Control Freakery

Cornishman

Cornishman

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Jul 2002
Messages
6,402
Location
Cornwall
Visit site
The three party leaders have met today to discuss the Home Secretary's proposal on how to deal with suspected terrorists. He calls it Control Orders.
Now doesn't that tell you something about this lot in Government? /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
A politician is someone who reckons he can run your life for you better than you can. That goes in spades for left-wing politicians, who also have very clear ideas of what you should and should not be allowed to do.

I have to say I agree with what Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy said earlier, that it is completely unacceptable for British citizens (or anyone else for that matter) to be held in some form of custody at the whim of a politician, without even the benefit of a miscarriage of justice at one of our wonderful courts.
 
To me it's very dangerous to have a politician make these decisions. After all, we're still committed to finding WMD in Iraq. Bypassing the courts is an abuse of privelige and political office IMO.

Control Orders indeed!
 
National security v foxhunting

Nobody else has commented on the reason for the meeting. It became necessary cause there wasnt enough time on the parliamentary calender for the necessary legislation to be put through before the existing act runs out. It would appear that banning foxhunting is more important to this bunch of incompetents than looking after the security of the nation - now why should that surprise anyone. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Could we just stop all these political threads? This is a sailing forum.

If you all think you could do it so much better better then go and stand for Parliament, or start your own party or whatever. I hear Kilroy-Silk is looking for people.

Stop the bloody whinging!

- Nick
 
This is a "Scuttlebutt" forum. Definition: Unofficial news or information such as gossip and rumour.

Just the same as in the pub or club bar.

Interesting how left winger control freaks don't like the truth if it is about the present bunch of hoons (sorry goons) who are so constantly economical with the truth.

Just see the High Court Judge's comments today about the Heathrow/Luton and Stansted Inquiry and the "incomplete information" given by the Dept of Transport and the Treasury. I suspect that that is as near as a judge would go to calling the government departments liars.
 
Sadly, Nick, we don't sail in a vacuum. What those shits of politicians do has a major impact on us and our sailing. They brought us into the EU, and the Recreational Craft Directive has just about ruined British small boat builders. They want us to be breathalysed, thus solving what the RNLI described as a 'non-problem'. They will adopt the crazy French rules of laying down how far a certain size of boat can sail from land, from the ignorant landsman's idea that it is safer near the shore. As R.T. McMullen pointed out nearly 150 years ago, in bad weather a small boat is safer in deep water than in the mouth of a harbour.

That is even without considering why they hate us on misplaced class grounds. What they can't understand is people who are self-sufficient, who can go to sea on their own, and take responsiblity for their own lives and decisions, and who don't need two-Jags telling them what to do in a situation he knows sweet Fanny Adams about.

The fact that politicians know absolutely nothing about something does not stop them legislating about it. Clare Short has very definite views on education, but when they put her in front of a class of primary children she made a total a**e of it.

Politicans vote on the content of anti-fouling, about the price of red diesel and about how yachtsmen should go about sailing. Most of them know as much about those matters as I know about Turkish poetry.

It's a good thing that we can let of steam in the company of people who know what we are talking about, and share the same problems.
 
I repeat:

Go and do something about it.

Moaning here achieves nothing.

Blaming it on the current government only shows that you have never watched Yes Minister. This country is governed by the civil service, and one set of politicians is very like another.

Personally, I don't care. When it comes to sailing I will continue to obey government directives for as long as I deem feasible or prudent, then I will ignore them. I am already ignoring one or two. The joy of sailing and the nature of it is that I will almost certainly get away with it. If it gets to the stage where I have to forge documentation then I will do that as well - and get away with it.

We are smarter than them, more resourceful than them, and they cannot enforce stupidity in the marine environment - so cheer up you whingers - or is blind obedience your thing?

As for the class thing - if you could all refrain from sounding like seagoing versions of Attilla the Hun it would help a bit. This is a public forum, let's hope that no cabinet advisors read it regularly.

- Nick
 
Lets hope they do read it - then they might start to find out how members of the GP think ...
Not that it will change anything ....

If you don't like the political bashing - don't read them
 
[ QUOTE ]
I repeat:

Go and do something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an adage, those who want to be politicians should not be allowed to.

I think the house of commons should be just that, a house of common people, like jurors, I think you should be called up like national service. Two years, people chosen randomly from all walks of life, unless you have good reasons not to.

I work with a tit who has got himself elected to the local council, how is beyond me, he sums up to me everything a local councillor / MP should not be, slime in a suit like we used to get in the eighties!. He is a conservative councillor yet he is also a union rep at work?

He would gabble on in the fag room until people wanted to beat him, he had no empathy for people scraping a living and thought everyone was too stupid to survive without the council.

We need a good PM, get Clinton over here, I think he is the best leader the western world has seen since JFK, but that will probably get me flamed. Bring back Bill Hague too, he at least seemed to be in touch with his brain....
 
You are a poor demented soul if you think that you are representing the views of the general public. You appear to be representing the views of a class-obsessed rich minority sport, and are therefore doing yourselves no good whatsoever.

The general public voted the present government in and will vote them in again. They suspect yachties are a bunch of stinking rich right wing snobs who know nothing about real life. You are doing nothing to dissuade them.

If you want yachting to go the way of hunting then carry on providing the enemy with the ammunition. For goodness sake look in the mirror, Scuttlebutters.

- Nick
 
[ QUOTE ]

The general public voted the present government in

Well 30% did the other 70% minority didn't /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: 30%

That's democracy for you . . .

Move to Scotland and you too can experience the wonder of proportional representation. Result: a Labour executive.

Maybe people without boats just shouldn't be allowed to vote.

- Nick
 
That's what you get with a first passed the post system. 70% of the voting electorate without a real say in what goes on. Bet you wouldn't support PR though because your own favoured minority might find it difficult to ever attain an overall majority in the future.
 
My post produced more interest than I originally expected. As for Nick webcraft - he seems to have missed the point either deliberately or in the fog of his earnest a-political desire. This was meant to elicit views on how it might affect our pastime - sailing, and I did not think it necessary to spell that out.
Control freakery in whatever form it takes puts all our activities in jeopardy, including yacht cruising. If we hadn't spoken out we would all have needed to prepare written passage plans for even the shortest of trips. We did not need to become an MP to achieve that. It was because simple sailormen and women spoke out in various ways that the RYA persuaded the DfT and the MCA to begin public consultation on amendments to the recent Reporting Regulations, something they should have done right at the beginning. I suspect that the politicians involved just didn't know or care about the results that the original 2004 Regulations would produce so long as they were controlling somebody.
I hope that as well as watching outdated DVDs of Yes Minister he saw the recent series of Martin Shaw as Judge John Deed.
 
Quote - "I have to say I agree with what Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy said earlier, that it is completely unacceptable for British citizens (or anyone else for that matter) to be held in some form of custody at the whim of a politician."

OK - accepting that, what is your alternative solution? If a judge is to make a decision on the fate of the suspected terrorists, (s)he must be given evidence. If the disclosure of that evidence endangers the source, will the authorities want to disclose it outside of the intelligence arena - Probably not.

Let's assume then that the terrorist is allowed freedom to roam and blows up your property and kills or maims part of your family. What is your attitude then?

Of course, there is the alternative that I prefer - send them back where they came from, but then the liberals will say that we are sending them to certain torture of death. Would you send someone back to Mugabe's regime for example?

Yes, the government is made up of politicians, usually elected because of the persona of the party leader. BUT, how else do you have a country governed by the people, for the people achieve it through non-elected lawyers? Now there's a thought!!! Government by people who will work for anyone who approaches them and will pay their fees!!!

Maybe we should bring back abosolute monarchy. At least we would know where the buck stops. May not be able to moan about who the king marries though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top