I was in Moscow 2 years after communism ended, I had a great meal in a cellar restaurant that had been booked by our translator - it was a bit off-putting having armed guards both at the door (metal with little window they opened to check who we were) and a few standing by the walls inside. The crooks/mafia had already taken over as I assume they already had a firm footing when it was still the communist regime
Is it any wonder why.....
- Thread starter Cozzer
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
They pretty much were the bulk of the communist regime.
As the joke used to be in the Brezhnev era ( when his private collection of vintage cars was common knowledge ) the society in the USSR was ostensibly "egalitarian", everyone was equal.
But some were far more "equal" than others.
In practice all societies , whatever they profess to be, whatever others call them, get hi-jacked by an "elite".
Last edited:
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I agree. It's been my contention since I started shaving that we steer a roughly middle of the road path by successively steering hard right, followed by hard left. Not terribly efficient or effective, but better than hitting the kerb.
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
Bring back the death sentence.
If you try to kill another and can be proven with footage etc you forfeit all human rights and are sentenced to death. You tries to end thier life, so yours is automatically forfeit.
Why should taxpayers pay more than the average wage in the UK to keep EACH CRIMINAL in prison?
Yes you'll get false positives, but at some point the punishment needs to serve as a deterrant or you'll never win and as said - in the USa even harsh sentences don't work because jail is a "crime university."
Agreed, as long as you personally accept to be one of your "false positives".
You won't ?
So don't wish the possibility of being a false positive upon others.
"Footage" is so easily faked..And now with "deep fake" tech, I, or anyone else, can have "footage" of you committing any crime at all.
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
How about we just kick out all the a-holes and only use "normal people" - those whom have spent decades in a particular field or have a group of say 5 people from said expertise to manage - education, healthcare etc etc, and each reform bill they suggest has to pass through voting by a group of thier peers with the same levels of personal experience in each field and the House of Lords be abolished.
Don't let the people vote - most of them like me are just as clueless on the realities of these systems.
Most ministers seem to know how to run the education / healthcare / everything else system with about the same level of expertise as a hole in the ground.
I think I read that in the last general election there were 2 cases of voting fraud so all this ID hassle is rather overkill.
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
Why wouldn't I? You don't know me.
I publically said on this forum that I was willing to give up a ventilator during Covid if my death served to save the life of a younger person or parent, feel free to check; of all the people to try to have this argument with - trust me - I'm not the guy.
My life is inconsequential to the world but if my death serves as a warning to save another persons who's family - wife, children would be devasted because thier father would otherwise have been murdered for roadrage or a bar fight or "just because" - yeah I'll pay that, gladly.
I was a Guardian Angel for 2.5 years - I've already put my life in harms way for strangers, I've also stopped multiple street fights - because I can - it's how I'm built, can YOU say the same?
All the above I've said in different ways in the 14 years I've been a member of this forum, as a matter of record.
Strangely enough I can..except I didn't need to join any "guardian angels" , nor look for similar recognition ( ersatz police ) to do so. although, like my father before me I did spend some time in the military, being both shot at, and shooting back.
The death of an innocent person for a crime that they did not commit serves as no warning at all, except to never leave their house.It also lets the true perpetrator stay free, possibly to commit the same crime or worse again.
I am against the hard of thinking being able to vote ( wink ), and the religious.if you don't let the inmates of the asylum who hear voices and believe in non existent creatures and whose action are predicated upon their delusions vote, why should they be allowed to vote based upon those delusions outside the walls, their votes effect the lives of the non delusional in a way that society does not think is a good idea when they are in the psych ward.
There are some pretty tough ideas on this thread.
So tell me, where do you draw the line regarding the mentally ill? Why should someone who hears voices and has delusions be automatically excluded. Hearing voices, being paranoid, acting in a way that others may think is illogical does not mean that person is unable to understand and think clearly. How about someone who hears voices, talks to themselves, is paranoid yet gained class 1 honours degree, 2 masters ( these gaining the highest marks in the year - one with the highest ever recorded in a redbrick) and a PhD in less than 2 years? Should they be excluded? I am pretty sure my wife would be rather annoyed if that were the case. How would you decide if a voting intention is based on a delusion or fact? Come to think of it what would the Brexit referendum have turned out like if everyone who based their vote on delusion (i.e. they believed the lies) were excluded?
I' m not drawing a line to exclude the mentally ill.
I'm saying that society does so, and I would tend to agree with you
But I do think, and always have, that any one who believes in a god, and thinks that their belief should govern societies rules, such as "the place of women", abortion rights, the rights of girls to an education equal in every way to the education afforded to boys should not be allowed to enforce their harmful delusion upon the rest of society via the ballot box.there are many delusions which are not harmful, such as the belief that people in general are good. But allowing the religious ( of any kind ) to run a society, or vote it's laws ,only ever results in oppression .Usually of women and girls, but frequently of other "castes" , those with different colour skin etc.
I'm saying that society does so, and I would tend to agree with you
But I do think, and always have, that any one who believes in a god, and thinks that their belief should govern societies rules, such as "the place of women", abortion rights, the rights of girls to an education equal in every way to the education afforded to boys should not be allowed to enforce their harmful delusion upon the rest of society via the ballot box.there are many delusions which are not harmful, such as the belief that people in general are good. But allowing the religious ( of any kind ) to run a society, or vote it's laws ,only ever results in oppression .Usually of women and girls, but frequently of other "castes" , those with different colour skin etc.
Actually hearing voices, being paranoid quite definitely does mean that the person is unable to understand and think clearly. Hearing voices which are not there is not thinking clearly, being paranoid is not thinking clearly. At least according to any definition of "thinking clearly" that society in general and clinical physicians in particular understand and apply.What I have always found strange is that as long as one is "religious" such things are given a free pass or accepted as perfectly normal and indeed the correct way to be.Even to the point of passing laws which non believers then have to obey or face sanctions and or imprisonment or even death. Witness the current laws against womens right to choose in the USA, and many similar laws elsewhere ( Iran and Afghanistan for example ), written, voted for, and enacted by the delusionaly religious, enforced upon the sane.
thetyreman
Established Member
photo ID is a bad idea imo, it's a slippery slope once that comes in and becomes the norm, it's an abuse of basic human rights to make it mandatory.
Which "basic human rights" is it abusing.. ?
In the UK you have to prove who you are to access a great many things, social security payments etc.
Why is photo ID somehow a slippery slope, if anything it vastly simplifies the act of proving who you are, saves you having to have all those other bits of paper / plastic.
You already have a photo ID driving licence ( if you have a licence ) that will do as photo ID..it is in fact photo ID, to prove that you are allowed to drive.
Why not photo ID to vote ?.
Last edited:
thetyreman
Established Member
the right for privacy
How so, how is it a private action if you go to a polling station ?
How you vote is private and having to produce photo ID to be given a ballot paper would not change that. Do you refuse to show your driving licence if stopped by the police on the grounds of your basic human right to privacy ?
How you vote is private and having to produce photo ID to be given a ballot paper would not change that. Do you refuse to show your driving licence if stopped by the police on the grounds of your basic human right to privacy ?
How so, how is it a private action if you go to a polling station ?
How you vote is private and having to produce photo ID to be given a ballot paper would not change that. Do you refuse to show your driving licence if stopped by the police on the grounds of your basic human right to privacy ?
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
Here on the peninsula and across the rest of the archipelago we have a magic number for ID, odds for male, evens for female. It is used for everything and is easily tracked to get a good look at what you are up to.
People don't seem to be bothered about it.
I didn't knew that this issue could be treated so openly in the forum.
We, venezuelan people, became the second group of expatriates in the world, behind sirian population, without extraordinary facts like wars or natural dissasters, due to socialism.
We, venezuelan people, became the second group of expatriates in the world, behind sirian population, without extraordinary facts like wars or natural dissasters, due to socialism.
Entirely agree with mwinfrance. How you vote is a private matter. But when you go to the polling station the authorities have a duty to confirm firstly that you are entitled to vote, and secondly that you are indeed the person in whose name you are voting. This is hardly an invasion of your privacy. My observation was not an objection to photo id, I don't personally have an issue with it, nor would I object to it being mandatory. My comment was more along the lines of if it ain't broke why fix it. As things are if you own a mobile phone, use the internet, or participate in any form of social media then the providers of these services are already gathering, and selling, more information about you than the government are ever likely to.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
But you have to be on the electoral role in the first place, and get ticked off the list on the desk, so it would be obvious if somebody had stolen your vote and police enquiries would ensue.
I chatted with our local electoral office and asked him about my passport photo as it doesn't look much like me. He said they're are all like that and the whole thing is a farce. The risk of turning a genuine voter away seems greater than the opposite, and he was expecting unrest on election day.
Exactly
Last edited:
Similar threads
