It has been the custom in this country that prisoners do not get to vote, what right does an unelected court have to tell us that prisoners should 'vote'. Our law is not codified anyway...
Nah, it's the custom in this country not to punish anyone for anything without a law saying we can. If that principle is no longer valid, there are all sorts of interesting things we could do - seize all the property of anyone sent to prison, perhaps?
And the asbo style legislation is exactly this. It gives the courts the ability to punish people for things that aren't actually against the law. Such as making too much noise whilst having sex.
Now if you ask me have asbo's been capricious most of the time I would say no. However they have certainly been used against people who aren't actually doing anything that is against the law but that people don't like.
They are in my opinion directly a contradiction to your statement and very much punishing someone for doing something the law doesn't claim to be illegal. Which way did you vote Nick seeing as it was your lot that brought them in?
If England was excessively crowded, people would not come, and - indeed - people would leave.
Many people don't realise how crowded it is until they get here and are forced to live on a roundabout in Peterborough or an old football ground in Hendon.
And people are leaving.
People are leaving the Western Isles as well. Last time I was there, it didn't seem overcrowded - even by my rural standards.
People also go to the Western Isles. I know several.
Is there a particular problem with housing on old football grounds? If so, perhaps Aberdeen FC should stay where they are.
If England was excessively crowded, people would not come, and - indeed - people would leave.
Many people don't realise how crowded it is until they get here and are forced to live on a roundabout in Peterborough or an old football ground in Hendon.
And people are leaving.
People are leaving the Western Isles as well. Last time I was there, it didn't seem overcrowded - even by my rural standards.
People also go to the Western Isles. I know several.
Is there a particular problem with housing on old football grounds? If so, perhaps Aberdeen FC should stay where they are.
I think the point being made was that they are living in makeshift shelters on an old football ground not that the land is being used for new housing.
If England was excessively crowded, people would not come, and - indeed - people would leave.
Many people don't realise how crowded it is until they get here and are forced to live on a roundabout in Peterborough or an old football ground in Hendon.
And people are leaving.
People are leaving the Western Isles as well. Last time I was there, it didn't seem overcrowded - even by my rural standards.
People also go to the Western Isles. I know several.
Is there a particular problem with housing on old football grounds? If so, perhaps Aberdeen FC should stay where they are.
Housing on old football grounds is fine, Tent City is not.
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
ConHome had some surprising stats on this:
"In 1911 the population of England was 33m, and still just 39m in 1951. But by 2011 it was 53m – a rise of about 60% in a century. And when we bear in mind that the rise is focused upon the South-East, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, we can appreciate the sense of people in some parts of the country that the growth in population is overwhelming them.
But now consider Scotland. Scotland’s population in 1911 was 4.8m and by 2001 was still just 5.0m. The population in 2001 was actually lower than in 1951. The population of Northern Ireland was 1.65m in 1841, and only 1.69m in 2001.
The population density of England is 4 persons per hectare; of Greater Manchester 5; of the South-East 4.5. But of Northern Ireland it’s only 1.3 and of Scotland only 0.7 – barely a sixth of the population density of England."
"In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community.
As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK."
"In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community.
As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK."
"In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community.
As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK."
I think that is absolutely correct. I grew up in a town that had a very large integrated Polish population from long before Poland even joined the EU and we would have found it very strange to have any one consider them to be anything less than British in spite of the fact they retained a good number of Polish traditions (which we happily adopted as well).
As I have said on here before I would have no problem with immigration per se as long as it was matched by emigration (or unfortunately of course by death which has the same result) so long as the population overall did not continue to grow. And this would, for me at least, apply to anyone irrespective of where they came from so long as they were willing to adopt the main pillars of English society including learning the language and abiding by the law and general social mores of their adopted land (as I have been more or less happy to do in other countries I have lived in).
The issue we are debating though is the impact of large scale migration which substantially increases the population of a country. It is this which I believe leads to the sorts of tensions and the drop in quality of life that is being discussed here.
If they had looked at the 2011 census date, they would have also noted that Scotland's population is now higher than it's previous peak in 1971 (not sure why the Tories chose 1951 as their comparison date).
However, your data clearly makes the case that those who say "this country" is "overcrowded" obviously don't see the UK as their country, and the policies they persuade the UK Government to adopt are not in the interests of many parts of the UK.
If they had looked at the 2011 census date, they would have also noted that Scotland's population is now higher than it's previous peak in 1971 (not sure why the Tories chose 1951 as their comparison date).
However, your data clearly makes the case that those who say "this country" is "overcrowded" obviously don't see the UK as their country, and the policies they persuade the UK Government to adopt are not in the interests of many parts of the UK.
What makes Scotland so unattractive to immigrants?
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
If they had looked at the 2011 census date, they would have also noted that Scotland's population is now higher than it's previous peak in 1971 (not sure why the Tories chose 1951 as their comparison date).
However, your data clearly makes the case that those who say "this country" is "overcrowded" obviously don't see the UK as their country, and the policies they persuade the UK Government to adopt are not in the interests of many parts of the UK.
Um. The United Kingdom is not a country. It is a State but Scotland and England are separate countries.
I can't see things changing much for some time if at all. I reckon stuff like the rising cost of living, increased work pressures and shifts in job security/conditions etc, the attitude to our great leaders (and potential leaders) shown in the recent Guardian 'no surprise there then' poll, a growing awareness of the realities of global competition, a growing acceptance that we'll never again (probably) have it so good, blah, blah... leaves voters with nowhere to turn.
Don't suppose anyone else has put on half a stone in a week have they?
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
Peterborough is in London?
If we have much more building down there it will be before too long :-(
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
Peterborough is in London?
If we have much more building down there it will be before too long :-(
I know someone who commutes on a daily basis from Peterborough to London.
I can't see things changing much for some time if at all. I reckon stuff like the rising cost of living, increased work pressures and shifts in job security/conditions etc, the attitude to our great leaders (and potential leaders) shown in the recent Guardian 'no surprise there then' poll, a growing awareness of the realities of global competition, a growing acceptance that we'll never again (probably) have it so good, blah, blah... leaves voters with nowhere to turn.
Don't suppose anyone else has put on half a stone in a week have they?
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
Peterborough is in London?
If we have much more building down there it will be before too long :-(
I know someone who commutes on a daily basis from Peterborough to London.
Grantham and Newark are both now part of the commuter belt for London.
That's the British for you , fair,open-minded and hospitable.
Most of us* - I agree.
* "British" being the correct geographic description for those living in the British Isles - and I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether that includes the Channel Islands or Ireland (both bits).
Looks like David Beckham has been snubbed for a knighthood again! What does this man have to do? Win a World Cup? Be player of the year? Launch his own range of swimming trunks?
I don't watch much Crickt nowadays but one of my bugbears is how it now seems that a wicketkeeper's main priority is to score runs rather than take dismissals.
We do have significant migrate populations that do not learn english, have high unemployment, are net recepients from the taxpayer and do not integrate.
British people are quite tolerant of the right sort of migrant, but are not so keen on the other sort. We cannot ignore the fact that some migrants are better than others. Filipino nurses yes,Kosovar gangsters no. We do not have to have an open door.
"In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community.
As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK."
I don't watch much Crickt nowadays but one of my bugbears is how it now seems that a wicketkeeper's main priority is to score runs rather than take dismissals.
I am beginning to wonder what the first slip's priority is.
"In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community."
Ignoring both blue rhetoric and red rhetoric, the fact is that this government has really reaffirmed the free movement of people within the EU for the above people (which is pretty much the required extent under EU law).
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
The population of Northern Ireland was 1.65m in 1841, and only 1.69m in 2001.
Strewth, this is misleading.
Anybody apart from me heard of the Great Irish Potato Famine?
It has been the custom in this country that prisoners do not get to vote, what right does an unelected court have to tell us that prisoners should 'vote'. Our law is not codified anyway...
Nah, it's the custom in this country not to punish anyone for anything without a law saying we can. If that principle is no longer valid, there are all sorts of interesting things we could do - seize all the property of anyone sent to prison, perhaps?
The bar on prisoners voting is not some kind of arbitrary custom or decision made by an official without reference to law.
It was officially passed into law by the Representation of the People Act 1983. (Edit: which in itself was a consolidation of earlier acts of 1870, 1967 and 1969)
The ECHR judgement seeks to overturn a properly debated and approved law passed by Parliament. You may not agree with that law but to try and claim it has no legitimacy or is equivalent to the arbitrary seizure of property is a dishonest position for a former (and perhaps hopefully future) Parliamentarian.
Fair enough - I was responding to Pulpstrar saying it was OK because it was our custom.
Claiming that because British lawyers were involved in the ECHR's creation we should respect it now is like citing the virtue of Trajan to justify the mutilations of Nicephoras Phocas.</
It has been the custom in this country that prisoners do not get to vote, what right does an unelected court have to tell us that prisoners should 'vote'. Our law is not codified anyway...
Nah, it's the custom in this country not to punish anyone for anything without a law saying we can. If that principle is no longer valid, there are all sorts of interesting things we could do - seize all the property of anyone sent to prison, perhaps?
The bar on prisoners voting is not some kind of arbitrary custom or decision made by an official without reference to law.
It was officially passed into law by the Representation of the People Act 1983. (Edit: which in itself was a consolidation of earlier acts of 1870, 1967 and 1969)
The ECHR judgement seeks to overturn a properly debated and approved law passed by Parliament. You may not agree with that law but to try and claim it has no legitimacy or is equivalent to the arbitrary seizure of property is a dishonest position for a former (and perhaps hopefully future) Parliamentarian.
Fair enough - I was responding to Pulpstrar saying it was OK because it was our custom.
.
I thought you 'knew' that the prisoner thing had no legal basis. Extrapolating - does the supreme court of England have anyh legal basis as it can be overuled by Strasbourg ?
It has been the custom in this country that prisoners do not get to vote, what right does an unelected court have to tell us that prisoners should 'vote'. Our law is not codified anyway...
Nah, it's the custom in this country not to punish anyone for anything without a law saying we can. If that principle is no longer valid, there are all sorts of interesting things we could do - seize all the property of anyone sent to prison, perhaps?
The bar on prisoners voting is not some kind of arbitrary custom or decision made by an official without reference to law.
It was officially passed into law by the Representation of the People Act 1983. (Edit: which in itself was a consolidation of earlier acts of 1870, 1967 and 1969)
The ECHR judgement seeks to overturn a properly debated and approved law passed by Parliament. You may not agree with that law but to try and claim it has no legitimacy or is equivalent to the arbitrary seizure of property is a dishonest position for a former (and perhaps hopefully future) Parliamentarian.
Fair enough - I was responding to Pulpstrar saying it was OK because it was our custom.
.
Parliament did debate this issue thoroughly, in 2011, and voted overwhelmingly to keep the current arrangement.
Don't suppose anyone else has put on half a stone in a week have they?
I've been not eating Christmas cake number two all evening. Willpower is running low.
(Asda, much nicer than the Waitrose one!)
I went for the 'most chocolate scoffed in a week' award. (Which I go for most weeks tbh).
Did someone mention calories? On 31st December 2005 I ate 8,537 calories. Why? Because (a) I wanted to celebrate New Year's Eve; (b) 8,537 is my favourite number.
Can England not just give in? This has been a total embarrassment.
This test is going to do for England's psychology. Worse than losing the Ashes. They had a winning position. A very winning position. And they've thrown it away to lose by eight wickets and with 4 sessions to spare.
Can England not just give in? This has been a total embarrassment.
This test is going to do for England's psychology. Worse than losing the Ashes. They had a winning position. A very winning position. And they've thrown it away to lose by eight wickets and with 4 sessions to spare.
As I think you commented earlier if I was Monty I would be on the next plane home. Cook clearly does not rate him at all.
Carberry is just not test class and should go. Prior is probably finished for good. Jimmy is clearly well past his best and needs a break at the least. Root probably needs more time in county cricket. Bairstow is not a good enough wicket keeper and frankly not a good enough batsman either. Bresnan is a whole hearted individual but frankly not good enough either and his batting has become very poor.
Only Cook, KP, Bell and Broad have any right to expect to stay in the team after this performance.
Can England not just give in? This has been a total embarrassment.
This test is going to do for England's psychology. Worse than losing the Ashes. They had a winning position. A very winning position. And they've thrown it away to lose by eight wickets and with 4 sessions to spare.
As I think you commented earlier if I was Monty I would be on the next plane home. Cook clearly does not rate him at all.
Carberry is just not test class and should go. Prior is probably finished for good. Jimmy is clearly well past his best and needs a break at the least. Root probably needs more time in county cricket. Bairstow is not a good enough wicket keeper and frankly not a good enough batsman either. Bresnan is a whole hearted individual but frankly not good enough either and his batting has become very poor.
Only Cook, KP, Bell and Broad have any right to expect to stay in the team after this performance.
Even when Australia were getting beaten in England I rated Clarke's captaincy. Cook is the most negative captain I can remember. Any chance to give it to A N Other (Bell ?) whilst keeping him as an opener (Which he does well)...
The 3 - 0 win in England certainly hid a lot of the shortcomings. When did this vaunted batting line up last score a 400 ? The Flower / Cook negativity regarding decision making is another. During the Lords' test , they felt the need to take a 595 runs lead before declaring despite forecasts saying bad weather was on it's way. The whole concept is not to be defeated first, win maybe.
These Australians are not the vintage sort yet they will possibly win 5 zip with each result a massive one.
Can England not just give in? This has been a total embarrassment.
This test is going to do for England's psychology. Worse than losing the Ashes. They had a winning position. A very winning position. And they've thrown it away to lose by eight wickets and with 4 sessions to spare.
As I think you commented earlier if I was Monty I would be on the next plane home. Cook clearly does not rate him at all.
Carberry is just not test class and should go. Prior is probably finished for good. Jimmy is clearly well past his best and needs a break at the least. Root probably needs more time in county cricket. Bairstow is not a good enough wicket keeper and frankly not a good enough batsman either. Bresnan is a whole hearted individual but frankly not good enough either and his batting has become very poor.
Only Cook, KP, Bell and Broad have any right to expect to stay in the team after this performance.
Two years ago in the dead pitches of the UAE, Pakistani batsmen couldn't handle Finn's pace. Has this bowler suddenly become so bad ? Why take him on tour then ? Did anybody watch Tremlett before he boarded the plane ? His pace was down a couple of yards since the last tour. Onions was sacrificed for him. I am not sure why Rankin is there to begin with.
I don't watch much Crickt nowadays but one of my bugbears is how it now seems that a wicketkeeper's main priority is to score runs rather than take dismissals.
I am beginning to wonder what the first slip's priority is.
Comments
We didn't win, but England still did reasonably well. Certainly wasn't traumatic.
Now if you ask me have asbo's been capricious most of the time I would say no. However they have certainly been used against people who aren't actually doing anything that is against the law but that people don't like.
They are in my opinion directly a contradiction to your statement and very much punishing someone for doing something the law doesn't claim to be illegal. Which way did you vote Nick seeing as it was your lot that brought them in?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-banned-from-every-supermarket-in-britain-for-masturbating-in-sainsburys-meat-aisle-9003511.html
If only because he was doing it for ten minutes before he was arrested ...
Cue jokes ... 8-)
Plus, I had spent the previous fortnight winding up my Welsh friends about their impending defeat.
That's your own damned fault. Anyway, I'm off for the night.
People also go to the Western Isles. I know several.
Is there a particular problem with housing on old football grounds? If so, perhaps Aberdeen FC should stay where they are.
Thanks. It's often difficult to comprehend oblique references to strange places which don't reflect the experience of most places in the UK. Still, I suppose there is no reason why London shouldn't share problems with other fast-growing cities such as Rio.
"In 1911 the population of England was 33m, and still just 39m in 1951. But by 2011 it was 53m – a rise of about 60% in a century. And when we bear in mind that the rise is focused upon the South-East, Birmingham and Greater Manchester, we can appreciate the sense of people in some parts of the country that the growth in population is overwhelming them.
But now consider Scotland. Scotland’s population in 1911 was 4.8m and by 2001 was still just 5.0m. The population in 2001 was actually lower than in 1951. The population of Northern Ireland was 1.65m in 1841, and only 1.69m in 2001.
The population density of England is 4 persons per hectare; of Greater Manchester 5; of the South-East 4.5. But of Northern Ireland it’s only 1.3 and of Scotland only 0.7 – barely a sixth of the population density of England."
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/12/andrew-lilico-most-of-britain-would-benefit-from-more-immigration-not-less.html
As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/bulgaria-romania-migrants-uk-poll?CMP=twt_gu
As I have said on here before I would have no problem with immigration per se as long as it was matched by emigration (or unfortunately of course by death which has the same result) so long as the population overall did not continue to grow. And this would, for me at least, apply to anyone irrespective of where they came from so long as they were willing to adopt the main pillars of English society including learning the language and abiding by the law and general social mores of their adopted land (as I have been more or less happy to do in other countries I have lived in).
The issue we are debating though is the impact of large scale migration which substantially increases the population of a country. It is this which I believe leads to the sorts of tensions and the drop in quality of life that is being discussed here.
If they had looked at the 2011 census date, they would have also noted that Scotland's population is now higher than it's previous peak in 1971 (not sure why the Tories chose 1951 as their comparison date).
However, your data clearly makes the case that those who say "this country" is "overcrowded" obviously don't see the UK as their country, and the policies they persuade the UK Government to adopt are not in the interests of many parts of the UK.
Don't suppose anyone else has put on half a stone in a week have they?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/28/coalition-wont-face-fact-of-food-banks
How ironic that when the big society actually takes hold, the government won't go within a hundred miles of it.
(Asda, much nicer than the Waitrose one!)
Still, you will have your little joke at their expense.
* "British" being the correct geographic description for those living in the British Isles - and I'm not going to get into a discussion as to whether that includes the Channel Islands or Ireland (both bits).
"Um. The United Kingdom is not a country. It is a State but Scotland and England are separate countries."
Unfortunately, their is no agreed definition as to what "state", "country", "nation" or "nation-state" actually mean.
If there were, then the likes of Miliband would be prevented from making silly "One Nation" speeches - which could only be a good thing.
I just think this team is psychologically beaten.
Oh for pity's sake. Bairstow is not a test match keeper.
British people are quite tolerant of the right sort of migrant, but are not so keen on the other sort. We cannot ignore the fact that some migrants are better than others. Filipino nurses yes,Kosovar gangsters no. We do not have to have an open door.
Ignoring both blue rhetoric and red rhetoric, the fact is that this government has really reaffirmed the free movement of people within the EU for the above people (which is pretty much the required extent under EU law).
Anybody apart from me heard of the Great Irish Potato Famine?
.
We need 9 wickets and Cook has a single slip....
Why? Because
(a) I wanted to celebrate New Year's Eve;
(b) 8,537 is my favourite number.
Carberry is just not test class and should go. Prior is probably finished for good. Jimmy is clearly well past his best and needs a break at the least. Root probably needs more time in county cricket. Bairstow is not a good enough wicket keeper and frankly not a good enough batsman either. Bresnan is a whole hearted individual but frankly not good enough either and his batting has become very poor.
Only Cook, KP, Bell and Broad have any right to expect to stay in the team after this performance.
It will take a little bit of time for him to turn things around but a world beating performance would follow as sure as day following night.
During the Lords' test , they felt the need to take a 595 runs lead before declaring despite forecasts saying bad weather was on it's way. The whole concept is not to be defeated first, win maybe.
These Australians are not the vintage sort yet they will possibly win 5 zip with each result a massive one.