Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Kafria]

In a statement, Strathclyde Police confirmed that Chief Constable House had sought government intervention over disorder issues surrounding the Old Firm fixture.

The statement said: "The chief constable has this morning spoken to the first minister (Alex Salmond) regarding the events that have surrounded the Old Firm games this season.

"There can be no doubt that the levels of drunken violence that have blighted our communities and the number of people who have been arrested due to their sectarian behaviour is simply unacceptable. Something has to be done.

"We have today written to the Scottish government urging them to bring all the parties together as soon as possible so that we can discuss these problems frankly and openly."

The call for action was backed by the SPF, whose chairman Les Gray branded the scenes at Celtic Park as "disgraceful".

-bbc news

looks like your not the only one who's had enough!

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah its all over the Scottish evening news. I find it hard to see it changing it seems so ingrained now. I don't think this 'summit' will do the slightest bit of good. For some reason, whether its to do with the economy and people losing work or what, but its been building up for the last six months or so, and they've got to play each other twice more before the end of the season, and one of those is a cup final and the other will probably decide who wins the league. Its not over yet.

Its such a difficult thing to get rid of. Its in essence, on a smaller scale the same basic problem with Jews and Palestinians, or any other of the (unfortunately) hundreds of examples of this type of tribal thinking. And it seems once children learn it from their parents it stays with them.
I am a Rangers supporter, and I grew up with all this stuff, I learnt to shout at the Catholics young, to sing the songs, to wave the flags, and even now when some of the stuff kicked off last night I could feel the venom rising in me, I had to fight not to join in, not to shout bile at the tv. Its seems this sort of tribalism runs very deep, even in those of us who have come to despise it.

[Pettytyrant101]

I see Rupert Murdoch and his odious Newscorp have been given the go ahead to buy up Sky news. In the UK that means they control the majority of the media outside of the BBC. TV and newspapers.
The Tory ministers line incredibly, is that this in fact is 'reducing' their control of the media because the govt have stipulated Sky News has to set up and trade as a separate company, a Murdoch is not allowed to chair it and 68% of the board have to be independent directors.
But no one seemed to be asking what was to stop Murdoch's mates, with no official connection to his other companies sitting on the board.
I smell a dodgy stitch-up. One that puts a huge amount of power over information in one companies, and one families hands in particular.

[Kafria]

I am going to have a crabbit attack of my own in a minute - have tried to post this twice already then hit a funny button and lost it! - Ah Well third time is the charm I hope!

Have spent the evening watching this http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/ a Canadian program on the policing of the Toronto G20 last year. It horrified me, in particular the way peacful protestors were targetted and the vandals left alone to cause trouble. In light of the protests in the Arab world and the condemnation of the response it stuck me we should look a little closer to home before we started condemming others.

While I am not an activist I did take part in the Make Poverty History march http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4642053.stm with a young Squach and my mum. It was a well organised day (from arriving with clear directions set up to get to the park staging area, medical staff and stewards present all round, free water being handed out to stop dehydration and the station set up in the evening with clear funnels to get everyone on the right train home. It still stands out as a really pleasent day,every one was friendly and largely annoyed with some of the more millitant groups who seemed to want to hijak the day for their own agenda (seeing a 19 yr old who thought he knew better, being engaged in debate by a fifty year old mild mannered man, until he was roundly beaten - verbally - was fun!). Only a one point did I see anything to make me uneasy. As we were getting ready to leave the park on our march a group of black clad, scarfed troublemakers started to leave too. They were 'spotted' from the police watchers on a tower nearby, quickly surrounded and isolated by officers on the ground. We saw no more of them. On the telly that night they was some footage of a similar (or the same?) group out in the streets of the city, but off the march route and again isolated and contained by the police. As far as I know this was the limit of the trouble that day,due to effective and proportinate police response. Why the preparation and policing was not done correctly in Canada puzzles me!

[Kafria]

I am sat here reading the news and beginning to wonder why I am still living in England and not moving to one of the other home nations?

With devolved power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Wales voting yes in this weeks referendum for law making powers in Cardiff) and yet England still fully under Westminster descisions. In the last few months we have seen the increase in tuition fees here (potentially threefold and I suspect this is only the begginning, meaning I am faced with trying to save £27,000 for fees alone as my modest teaching salary means Squach is likely to get little or no help!) while Wales have capped theirs and Scotland don't pay any. In fact it is actually going to be cheaper for students from this country to live in another country and pay fees there - Brain drain from a country that prides itself on academia (yes petty I know a lot of the innovation comes from the home nations and we're (the english) very good at taking credit!)

At the same time, in the week that scotland abolished perscription charges after years of reducing them england have actually put them up (then saying thats okay because if you buy the yearly ticket it's cheaper and 90% don't pay due to exemptions, so 10% of the people in the country are penalised for not being sick often enough or not having an illness on the exemption list!)

Now I know a lot of mud is slung both ways on the money issue (whose taxes go where), I am not even going to comment as I don't know enough about it. I also don't believe it is wrong for power to be devolved to the nations, but this whole system is now fundamentally unfair on the english. The biggest problem is that whereas the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have a sense of national identitiy the english don't. Contrary to all the comments that this is because we see ourselves as British (which I do however painful that may sound to some), I believe, it is becasue people are more likely to identify with their county or being northern or southern. There is also the question of were such an assembly would be based and then the inevitable questions about what we need at westminster, but the current situation should not continue!! I know there have been calls in the past for a northern assembly, but I am not convinced this could work and could only have very limited powers. Sorry I know this is a long rant with no real answers!

As a yorkshire lass as I have stated before I think Yorkshire should become and independant nation!!!

[Pettytyrant101]

Well Kafria we Scots have always claimed that the north of England is actually the south of Scotland- the English just moved the border further north- its obvious the countryside in the north of England is far too good to be properly English, and far to rugged. As her its people (in a good way) they are more like Scots than southern english are.
I always thought people from Yorkshire thought of themselves as being Yorkshire folks before being British.
But to be serious you are right. Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish Mp's can vote in Westminster, and did, to impose tuition fees on the english whilst the very same thing is voted against in their own country. The West Lothian Question as they oddly call it.
But then do you give england a devolved government, but devolved from what? If the north of england has its own parliament what is Westminister for? Presumably it would retain overall economic control and political (ie foreign policy, overall direction etc) but it would hard to justify the cost of running Westminister for a handful of MPs. And with devolution comes another tier of MP's- do we really want that? In Scotland we seem to vote all the blooming time, if its not Westminister MP's it for MEP's, if its not them its Scottish MSP's, then theirs local councillors to elect. Chuck in the occasional referendum and its easy to get fed up with trying to keep up to speed with it all.
Scotland and I think Wales have always been more socialist than England (and I appreciate the north of england is an exception to that) so it doesn't surprise me that most of the differences, free prescriptions, free travel anywhere for pensioners, free education are socialist stalwarts.
In the upcoming census Kafria will you put yourself under nationality as British? Because I'd bet my next wage that the majority of Scots will put Scottish. And this being Scotland a good percent of those who do put British are making a deliberate political statement associating themselves with the monarchy and protestantism- which I doubt would be the reasons in england.

ps I see the Liberal democrats got wiped out in the by-election coming in behind even the odious BNP. The same fate I suspect awaits them in Scotland at the Parliamentary elections where they are usually running neck and neck for second place and have already been in coalition power at Holyrood- but getting in bed with the hated tories will I think kill them stone dead here.

[Pettytyrant101]

As the song asks; "War. What is it good for?"
How about science, economy, development, and reduction of excess population for starters. Discuss.

[Kafria]

As the song asks; "War. What is it good for?"
How about science, economy, development, and reduction of excess population for starters. Discuss.

Strange rection I know, but this just made me smile.

Last year I had a student who was in a less than perfectly behaved class. On those occasions when I was trying to get them relectantly to work he would turn to me, smile and say 'Anthrax Miss', his allusion to a conversation we had about over population and possible solutions (He was a remarkable intelligent young man - although more in english, debate ,political matters etc than science and I had the pleasure of teaching him for three years. He has gone on to bigger and no doubt better things in his future). At the end of a day where my last two lessons were spent struggling with a similar class this reference has again got me smiling!

I also have to say that there is no doubt that the pressures of war have a huge influence on the development of science in some areas, not always destructive ones (after all penecilin was refined into a workable medicine in the second world war) Equally though the instability this causes is also a hinderance. It is the directed money that leads to advances more than anything else and this is the worry with University research budgets to be cut (science by upto 60%) in the same year as teaching funding is removed from arts courses (science and engineering teaching funding will stay as these courses cost more!)

There is also the argument that you could add health to that list! (with the claims that are made for the nations health under rationing!)

[Pettytyrant101]

I find the morality of it all quite fascinating. Did new energy sources result only out of a perceived need to make an 'ultimate' weapon or would we have got their under the pressure of the current energy crisis? If you experiment on prisoners of war, say a thousand people, and ten years later as an unintended offshoot of the research thousands are cured is it worth it?
If a million people die in a month from starvation and ten million get barely enough is there a moral argument for reducing the population given the million are going to slowly starve to death anyway?
The Black Death was a bad thing, killed 1/3 of all the people in europe but it led to a revolution in workers and individual rights in the shortage of labour that followed. Preparing the way for the rights we enjoy today and which without the plague may have taken centuries to achieve if ever. If a government now were to release a germ that would kill a 1/3 of the population it would be despicable and vile, but for the survivors there would be a world of bounty again with enough for all. Does that make it justifiable?
I just find these sort of questions interesting, and difficult.

[Kafria]

I find the morality of it all quite fascinating.

Agreed, shades of grey that didn't seem to exist when I was younger tie me up in knots! Having said that I find the idea of the benefits from research on prisoners of war, no matter the benefit still brings out a complete no it is not right from me. Indirect benefits through side shoots of weapons driven research and unintended uses are good things, but this is a step too far for me. In some ways I am still quite black and white about a lot of things, mainly when it comes to my own behaviour rather than others. I will argue someones right to a particular freedom / behaviour genuinely, while feeling it was something I would never do as it is 'wrong' - seriously contrary I know!

Population control is a tricky one to tackle, it is clear food securtiy is a growing concern among a number of countries and I can understand that, however until the worlds food resources are more evenly shared you'll forgive me from suggesting the 'anthrax' solution to be an over reaction

[Pettytyrant101]

I agree about prisoners of war. I can't morally think of a circumstance where experimenting is justifiable. But that's in principle which is easy. What if a family member were dying and the treatment had been developed on pows? Would I really turn down the treatment on moral grounds? I doubt it

As to the 'anthrax' solution. I'm not convinced we haven't been doing that for decades.
Is it really just callousness on the part of the West that allows millions to die of starvation, dysentery and many other illness long since controlled or cured in the West? Or is it deliberate policy? The continual death of a section of the worlds population for the ease of living of the rest.
I find it hard to see how the death by preventable disease which happens every year is justifiable or excusable unless its deliberate policy. Better a few million die a year than the entire planet thrown into a war of resources may be the thinking. And if so, is it wrong if more benefit from the deaths than suffer? Or if it avoids even greater calamity later than if it was left to nature?
( This conversation reminds of the Dr Who ep The Beast Below where space-bound Britain votes every four years to forget the torture of the beast keeping them all alive-knew there was a reason I love that show! It asks the big questions under it all!)

[Eldorion]

Saw a post by Petty that I wanted to respond to, but I thought this was the most suitable place.

He does write well. Although I find him occasionally a bit of a crusader for his favourite cause- gay rights- my only problem with that is I'm not sure what rights gays in the UK don't have these days- far as I can tell there is no (legal) prejudice left. Gay people can get a civil partnership (marriage in all but name) name their partners in wills and for inheritance etc and can take employers or coworkers to tribunal if they discriminate- same as everyone else really.
Given that when he was a young man he could have been arrested and imprisoned for sodomy you'd think he'd be pleased how things have gone.

I'm not that familiar with the status of gay rights in the UK, though a few minutes of Googling suggests that it's pretty positive overall, and certainly a massive improvement over the mid-century period. I assume that McKellen and other "crusaders" are indeed happy with how much the situation has improved, but I wanted to respond to the point about civil partnerships. Even if they are functionally identical to marriage, the notion of "separate but equal" is deeply offensive to many people, and it does imply a second-class status. Try talking to a bunch of straight couples and insist on referring to their partners instead of their husbands and wives, or imagine dealing with that yourself. I think that a lot of people just don't see any purpose in segregating gay marriages into a parallel system anyway.

Interestingly, at least in the US, a number of people want the government to not have anything to do with "marriage", but rather give only "civil partnerships" to all couples, including straight ones. The rationale is that marriage is a religious institution, and while the government needs to keep track of partnerships, it shouldn't play a role in marriage, per se. I don't agree with this suggestion, but it at least avoids the "separate but equal" problem.

Anyway, that's my soap box post for the day. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter.

[Pettytyrant101]

My understanding of the situation here at least is that marriage is regarded as a religious not a secular activity (although its status is in the law as is civil partnerships). As such the government cannot 'make' a religion marry people. So instead the state offer all the same bits about marriage that in the law to gay partnerships. The only actual; difference is the name. And rather than being second class it simply denotes a relationship recognised by law but not by the church.
Which seems fair to me. Its up to churches what their rules are and I can't imagine if you are gay the church is your favourite place anyway seeing as God condemns you as an abomination (little known fact on the list of Gods harsh words abomination is right at the top, He is less severe on bestiality!!!)

[Eldorion]

My understanding of the situation here at least is that marriage is regarded as a religious not a secular activity (although its status is in the law as is civil partnerships). As such the government cannot 'make' a religion marry people. So instead the state offer all the same bits about marriage that in the law to gay partnerships. The only actual; difference is the name. And rather than being second class it simply denotes a relationship recognised by law but not by the church.

You're correct about the government not being able to force churches to marry couples the church doesn't want to marry, but the fact remains that governments still approve and license "marriages". The distinction is sometimes termed one of "civil marriage" vs. "religious marriage". In any event, I don't see why the government should refer to straight couples as "marriage" and gay couples as "civil partnerships". If "civil partnership" does in fact denote only that it is a legal but not a religious union, than it should be applied to all government involvement in "marriage". I disagree that it does not imply second-class status though. Seriously, try calling a bunch of married couple "partners" and ask their feelings on it.

Which seems fair to me. Its up to churches what their rules are and I can't imagine if you are gay the church is your favourite place anyway seeing as God condemns you as an abomination (little known fact on the list of Gods harsh words abomination is right at the top, He is less severe on bestiality!!!)

The government can refer to same-sex unions as marriage without forcing churches to do the same, I would think. Although, I'm not sure what the implications of the Church of England being an established church are, since I've thought about the issue mainly in an American context....

[Pettytyrant101]

In the UK the Church of England (Protestant) is the State religion- by that I mean its head is the Monarch, the Head of State (hence in the past they were forbidden from marrying a catholic, and that only got changed very recently).
Scotland has the Church of Scotland, which has its own set up and rules, still Protestant and connected very much to the Church of England in practice (we Scots just don't like calling anything English, even the English themselves- which is why we have so many inventive names for them!)
But I think your getting in a tizz over nothing. Marriage and civil partnerships are different things. One is a law of God, and as God is above mere mortal law marriage is on the statute books- but mortal law cannot redefine marriage- that comes from God and He says marriage is between a man and a women. So gay people cannot by definition get married and the law can't call it marriage because it doesn't fall under the definition.
But they can call it something else and give it all the same legal backing, which is what happened (surprised it didn't happen in the UK decades ago with a Parliament dominated by public school boys).

I think Eldo your problem here is definition. You say, "I don't see why the government should refer to straight couples as "marriage" and gay couples as "civil partnerships"- the answer is because other wise your calling apples apples and oranges apples. They are not the same thing, but they are both fruit.
I really don't see a problem with the distinction. One is a covenant with a God between a man and a women and a public show of devotion between two people, the other a secular legality between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and a public show of devotion between two people.
Similar but not the same thing and therefore cannot be called the same thing.

[Eldorion]

IBut I think your getting in a tizz over nothing. Marriage and civil partnerships are different things. One is a law of God, and as God is above mere mortal law marriage is on the statute books- but mortal law cannot redefine marriage- that comes from God and He says marriage is between a man and a women. So gay people cannot by definition get married and the law can't call it marriage because it doesn't fall under the definition.

Even if I agreed with that, then the government shouldn't be calling anyone married, because marriage would be outside the scope of government. But so long as the government calls some couples married and others not (and it doesn't matter if it's gay vs. straight, religious vs. atheist, or anything else), then your reasoning is just an excuse for discrimination.

I don't agree with that though. Marriage is a social institution that has existed in different forms in cultures from all around the world, including (obviously) non-Christian ones. It should be obvious to everyone that marriage does not exist solely as a Christian religious construct.

I really don't see a problem with the distinction. One is a covenant with a God between a man and a women and a public show of devotion between two people, the other a secular legality between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and a public show of devotion between two people.

Does the government in the UK mediate "covenants with God" or do they give out a piece of paper which entitles you to tax benefits? You're ignoring the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.

[Pettytyrant101]

As far as I am aware in the UK now there is no difference in law- tax or anything else. Its treated exactly the same as marriage by the law except in name.

"It should be obvious to everyone that marriage does not exist solely as a Christian religious construct."- Eldo

You are quiet right but in the Uk at least it only exists in law because our laws were originally based on those in the Christian bible. And once something is in the law and more importasntly has a strictly defined legal definition (ie between man and women) then there's not a lot can be done to change that without the say so fo the church (which still gets seats in the House of Lords (a whole bench of them)- our second chamber of Parliament, to affect, study and alter law, making it all the more difficult).
And look at it from the point of view of a believer. God says marriage is something between a man and a woman, so whilst you can accept a gay relationship you cannot call it marriage because God says its not. I don;t think gay people have some right to tell religious people what they can and cannot believe. And for so long as our law remains rooted in Christian belief it is a Christian definition which will be in the law and that excludes same sex marriage.

[Eldorion]

I don;t think gay people have some right to tell religious people what they can and cannot believe.

No one is arguing for that.

In any event, I'm not familiar enough with the constitutional basis of the established Church in the UK to argue the legal aspect.

[Pettytyrant101]

All my argument boils down to is marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. So it cant be waht you call a releationshiop between two gay people. Its the wrong word.

Surely whats important is that you can publically have a ceremony which shows your feelings for the person you love and the law will back that up with tax insentives, rights to inherit etc. It seems to me what it is called is of no consequence.

[Pettytyrant101]

Quick add.

"No one is arguing for that."- Eldo

If you are religious and believe marriage is between a man and a woman and gay activists tell you you have to accept gay people can marry then you are arguing for that.

[Eldorion]

If you are religious and believe marriage is between a man and a woman and gay activists tell you you have to accept gay people can marry then you are arguing for that.

People have every right to believe that gay people can't be married. People also have every right to believe that non-white races are inferior, that men are smarter than women, and any number of other discriminatory beliefs. It is utterly false to claim that people are not allowed to think that just because a government policy has changed. You are still free to think that gay people cannot be married even though some governments disagree with you.

[Pettytyrant101]

But you can be religious, be happy to accept gays, not discriminate against them in any way, have close gay friends, whatever and still believe that marriage is between a man and women if you are Christian. That's not discrimination its just you don't believe it fall sunder the definition of marriage as a word and concept.
I don't know how it works in the US but because we have a monarchy we have a State religion. Our law can't just ignore it, Gods law comes first (in theory) secular law second. In practice lots of things of course have changed, but not the definition of marriage.
Now I happen to think in this day and age that's crazy, as is our second chamber being full of people born to titles and Bishops. But as long as marriage is defined in law in Christian terms its impossible to call a gay partnership marriage.
And so long as no one can discriminate against you for being gay and the law recognises your right to be gay I just don't see the fuss in a name. A gay person in the UK is protected by the law exactly as much as a straight person is.
Gay activists seem to accept relationships being called something different; gay, lesbian, straight, bi, but make all this fuss over whether the law calls their relationship marriage or civil partnership. Seems crazy to me. What does it matter? You are with the person you love, openly without fear protected by the laws of the land.
Sometimes I get the impression there's more than a touch of revenge at the church in some of this.

[Pettytyrant101]

As a sort of tangentale thought to the above its worth considering that in the UK the Monarch is not only Head of State she is officially appointed by God. Consider the national anthem;

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

That's a lot of God. This is one of the often overlooked benefits of a Monarch as head of State. They act as a sort of lightning rod for religion. This is why British politicians and PM's, unlike US senators and Presidents, don't talk about God. They never say "God bless the United Kingdom". When in power Blair hid his religion from public knowledge wherever possible.
Religion is dealt with by the Monarch (fair enough too she's the one appointed by God). And its something which has been a good thing mainly down the years and freed our parliament from the religious dogma that seems to clog up US politics.

[Pettytyrant101]

There seems to be a distressing amount of times recently when I've felt I should come on here and say a word of sympathy for some poor souls hit by calamity. And here we go again with the earthquake in Japan and the tsunami's following.
So far casualties seem to be at the lower end for such a thing, terrible still for the few but better than many. Japan at least has experience at this and buildings designed to cope which seems to have helped. Although how anything can be designed to cope with the wall of water that followed I don't know. Hard when watching the footage not be somewhat awe struck at the sheer relentlessness of it. We truly are nothing compared to the powers at work in the universe we live in.

[Saradoc]

There seems to be a distressing amount of times recently when I've felt I should come on here and say a word of sympathy for some poor souls hit by calamity. And here we go again with the earthquake in Japan and the tsunami's following.
So far casualties seem to be at the lower end for such a thing, terrible still for the few but better than many. Japan at least has experience at this and buildings designed to cope which seems to have helped. Although how anything can be designed to cope with the wall of water that followed I don't know. Hard when watching the footage not be somewhat awe struck at the sheer relentlessness of it. We truly are nothing compared to the powers at work in the universe we live in.

I spend an entire Geography lesson today watching BBC news with the rest of my class & teacher, and the videos that we saw really were horrific. They do as mentioned have some precautions when it comes to building design but these earthquake-resistant features but there really is nothing you can do when faced with a Tsunami, I agree. Efficient evacuation is all I can thing off, as well as good early warning systems. We can't stop nature, but we can try to limit the damage. The death toll of course could rise dramatically once the full effects of the Tsunami are, potentially most of the pacific is in danger. Brings back memories of the 04 Indonesia tragedy, but hopefully Japan will be better prepared to deal with after-effects.