This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Labour Shame...Tory Scandal

Scroll to see replies

jjuk

Too late.

You've been nannied since birth,you just didn't know it.

P.S. I'll do what ever i sodding well feel like,you imperialist ******

The last thing I'll let happen is being nannied by someone who sees Britain as a big bank and a big war machine.

I'm free insofar as no matter what restrictions the government places on me, I will ignore them if I believe them unjust. Unfortunately this is the freedom of the slave, but not nannying.

I didn't tell you what you could and couldn't do. All I said is that if YOU tried to stop ME doing what I cared to do, I would rather kill you than submit.

Since when was I an imperialist anyway? I believe in the Commonwealth, that's hardly imperialism. And I don't think I've ever supported any war actively.

Tool.

jjuk

No just one that rapes children and snorts coccaine. :mad:

But of course to the liberals its better be a paedophile than racist/fascist.

If the BNP is a racist/fascist party why are they not banned?

Racism is against the law isn't it?

No, racism is not against the law.

And you're giving an organisation human characteristics here. And notibly, I'm not a member of any political organisation. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with snorting cocaine.

I don't like your party because it is full of skinheaded, vulgar, working class yobs who wouldn't know a political theory if it came up and smacked them in the mouth.

jjuk

Never found one in english,and i don't speak a word of chinese.

Quite common actually. I have one in one of the bookshelves at home somewhere.

Reply 81

ArthurOliver

Jangliss

Because you threaten the British way of life.

I can't judge the truth of this statement, because I don't know what the "British way of life" is. Define it please. Then explain how the BNP threaten it. A blind guess says the BNP are more inclined to preserve "it" than the rest of the pols..., no?

Reply 82

Ossie1701

Under the BNP there would be no racism.

Probably because you would chuck everyone who is not white, protestant and can prove their family have been British for 100 generations - out of the UK!

Reply 83

John82

Does anyone think that Dennis Skinner was instructed by a Labour spin doctor?

He is the perfect patsy for such an attack. I think Labour may have been testing the water in order to see how the media and public react to such mud-slinging. If it goes wrong they can dimiss it as a Skinnerism, if it works they could imploy such tactics in the future.

It seems to me that Labour haven't decided on a strategy to deal with Cameron. The slease scandals of the 1990's worked extremely well for Labour - perhaps the old ones are the best.

Reply 84

tommorris

jjuk

Why is there no socialist society on this forum?

Isn't there? I'm sure I saw one somewhere. Jangliss seems to be advertising that he co-founded the socialist society in his sig.

tommorris

Isn't there? I'm sure I saw one somewhere. Jangliss seems to be advertising that he co-founded the socialist society in his sig.

Good to see! :smile:

Qudos to jangliss! :smile:

Reply 87

Sirlooney

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with snorting cocaine.

Get educated you fool.

Source http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html

Some users of cocaine report feelings of restlessness, irritability, and anxiety. A tolerance to the "high" may develop—many addicts report that they seek but fail to achieve as much pleasure as they did from their first exposure. Some users will increase their doses to intensify and prolong the euphoric effects. While tolerance to the high can occur, users can also become more sensitive to cocaine's anesthetic and convulsant effects without increasing the dose taken. This increased sensitivity may explain some deaths occurring after apparently low doses of cocaine.

Use of cocaine in a binge, during which the drug is taken repeatedly and at increasingly high doses, may lead to a state of increasing irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This can result in a period of full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which the user loses touch with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations.

Other complications associated with cocaine use include disturbances in hearth rhythm and heart attacks, chest pain and respiratory failure, strokes, seizures and headaches, and gastrointestinal complications such as abdominal pain and nausea. Because cocaine has a tendency to decrease appetite, many chronic users can become malnourished.

Different means of taking cocaine can produce different adverse effects. Regularly snorting cocaine, for example, can lead to loss of sense of smell, nosebleeds, problems with swallowing, hoarseness, and a chronically runny nose. Ingesting cocaine can cause severe bowel gangrene due to reduced blood flow. People who inject cocaine can experience severe allergic reactions and, as with any injecting drug user, are at increased risk for contracting HIV and other blood-borne diseases.

Still nothing wrong with it ?

"the user loses touch with reality and experiences" does this apply to you ?

Reply 88

jjuk

Ossie1701

Probably because you would chuck everyone who is not white, protestant and can prove their family have been British for 100 generations - out of the UK!

Well i'll be chucked out because i'm an Odinist and not a Protestant.

Along with all the sikhs,jews,athiests,catholics,mormons and many other faiths who are in or voted for the BNP.

One thing we will do those is to kick out all the greedy politicos who have grown fat off the backs of decent taxpayers.

Reply 89

thebucketwoman

jjuk

One thing we will do those is to kick out all the greedy politicos who have grown fat off the backs of decent taxpayers.

Please explain this policy in more detail, I'm interested. Who comes under the title of 'politicos' exactly?

Reply 90

jjuk

thebucketwoman

Please explain this policy in more detail, I'm interested. Who comes under the title of 'politicos' exactly?

You,now sling your hook!

Only joking. Thats not our policy just wishfull thinking.

But wouldn't you agree that the house of commons has MP's that are greedy and should work harder to make Britain a safe and prosperous nation?

Why does an MP that lives close to London have an 'expenses?' bill higher than an MP that has to travel all the way down from Scotland?

Reply 91

yawn

jjuk

Why does an MP that lives close to London have an 'expenses?' bill higher than an MP that has to travel all the way down from Scotland?

Do they have a bigger 'pot of money' available from which to claim?

And if they are permitted to claim more, perhaps the costs of living close to London surpass the costs of the train fares from Scotland to London.

Reply 92

jjuk

yawn

They all feed from the same trough which you and i have to fill with our taxes.

The expenses they claim are on top of their 50 grand that they get paid.Many expenses bills are more than a 100 grand a year. :eek:

Reply 93

tommorris

Sirlooney

Get educated you fool.

Source http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html
[...]
Still nothing wrong with it ?

No, there's lots wrong with it. But it's your choice whether or not you use it, and your responsibility for your reaction to it.

If someone uses drugs and is violent, we should charge them with assault. If someone uses drugs and kills someone, we should charge them with murder/manslaughter. If someone uses drugs and rapes someone, we should charge them with rape. If someone uses drugs and harms nobody but themselves, we should charge them with nothing. Anything else is paternalistic, authoritarian nonsense more befitting Saudia Arabia than the United Kingdom.

Theocrats and fascists gain a great deal in the prohibition of drugs. Libertarians, such as myself, find it abhorrent that society should dictate what one does with one's own body within the confines of one's own home. If you aren't harming anybody else, it's not the state's job to tell you that you shouldn't use any substance.

Reply 94

L i b

jjuk

Is that what TORYLITE will do when they buy there way into power?

Nope, that's what I'll do.

Race relations act 1976 :confused:

That doesn't make racism illegal. I believe it outlaws racial discrimination in the workplace: a world of difference there.

What charateristic would you prefer?one of snarling skinheads in white hoods plotting to murder ethnics?

I was merely pointing out that organisations are not sentient human beings and therefore cannot take upon human characteristics. It's a bit like saying the Labour Party went down to the shops today, bought a loaf of bread and scratched its arse.

You sound like a Guardian reader

LMFAO!!!!

Obviously not if your an upperclass twit in the CONservative party.
Hopefully you'll die from a coke indused heart attack and do the world a favour

Who said I use cocaine? Either way, unless I was a complete addict, my chances of getting a heart attack from cocaine would be tiny. Notably I eat healthily, so if you're an average person, you're probably far more likely than me to die of a heart attack.

Yes those bloody vulgar working class oiks are getting above their station,pasify yourself with some more caviar down at the reform club.

I don't like working class culture, so what?

What will daddy say if he sees that,best hide it or he'll close your trust fund.

I believe it's actually my mother's. She's a bloody socialist.

Incidently I don't have a trust fund, I'm paying my own way through university.

Sirlooney

Get educated you fool.

So, exactly what is wrong with any of the below? After all, you could probably apply all of that to eating a McDonalds burger with a beer on the side.

"the user loses touch with reality and experiences" does this apply to you ?

Nowt like it really. Why do you think 95% of the adult British population drinks...

Reply 95

Lord Waddell

I despise what Cameron is doing to the Conservative Party. He is taking away the local constituency association's power to chose their own candidate from their own list and having them chose from a shortlist compiled by Central Office, of course with more women and enthic minorities. Do they really think this is a good idea? Do they really think that some cosmipolitan Londoner is going to appeal to voters in a rural constituency? Don't they think that it is best to leave it to the local Tories to choose their own candidate? When will the modernisers learn: people don't vote for a certain party because their candidate is a women. Look at Blair's Babes in 1997, most of them turnied out to be New Labour robots, hated by the public. And with the type of voter that the Conservatives appeal to, they could well by turned off from voting Tory if they have a centrally imposed candidate who knows nothing of the constituency and who spouts PC mantra. The Tories will lose out by this. It won't be popular, especially in the rural seats that they have and are trying to take back. Does everyone know the story of the Welsh seat in the last election, one of Labour's safest, where a candidate from a womans' only shortlist, not local, was defeated by an independant? This could well happen in Tory seats at the next election.

OK, rant over.

Reply 96

Socrates

tommorris

Theocrats and fascists gain a great deal in the prohibition of drugs. Libertarians, such as myself, find it abhorrent that society should dictate what one does with one's own body within the confines of one's own home. If you aren't harming anybody else, it's not the state's job to tell you that you shouldn't use any substance.

You might like to take a look at this thread:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t181919.html

Reply 97

Sirlooney

If someone uses drugs and is violent, we should charge them with assault. If someone uses drugs and kills someone, we should charge them with murder/manslaughter. If someone uses drugs and rapes someone, we should charge them with rape. If someone uses drugs and harms nobody but themselves, we should charge them with nothing.

Surely it's better if we can stop most of this happening in the first place. Think of the victims for a change instead of your own selfish needs. It's not like you actually "need" hard drugs.

Reply 98

L i b

Not at the price of liberty.

Anyway, our justice system isn't geared towards victims. Murder etc is an offence against the Queen's Peace, nothing to do with the victim - if they have been damaged, they can raise actions in civil courts. However, punishment and crime should be totally detached from the victim.

Reply 99

tommorris

Sirlooney

Surely it's better if we can stop most of this happening in the first place. Think of the victims for a change instead of your own selfish needs. It's not like you actually "need" hard drugs.

It's not like you "need" to be member of an extreme far-right party. The existence of the BNP is destructive to many people - specifically, the "communities" (to use the mot du jour) where racial conflict is stirred up by your presence. Why don't we just stop most of this happening in the first place by banning the BNP? Because it goes against the principle of democratic liberty. Society tolerates the abhorrent ideology of the BNP because to not tolerate it would be hypocritical and offensive towards the principles of democracy we hold dear (and I mean tolerate in the old fashioned sense, in which one tolerates a screaming child on an aeroplane, not uncritically accept their ideas like the left is being asked to do with radical, fundamentalist Islam).

Why shouldn't we ban drugs? Because of liberty. But, of course, being situated on the political map between Stalin and Hitler, the twentieth century's greatest statists, as well as Robert Mugabe, a twenty-first century statist, does not engender much support for these principles of liberty. Even our current Laurel and Hardy show with Nu Labour and the Tories is an affront to the principles of liberty.

What is really selfish is taking away liberty and freedom to choose. It says "we, Whitehall, know best and you, dear citizen, are a bunch of fools and children".