British pride

I still have some pride left in this country and it will be greatly increased when our disreputable press is suitably castrated.
 
keithgdg said:
I agree about the press but then where does it stop. Do we also castigate the so called world leaders for their snooping on other world leaders
Click to expand...

I think there is a big difference between the press snooping on individuals to produce vaccuous, titilating stories to sell their so-called newspapers and security services snooping on people to protect against terrorism. We, in the west, should be doing everything we can to snoop on the leaders of potentially hostile foreign powers - whether or not the leader of Germany counts amongst them is perhaps open to question - though the answer might have been a very definite "yes" as little as 50 years ago.
 
maby said:
I think there is a big difference between the press snooping on individuals to produce vaccuous, titilating stories to sell their so-called newspapers and security services snooping on people to protect against terrorism.
Click to expand...

If all the press's snooping were as you described, and if all state snooping were also as you described, you'd have a compelling point. The latter, as we've seen (largely as a result of 'press snooping') is often illegal, horrifying in its scope and motivated by empire-building rather than real concerns about terrorism.

As for the worse sorts of snooping journalism, one of the principle culprits is the reading public: if they didn't buy that sort of nonsense, newspapers wouldn't sell it.

Your allusion to Germany 'as little as 50 years ago' (surely rather longer?) is also telling: that was one of the hay-days of press restriction.
 
macd said:
If all the press's snooping were as you described, and if all state snooping were also as you described, you'd have a compelling point. The latter, as we've seen (largely as a result of 'press snooping') is often illegal, horrifying in its scope and motivated by empire-building rather than real concerns about terrorism.

As for the worse sorts of snooping journalism, one of the principle culprits is the reading public: if they didn't buy that sort of nonsense, newspapers wouldn't sell it.

Your allusion to Germany 'as little as 50 years ago' (surely rather longer?) is also telling: that was one of the hay-days of press restriction.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm in favour of the press having the freedom to hold governments and commerce up for inspection - it's their treatment of individuals that I object to. I don't think they should have the right to publish any story about anyone - private individual or celebrity - without the permission of the person or persons involved. If they believe that they have evidence of criminal behaviour, then it is the legal system that should investigate and if the story is simple titilation, then they should not have the right to publish without permission. If they believe that they have uncovered evidence of gross hypocricy by a public figure, there should be mechanisms to apply for a legal exception to these rules from a high court judge.
 
Mere geographical accident at birth :)
Though not a bad flag to sail under, passport's OK, brits seem to have a fairly good welcome out and about despite the lager louts. . Useful language to speak. But proud? Who cares. Just another country with a dodgy past like so many others.
 
GHA said:
Mere geographical accident at birth :)
Though not a bad flag to sail under, passport's OK, brits seem to have a fairly good welcome out and about despite the lager louts. . Useful language to speak. But proud? Who cares. Just another country with a dodgy past like so many others.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Brits are anyway much of a mongrel race - my paternal ancestors are Irish, maternal are Dutch - go back far enough and few are genuinely French aristos from 1066 or even less the original Anglo-Saxon.

As for the dodgy past, what does it matter? No one alive today is responsible for the many atrocities perpetrated, which makes it absurd to apologise for them, nor is it logical to be proud of something historical, hanging on the coat-tails of other, braver souls long gone. But that's typical for those who, to quote a national leader, have: "A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war"
 
I would have to carefully consider what makes me proud to fly my ensign bt here's a few starters to be going on with.
Roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.
The Tower of London.
Our royalty, though it could be trimmed down a bit. Too many of them.
Trout fishing in the river test.
Our history.
Oxford & Cambridge.
The boat race.
Etc etc
 
Barnac1e said:
Spot on. Brits are anyway much of a mongrel race - my paternal ancestors are Irish, maternal are Dutch - go back far enough and few are genuinely French aristos from 1066 or even less the original Anglo-Saxon.

As for the dodgy past, what does it matter? No one alive today is responsible for the many atrocities perpetrated, which makes it absurd to apologise for them, nor is it logical to be proud of something historical, hanging on the coat-tails of other, braver souls long gone. But that's typical for those who, to quote a national leader, have: "A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war"
Click to expand...

+1, and to GHA's post. Nelson* may have been a great admiral, but he owed none of it to me.

* substitute any other historical figure of your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Dodgy looking P Bracket
Replies
10
Views
452
bedouin
B
S
Buying advice. Only two winches?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
dgadee
dgadee
catnick1
Volvo M2020 best way to winterise cooling sytem
Replies
3
Views
138
catnick1
catnick1

Share this page

Top