England. Scotland has its own parliament. Those are the tests of nationhood. Any of these criteria would apply to the federal system of the USA apart from religion which has no state position. Majority of people consider test of nationhood to be borders geography and language but I think a clue maybe in the title United Kingdom which indicates there was more than one kingdom involved. I Didn't use the term Great Britain as it has political connotations you used it as a basis for a rant but it was certainly used long before 1707 From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain</a> The Roman geographer Ptolemy called the larger island Megale Brettania (Great Britain), and the smaller island Micra Bretannia (Little Britain) and First modern use of the term Great Britain- again from wiki- During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the queen's astrologer and alchemist, John Dee, wrote mystical volumes predicting a British Empire and using the terms Great Britain and Britannia.[ I have no interest in your scotmen as evil manipulators of power theory and have pointed out to anyone who didn't get bored by this thread that your deranged fantasy portrayal of UK is misleading/false. By your own endless admissions you were a little fish in the pool of capital that met some bigger fish and lost. In short I see you as a troll and feeding trolls is not allowed in my house. That said if in the future I see you've been hacked to death in your sangria stained deck chair in the costa del sol by a sword wielding monarch who flees the crime in a horse drawn coach with uniformed coachmen and flying flags then I apologise in advance and will campaign to ban the haggis and kilt from this sceptred isle. As we say up here in evil Scotland " go chase yerself "

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As we say up here in evil Scotland " go chase yerself "<hr></blockquote> That explains much. Your "facts" are an incoherent bundle. You've probably pulled together everything you could from the on-line encyclopedial. Great Britain as a factual political entity began in 1707. What has your potted history got to do with that? You have said some pretty nasty things about me. All lies. I suggest you substantiate what you say about me with facts, not what John Dee may or may not have said. Substantiate what you have said, or go away. And take your murderous Operation Kratos with you. Why NOT Scotland? Why ONLY the Bantustan? Added on edit Menezes was shot because they took him for an Englishman. Osman. A black Englishman. Had it been an Englishman, a subject, there would have been none of this inquiry nonsense. But he was Brazillian, a Brazillian citizen. Why is there shoot-to-kill in the Lake District, but not in Edinburgh? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/8/06 1:10 pm

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:35 pm

I posted to warn the unwary passersby that beneath this bridge is a troll, I'm nothing more than a signpost to the unwary.Wouldn't want anyone to read your stuff and go away with a fictitious impression of Britain. How many people run long threads on which they are the sole contributor? Just you. I've read Jeffs posts for two years or more and valued many of the contributions by people like Starroute, yours are at the opposite end of the spectrum. You are incapable of discourse but very capable at ranting. As an english born welsh/irish man living in Scotland I'm rarely allowed into the secret scottish/templar/mason conspiracy to turn the english into a subserviant client nation but next time I see Sean Connery washing the blood off his arms at the local Lodge I promise to make some enquiries. The scottish expression that you remind me of is ' Bampot'' which untill recently I thought meant chamberpot. I was wrong. A bampot is chamberpot with a difference, its been used and is threfore, full of shite.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:47 pm

Yet again you attack me, and not what I say. There is plenty for you to take aim at, no? But you don't. You take aim at me. You use straw-man arguments and you use hyperbole. But you do not address any FACTS. You accuse others of exactly what you do. I believe it is known as "getting your retaliation in first", no? So let's just stand back. Blair, Brown, Campbell, Cameron, Falconer, Martin, Strathclyde. Scottish, true or false? The people that took Britain to war. Scottish, true or false? Shoot-to-kill on the public highway, in England but not in Scotland. True or false. There are many other factual statements I have made as well, but you avoid them all. If you are right, and I am wrong, why is that? And please, spare me the personal invective. I'm not going to respond in kind.

by **friend catcher** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:30 pm

I find it far more interesting that the majority of the people you are so fretful about attended Oxford university, a subject well worth investigation. You belittle the genocidal attack on Iraq as a fiendish plot of a scottish clique. Any sane( not you) person with a desire to know what and how has no interest in the paperless regional or ancestral biography of a select few individuals. Five minutes of research tells me...... Cameron is an aristocrat related to amongst many a bunch of aristos from Berkshire and the Queen, that well known scotswoman of german origin. Blair is the son of an englishman, his mother came from Donegal. Not a traceable drop of scots blood in the man. He was born in Edinburgh and grew up in Durham, England. If place of birth is your definition of nationality then England supporting Blair is a die hard scot. Alastair Campbell born in England,his father was also born in England from scottish migrants. So a third generation englishmen with a penchant for bagpipes. Your attempts to make nationality a causative effect for the genocidal assault on Iraq are invalid and belong in the bin. I would love to stay longer but Saturday night at the lodge is the night we swear allegiance to baphomet, plot world domination and sing Rod Stewart (well known scotsman from london) songs. Followed of couse with a slap up porridge and kipper supper all washed down with whiskey Enjoy your evening under the bridge.

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:58 pm

I do not deny you the right to put forward any theories you wish. Now insofar as you have done your research. The definition of an Englishman is one born in England or, as the Act of Settlement says "The laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof.." So you see Blair is not English, but Scottish. Don't try to dump your own shit on us. Your Fettes shit. Campbell is not Alastair, but Menzies. You know, the leader of the third party. The "select individuals" happen to be the leaders of the parties ("vote for me!"), you know, the three parties? The man pushed as the only possible replacement for Blair within the Labour Party. The Speaker in the Commons The Speaker in the Lords and the Leader of the Opposition. The man that controls the English legal system. Those "select individuals" control all routes to the Executive, the Legilative and the Judicial. Those "select individuals" lied to parliament and lied to the British people and lied us into war. They are ALL Scottish. The Iraq invasion is a Scottish enterprise. Your invective, your selective facts and your simple miscomprehensions cannot change those facts. Blair, Brown, Cameron, Campbell, Falconer, Martin, Strathclyde. Nationality, please. Blair and Falconer, the two most base liars in the affair. Nationality, please. Shoot-to-kill. In England or in Scotland. Please feel free to indulge your colourful imagination as much as you wish. But do you think that somewhere in your response you might reply to my questions?

why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Killer Queen Likes to Kill

Re: Killer Queen Likes to Kill

Re: Killer Queen Likes to Kill

High Minds and Low Deeds

Re: Killer Queen Likes to Kill

Re: Killer Queen Likes to Kill

Re: Killer Queen Likes to Kill

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Big Mouth

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Who is online