Since Trump is coming, would you rather live in London or Bombay?

Yes, but when this song came out, it wasn't changed yet.

The deep purple version .

Of what, Oz?

India.   Is that far enough away? 

Good caveat there, DDB.
No, we don't like him at all. All but the UKIP brigade, that is. They think he's great. But then thy're not very bright..

You Brits tried to enslave and conquer India.   So, I think that is too Trump like for me.  I'll go to Bombay and take my chances with unknown grafters. 

wellll Sharonna that *was* a very long time ago now wasnt it.. and we don;t do that now.. if anything we are more generally accused of being too far the other way now.. too caring, too respecting.. and we wouldnt EVER let an idiot like Trump win :P honestly no one here likes him.. and we wouldnt stand for his vile words.. 
I remind you..not that I am saying it  was right.. but.. someone from my home town here in the UK tried to kill trump... we really don't like him or anyone like him..  at best he is course, ill-mannered and arrogantly right wing.. that's being polite :P

Oh an no disrespect to INdians.. I know slightly less about them than i do Americans.. but.. they do have serious issues with corruption.. they have MANY abuses of the poor.. child brides sold by poor families, child prostitution, baby girls abandoned or aborted/sex selection. Rape IS ABSOLUTELY rife.. because women there are treated as second class citizens.. few rights for women and most will stay in an unhappy or abusive marriage because as a woman you are shamed by divorce and even your own family may not take you back.. the caste system left a LOT of people very badly abused and mistreated..  they claim never to have invaded any other country.. but try telling Pakistan that.. (btw Pakistan is way, way worse in terms of corruption and abuse of women, in divorce the man has the right to keep the kids, and women are imprisoned for being raped) 

Nanny state? Are you referring to the National Health Service? 
I have continually failed to find anything 'nannying' about this state for years. Insidious Tories do not a nanny state maketh, Glis. 

No. I'm talking about things like the surveillance cameras watching every move. ( It's starting here and is bad enough.). The speech laws.  The prohibitions against self defense ( not gun laws BTW). Obscenity laws over media.  That kind of stuff.  No offense but it's too much control over people for my liking and don't see why anyone would accept it.  It would drive me nuts.

It's interesting what you say, and as someone subject to to these things I  was just thinking to what extent it effects action.
My conclusion is not as much as you might think, but maybe because that's we're good at circumventing the obvious.
Ironically, surveillance cameras have either been sufficiently vandalised and the cost so prohibitive that the majority are just pointless and often as not don't work.
As regards the prohibition of guns / self-defence strictures and laws pertaining to free speech ... that's a longer story.

(No offence was taken, btw) This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 6, 2016 9:45 AM MST

I am an odd duck on the actual gun issue.   I'm a firearm user and 2nd supportive, but have little opinion on those on other countries.  I do however think the rules about airguns is a little silly and extreme.  However the idea that a person doesn't have every right to use force to protect what is theirs is crazy to me.

The vandalizing and cost is another major issue I have with them being implemented here.  It's a bad idea IMHO for the freedom of privacy AND because it is just plain inefficient at actually doing anything. It's a waste of money as well. Still it's the precedent and motive.  Saying personal privacy and freedom to it isn't of value,  that the states knowledge and control trumps that. The result isn't as much of importance as the message IMHO.

OK so the surveillance cameras are ONLY for helping solve crime.. if a woman is attacked on a street outside a club.. surveillance helps catch criminals... we arent interested in normal people going about their business.. so no one who isn't doing anything they shouldnt need worry...  another example... i work in a college.. a tutor dropped an envelope with money before she went home... the security guy saw it, collected it and kept it safe.. so *I* am on camera when i am there so what... I am not paranoid enough to think anyone's interested in what I am doing... but since I am on my own all evening.. I like the idea that someone's able to watch out for me... cameras are a good thing and don't trouble anyone who isn't doing anything wrong.. we shouldnt be paranoid about it.. it doesnt matter...

We have free speech here.. in actual fact more than you guys probably do.. we can be athiest or agnostic without getting a frown of disapproval.. and we are a lot, lot, lot freeer to talk about sex, threesomes, swinging ..etc we don't have so many hangups about it and we don't have religious nuts who frown on sex.. its one thing that surprises me.. you guys DO it all but don't talk about it cos it's not really allowed... we TALK about it freely and openly but are probably doing way less of the more erm extreme stuff like family sex..

The only speech you could get in trouble for is racist stuff or sometimes sexist stuff.. even then you wouldnt get sent to prison but you would be told it's not acceptable.. so think about that..  no one's stopping you saying things to your mates in the bar.. but if you use racist names TO someone then  really that ISNT harmless.. I know some of the peeps on here defend it and say it's weak of them to complain and that they should be allowed.. well why should they?? It's wrong to use racial insults to someone just based on their colour or race... and if you think about it.. it's not harmless.. its a) an abuse of power, ususally it's people who cannot defend themselves and who are in some way disadvantaged like women, disabled etc b)  it's harassment.. the old saying sticks and stones can break my bones can be turned into but words can break my heart... we should, as civilised human beings treat others with respect.. WE CAN say things without resorting to insults and name calling...  if we can't then we are stupid.. so its not that we can't say things just that  we dont have the right to harm others with our words. imagine being someone who gets called a name every day.. what that does to self esteem ... it harms..    I read a term that described exactly why it's wrong. . racially aggravated harassment.. that's it.. it's harassment.. we aren't allowed to harass others...  so as I say we can say stuff but no need to be vile about it.. 

Re guns.. I appreciate your views but... don't forget we don't NEED self defence here as much as you do.. cos we don't have idiots with guns everywhere.. so we don't need a gun to shoot someone ... we ARE allowed to use reasonable force.. .but shooting someone and killing them for taking our purse is a bit excessive? Personally I am for self defence and also being able to use reasonable force but if we all had guns then there ARE consequences... if i have a gun then the idiot down the road can also have a gun... and the derranged woman accross the road.. and the teenager who is pissed at life can get hold of one.. I mean no offence bt we don't have school shootings... 
Re obsenity rules.. I honestly think you may be mistaken.. we have full nudity on our screens.. we are mostly allowed to print stuff providing it's not porn.. that's allowed too but supposedly not for underage... our papers are free.. they arent controlled by corps as yours are.. (my american friends tell me and one is a prof who comes here a lot.. our news on tv and in the papers is less doctored) 

My honest opinion is that we are freer than you - we just behave better in the first place cos we don't feel the need to go around shooting each other and we try to speak to people with respect  and we don't have even a 1/4 of the religious nutters :P

" we arent interested in normal people going about their business.. so no one who isn't doing anything they shouldnt need worry"
Dangerous thinking and makes no sense.  At any time what you are doing can be made wrong.   That's the problem.  Besides a basic right of a free society is the right to privacy.  That's a core requirement in truth. I'm sorry, but thinking that governments that admit they monitor our moves aren't concerned what we are doing.  That's silly to me.    It demeans dissent and makes it dangerous.

"we can be athiest or agnostic without getting a frown of disapproval"
People looking down on you is not an infringement on anybodies freedom or rights.  We all have a right to believe what we do, but to expect others to not have a negative opinion on us is absurd.   When the government tells you, you can't.  Then it's an infringement.  So it's a wash since we are atheist here and aren't being persecuted for it either.  Some people might not like it, but it doesn't infringe on me and that is there right to talk chit about me and my beliefs and me theirs.

"The only speech you could get in trouble for is racist stuff or sometimes sexist stuff."
Oxymoron.   Doesn't compute.   It's all or nothing and putting such limits is dangerous to all free speech. It says the government has a right to control ideas and philosophies.  I might not like what you say, but I defend your right to say it to the death.  Free speech by definition  includes hate speech as well.    It's vile and repugnant, but if one believes in it, they defend that right when it effects those who they agree with least. 

Guns?   I already said I have no opinion about your gun laws.  However the right to defend life and property with any force felt needed to secure it is logical and correct IMHo.    They made their bed when they infringed on the rights of another's to have property and their well being.


Obsenity Rules:  BS. The restrictions on porn are much greater there than they are here.   I know because I am in groups with other Brits who complain about it.

"we just behave better in the first place cos we don't feel the need to go around shooting each other "
It's really not like that here.   Your chances of getting shot are very low unless you frequent high crime areas and even then  it's likely because you involved yourself with someone you shouldn't have and in crime.

Corps control ouir media.  Government yours.   Again it's a wash.  Same things 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.  Corporations are extensions of and exist by government.  


Religious nutters:
Well yeah we are working on that.   Stay out of the Bible belt and it's not too bad.   But yeah,  I'll give you that one.


Violence:
Y'all aren't any less violent than we are.   it's just knives and fists more.  Even my British expat friends here say guns might be more an issue here, but they all agree you get into more brawls and risk getting punched more in UK than you do here.  Most Americans are kinda whimps when it comes to actual fights to be honest on that one.   So, point goes to the Brits for having more stand up and take it attitude.

What the hell do you mean you don't use insults?  I've yet to meet a Brit who doesn't call people they don't like a C*** willy-nilly. Then again, I kinda like that about y'alls culture.


I can talk about anything I want here and do.   Hell yeah I'm gonna be judged for it by others, but that's life and to expected.   It doesn't limit my freedom at all.

Here is a link to an author describing the exact kind of attitude I would fight tooth and nail and find absurd and dangerous.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12360045

[QUOTE FROM LINK]
"

In a society that took seriously our laziness about being nice, an occasional paternalistic reminder would not necessarily constitute an infringement of our "liberty" as that term should be properly understood. Being free should not invariably entail being left totally to one's own devices, it should also be compatible with being admonished and harnessed. Complete freedom can be a prison all of its own.

It is perhaps in the end a sign of immaturity to object too strenuously to sometimes being treated like a child. Why does the idea of a nanny state always have to be so terrifying? The libertarian obsession with freedom ignores how much of our original childhood need for constraint endures within us, and therefore how much we stand to learn from certain paternalistic strategies. It is not much fun, nor ultimately even very freeing, to be left alone to do entirely as one pleases."

This is batcrap crazy IMHO.   The rhetoric of tyrants and oppression.   I find it sad anyone would see themselves or others this way.
""liberty" as that term should be properly understood"
" with being admonished and harnessed"
"freedom can be a prison all of its own."
"The libertarian obsession with freedom ignores how much of our original childhood need for constraint endures within us"
"It is not much fun, "

Holy crap that's some 1984 style thinkspeak BS.  The mind boggles.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 6, 2016 9:34 AM MST

I don't subscribe to any if that, and rarely if ever hear anything similar being espoused, certainly not by ordinary people as opposed a rather anachronistic sector who still dominate the media. 
It really isn't like that in practice and I object to that as much as you do, believe me.

You know these kinds of things and remarks get touchy.  A lot of the meaning gets lost when it's about our home nations and an outsider is commenting on it.  It always seems somewhat personal to us.
Of course I acknowledge the actions of the state and what the media says is not really indicative of the people.  As an American I experience that too. A judgement of the people based on our politicians and our media outlets.  Yet it doesn't really represent the feelings of the people really.  Yet it is the figure heads who I am talking about. Not the people or their wishes. The media and politicos set so much. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 6, 2016 9:51 AM MST

I understand. I suppose it's forums such as these where such incongruencies of reality and perception can be levelled. Thanks, Glis.

OK don't forget that this is ONE article.. by no one anyone has ever heard of, in a magazine printed 5 years ago... being logical about this... please try to remember this person isnt speaking for us, he isn't speaking for the BBC, he is a journo speaking for himself..

THIS IS FREE PRESS people are allowed to express an opinion and to have it published.. almost anyone can.. we don't have to pander to what some coporation says we should write, we don't have to tow the line on what we can say , what we can publish... THIS IS REAL this is freedom, anyone can say anythign.. and we cal all disagree.. usually we do...  

Do you see?? this disproves rather than proves... you will truly see, even within the same newspaper many different opinions.. this is freedom, this is reasoning.. listen to all the opinions and form your own.. no one's telling yo what to think...

Dont forget too... this is a backwater mag... one very few read.. there are zillions of them.. every day.. and they have to fill them with stuff... and often that stuff is like this.. someone's opinion... I subscribe to the Times Newspaper.. (mainly *because* it's one that does have several different viewpoints..) there's a whole section called "comment" where jounalists and sometimes famous journalists get to write their opinion.. so this is where you will get this kind of thing.. we can read it if we like but we all KNOW this IS ONLY one person's opinion.. it's not telling us what to think.. it's not a dictate.. and one wouldbe wrong to think so... the Times is also accompanied every day.. by 3 or so magazines.. every day.. a different one or three... imagine what they fill that with? Is it news? is it important stuff? no .. it's twaddle.. and that's what this article is .. twaddle.. we would know that just from reading it..you who perhaps, respectfully don't know.. might see it and think it means something.. it doesnt.. I promise you!! I can give you as many examples as you like of simiilar and opposite *opinion* articles... they arent fact.. just opinions...

RE the freedom is a prison.. well it is in a way.. if everyone is free to do what they want.. this can impinge on others freedoms.. like.. if a man likes to have sex with any woman he chooses.. and he encounters women who dont want to... does his right to freedom overrule hers? if he wants to stalk her.. harass her.. follow her every day... does he have that right?  if he wants to threaten but not shoot people with his gun.. is that ok? they are only words after all?  I have always thought that when Americans say about their freedom.. we all have to remember others have the same rights too.. I detest my daughters school but they have a saying there that I LOVE.. it's a right's respecting school but.. they say that along with the rights we have responsibility... you may not agree but in a civilised society we have to respect each other's rights too... just my opinion  

Just one more little thing.. I'd say respectfully too... please try not to judge if you haven't experienced.. come to the UK.. see, talk to the people, hear... feel.. as you would probably be surprised.. I've been to the states, I have very good friends of over 20 years standing... lol I even have an American Cat!!  I don't pretend to know how it is there... i listen, I learn.. and I know some stuff.. but it's taken me literally years of learning .. and still i know less than a 3rd grade child... we cannot know unless we walk in someone else's shoes.. I say from all I do know that we are actually way freeer in real terms... 

I know.  I'm not knocking y'all or your country.  Just saying I wouldn't be comfortable with the style it's run by.


RE:  Freedom doesn't entail the right to victimize and deprive others of theirs.   That's the the difference.  Imposing on others and subjecting them to abuse and a denial of their rights is not what true libertarian thought is about and a gross misrepresentation propagated by authoritarian propaganda.