Free Speech In The Uk

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

Stuart, my late father, a REME WO2 (who was an actual WW2 British Army soldier, not a pretend one) had an expression for what you are trying to do. "You can't educate pork."

Any one who thinks a dog catcher is part of government has lost the plot.

 

Not sure if I'm missing something here but in the US, the "dog catcher" is called the Animal Control Officer and is an employee of government, usually municipal or county government.

 

I believe that in the UK 'the government' means specifically the Prime Minister and their various appointees. In the US we use the phrase much more widely. It's an example of how much our 'common' language and culture has diverged in the more or less four centuries since the first English Colonies were established here.

 

And their highest tier of government the USians call an "administrsation". Go figure. "\/(o_O)\/"

 

 

But ryan uses a very wide definition of "government". One can make the case for counting all the employees that execute the orders as part of government. Though I would never count the legislation or the judicative as government. Government is the executive branch of the state.

 

 

government

noun

BrE /ˈɡʌvənmənt/

 

; NAmE /ˈɡʌvərnmənt

 

[countable + singular or plural verb] (often the Government) (abbreviation govt) the group of people who are responsible for controlling a country or a state

The Oxford dictionary definitin is a bit thin though further down is a short description of UK government(s)

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/government?q=government

 

 

Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of government

1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion

3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing

b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office

4 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule

5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

 

She works for the federal government.

 

b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

6 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: such as

a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency

 

The government was slow to react to the crisis.

 

b capitalized : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government

c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs:

(1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry

(2) : administration 4b

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

 

 

also the executive branch only.

[Briganza]

 

A partition has been set up to try and dissuade PayPal from processing funds to Robinson as doing so would contravene PayPal's policy.

 

Petition maybe? Why don't you guys just channel Orwell and memory hole the guy? You don't like his speech*, you obviously want his speech quashed, and you see no redeeming qualities. Might I suggest a Polonium enema?

 

*I really have little idea of what Robinson has said or done, nor do I care. This I do know, we have our own numbers of people that say things many people believe is beyond the pale. Generally we just let them rant on allowing them to show themselves as the fools they are. I say generally because we too have our Left Wing Extremists that are hell bent on quashing speech which they find unacceptable. That is to say all speech that isn't supportive of the Leftist cause.

 

Fair point, in my defence I use a TV screen 4 meters away and sometimes the spell checker catches me out (quite a lot actually).

 

As to Robinson it is more that some people think his free speech is being attacked, in contrast you can't shut him up. He make things up to feed the idea that he is being downtrodden for the US market who it looks like are funding his lifestyle.

[rmgill]

Oh look, there is a German sports and social club, off to light a bonfire to dry themselves after skinny dipping in the Spree. Nothing to see here, move along.

That's a ridiculous answer and you know it.

[rmgill]

Any one who thinks a dog catcher is part of government has lost the plot.

Well if the local council can stop you and fine you £300 for having garbage in your van, what are they? Highway bandits?

[rmgill]

The SNP have a lot of problems with extreme nationalism within their ranks but comparing them to the BNP reflects more on your inability to comprehend the difference between the two groups.

Stuarts point was that the BNP is the same as the Nazis because they have nationalist in the name. So, does that mean that the SNP is the same as Nazis because they ALSO have nazi's in their name?

 

It's an if/then comparison Briganza. The results are inconsistent in outcome based on the expected test result. I CAN Comprehend the difference between the two groups. That's the POINT!

[rmgill]

Are the Scottish National Party in the same league? No.

But Stuart, NATIONAL is in their name. They MUST BE NAZIS according to YOUR point of logic.

 

What are you? Some sort of Nazi Apologist if they're Weegies?

 

See how that works? Stop with the imbecilic logic please.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Jesus Christ Ryan, its the British National Party. The clues is in the bloody name.

And the Scottish National Party? They're a bunch of nazi's as well?

 

Or are they different despite the name? If they're different then why should the BNP be presumed to be a bunch of Nazi's when the SNP isn't a bunch of Nazis? See the logic fault yet?

 

The Brownshirts, the Fascists, the Aryans, The National Front, the master fucking race. Even Robinson, whom you regard as an authority, says they are too right wing for him.

 

So now you're going to give something Robinson some credit?

 

 

 

I'm not arguing that the BNP isn't identitarian Stuart. I'm pointing out that your default response of why, is inconsistent.

 

The interwebs seems to have eaten my answer to Stuart.

 

So in short:

 

He left the BNP, because of that and later left the EDL he had founded, because they slided towards nazi stuff.

Robinson turning his back on nazis twice makes him a nazi?

 

 

And I think nobody here likes the BNP.

 

 

Well why join the BNP at all if you arent a fascist? And if you arent a fascist, why remain in the EDL, a party you help form, for 2 years whilst its beset by people with links to terrorist incidents and Anders Brevick?

 

In fact, he has to my knowledge been a member of 3 parties (founded 2 of them) with link to neo nazi groups. Is that displaying his personal politics, or is he just, as he seems to want portray, incredibly unlucky?

 

If I openly said on this site that I had been a member of 3 right wing fascist groups, wouldnt the feeling be that im probably a fascist? So why are people so willing to extend the idea that Robinson isnt? Because Lord Sargon of Twatford said so?

 

I dont believe I suggested anyone here likes the BNP. I am merely illustrating my irritation at the apparent inability on the part of some to understand it is the modern incarnation of the British Union of Fascists. And for that matter, that the EDL is the apple that has not fallen far from the tree.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Oh look, there is a German sports and social club, off to light a bonfire to dry themselves after skinny dipping in the Spree. Nothing to see here, move along.

That's a ridiculous answer and you know it.

 

 

Thats because Its sarcasm. It was warranted and you know it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Are the Scottish National Party in the same league? No.

But Stuart, NATIONAL is in their name. They MUST BE NAZIS according to YOUR point of logic.

 

What are you? Some sort of Nazi Apologist if they're Weegies?

 

See how that works? Stop with the imbecilic logic please.

 

 

No, I said they were nazi's, and that the word 'national' in their name is a very strong indication of it. I will explain.

 

Is it always true? No. But you would be hard pressed to find many other parties in the UK with the word 'national' or 'nationalist' in the name. The Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly dont count, because when they say 'national' what they are actually implying is a call for separation from the United Kingdom. There is even an English National party or was, again implying a seperation of powers from the United Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_National_Party

 

When you associate 'British' with the word 'National'. you have a problem. Because being British, you cannot actually leave the Union, its the same thing. So when they talk of being nationalist, they imply a different seperation. In the BNP's case, sending everyone with Dark Skin home again, whereever that is.

 

This is all probably lost on American's, whom think England is the same thing as Britain. It isnt.

 

 

 

Maybe my fellow Briton's will give you a different definition, but you asked for me mine, and there it is.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

 

 

 

Stuart, my late father, a REME WO2 (who was an actual WW2 British Army soldier, not a pretend one) had an expression for what you are trying to do. "You can't educate pork."

Any one who thinks a dog catcher is part of government has lost the plot.

 

Not sure if I'm missing something here but in the US, the "dog catcher" is called the Animal Control Officer and is an employee of government, usually municipal or county government.

 

 

I believe that in the UK 'the government' means specifically the Prime Minister and their various appointees. In the US we use the phrase much more widely. It's an example of how much our 'common' language and culture has diverged in the more or less four centuries since the first English Colonies were established here.

 

Correct.

 

 

Of course, some horse's arse (sic) will be along to tell us that we're doing it wrong and some other way would be better, whilst in other topics screaming about the abuse meted out by their own version of government and its federal bodies.

 

As for eating "corvin", I have no taste for magpies. Perhaps if he'd restricted himself to "crow" rather than trying for some spurious attempt to establish a sense of knowledge and wisdom?

 

If anyone actually still cares, I suggest reading the whole set of SecretBarrister posts which includes the self reflections resulting from the original discussion and points out that it can easily be argued that a successful appeal against the management of his contempt validates the case that due process is being respected, that Yaxley-Lennon was not "sentenced to death" by the"deep state" and even goes so far as to remind the reader that even loathsome creatures are entitled to fair treatment. Yes, the SB is not a fan of the far right - as is his/her right, of course.

[rmgill]

Of course, some horse's arse (sic) will be along to tell us that we're doing it wrong and some other way would be better,

'The spare tire is in the trunk.'

 

'Not it isn't you're wrong and it's not even a trunk you ignorant colonial.'

 

'Well, we call it a trunk.'

 

'Well it's not a trunk so you're wrong. And it's TYRE you fucking git.'

 

Pretty much how it reads from me.

 

I'm fine with a difference of terminology. But to be told that terminology differences not withstanding I'm still wrong....

Edited August 9, 2018 by rmgill

[Jeff]

Interesting to learn the differences in the definition of "government". So then what do people call the other branches of government, er, sorry branches of...whatever? What do you call local government, er, sorry local...whatever? The US has three co-equal branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. We also have state, county and local government. They may be different parts of government, but "government" they certainly seem to be? Very curious.

[R011]

We call legislative bodies Parliament, Legislature, or Council depending on level. We call the judiciary the judiciary. Government is what Americans call the Executive branch and its employees.

[DKTanker]

 

Any one who thinks a dog catcher is part of government has lost the plot.

Well if the local council can stop you and fine you £300 for having garbage in your van, what are they? Highway bandits?

 

Yes.

[DKTanker]

We call legislative bodies Parliament, Legislature, or Council depending on level. We call the judiciary the judiciary. Government is what Americans call the Executive branch and its employees.

Who pays the salaries for Parliament and the Judiciary? Tax funds or money trees? In other words, what do you call the umbrella under which the executive, legislative, and judiciary branch operate? Are they not all servants of the tax paying citizens?

[R011]

We dont call it anything.

[rmgill]

 

Government is what Americans call the Executive branch and its employees.

 

No. Federal Government is inclusive of the three arms, legislative, executive and judicial at the federal level. If you mean the executive branch specifically, then you call it the executive branch. Bits specific to the president are the Presidential administration which is generally inclusive of the cabinet. Some judge is part of the judiciary. Congress or their sub bits (house, senate, LOC) area all legislative.

State governments are inclusive of the various arms of the state. They're still part of the government, laid out by state constitutions and answerable that state's electorate. You also have City Governments and county governments which usually have some level of Executive, legislative and judicial, these county governments include organs like Sheriff's offices which are elected independently, usually on a county by county basis.Odd thing about SO's often times they're entirely answerable to the county that elects them and are independent of state controls, being articualated in law, usually by specifics of the State constitution. (Depends state to state though). Texas has their Rangers which are a special arm of State Law Enforcement. +

Edited August 10, 2018 by rmgill

[R011]

 

Government is what Americans call the Executive branch and its employees.

 

No. Federal Government is inclusive of the three arms, legislative, executive and judicial at the federal level.

 

I'm talking about how Commonwealth countries use the term "government". I know Americans use it differently.

[Soren Ras]

Separated by a common language.

 

 

--

Soren

[Briganza]

 

Any one who thinks a dog catcher is part of government has lost the plot.

Well if the local council can stop you and fine you £300 for having garbage in your van, what are they? Highway bandits?

 

That whataboutery would embarrass a Russian.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Interesting to learn the differences in the definition of "government". So then what do people call the other branches of government, er, sorry branches of...whatever? What do you call local government, er, sorry local...whatever? The US has three co-equal branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. We also have state, county and local government. They may be different parts of government, but "government" they certainly seem to be? Very curious.

 

We call it local Government as well. The main difference as far as I can tell is that, at least in England, there is no intermediate level between local Government and Central Government, which you have at the State level. There obviously is in places like Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland, when we can get them to talk together), though the funding in large part still comes via London. Or at least such is my impression by how they are all crying how impoverished they are. Those assemblies do have some local revenue creating powers, but you would be better placed to ask another Briton what they are.

 

 

Im no expert on constitutional affairs, my memory of the details of all these things comes from a series of lectures something like 30 years ago. But our judiciary doesnt play the same role in regulating political affairs and law that it does in the US. What you have is I understand a system we were toying with introducing sometime in the 17th Century, and didnt introduce it because, presumably, we figured it would lower the utility of the Sovereign. OTOH, it does mean the judiciary is almost completely removed from politics, which can sometimes be an advantage.

 

Parliament plays a role in regulating itself. Which of course does have something of an issue when it comes to expenses.

 

 

 

There was further deregulation out to the regions up to the 1970s, many of the Cities had powers that in some respects seem to have been like mini states in your country. They lost most of them in the fiscal squeeze in the 1970s, though there have been belated powers to derogate power to City Mayors, with mixed success.

 

Sorry, thats a rather eclectic discription of our political arrangement. OTOH, it clearly is eclectic. None of it is really considered, its just kind of evolved over 400 years without any real planning at all.

[Jeff]

 

Interesting to learn the differences in the definition of "government". So then what do people call the other branches of government, er, sorry branches of...whatever? What do you call local government, er, sorry local...whatever? The US has three co-equal branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. We also have state, county and local government. They may be different parts of government, but "government" they certainly seem to be? Very curious.

 

We call it local Government as well. The main difference as far as I can tell is that, at least in England, there is no intermediate level between local Government and Central Government, which you have at the State level. There obviously is in places like Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland, when we can get them to talk together), though the funding in large part still comes via London. Or at least such is my impression by how they are all crying how impoverished they are. Those assemblies do have some local revenue creating powers, but you would be better placed to ask another Briton what they are.

 

 

Im no expert on constitutional affairs, my memory of the details of all these things comes from a series of lectures something like 30 years ago. But our judiciary doesnt play the same role in regulating political affairs and law that it does in the US. What you have is I understand a system we were toying with introducing sometime in the 17th Century, and didnt introduce it because, presumably, we figured it would lower the utility of the Sovereign. OTOH, it does mean the judiciary is almost completely removed from politics, which can sometimes be an advantage.

 

Parliament plays a role in regulating itself. Which of course does have something of an issue when it comes to expenses.

 

 

 

There was further deregulation out to the regions up to the 1970s, many of the Cities had powers that in some respects seem to have been like mini states in your country. They lost most of them in the fiscal squeeze in the 1970s, though there have been belated powers to derogate power to City Mayors, with mixed success.

 

Sorry, thats a rather eclectic discription of our political arrangement. OTOH, it clearly is eclectic. None of it is really considered, its just kind of evolved over 400 years without any real planning at all.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Perhaps it's less about the particular words used to describe it as it is about the power and authority exercised over people's lives.

[BansheeOne]

We dont call it anything.

 

Over here the sum of executive, legislative and judicative is referred to as the power/force of the state*, and the principle of checks and balances the separation of powers/forces.

 

 

* Not the state itself, which is as a minimum comprised of a people, territory and governance.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Interesting to learn the differences in the definition of "government". So then what do people call the other branches of government, er, sorry branches of...whatever? What do you call local government, er, sorry local...whatever? The US has three co-equal branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. We also have state, county and local government. They may be different parts of government, but "government" they certainly seem to be? Very curious.

 

We call it local Government as well. The main difference as far as I can tell is that, at least in England, there is no intermediate level between local Government and Central Government, which you have at the State level. There obviously is in places like Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland, when we can get them to talk together), though the funding in large part still comes via London. Or at least such is my impression by how they are all crying how impoverished they are. Those assemblies do have some local revenue creating powers, but you would be better placed to ask another Briton what they are.

 

 

Im no expert on constitutional affairs, my memory of the details of all these things comes from a series of lectures something like 30 years ago. But our judiciary doesnt play the same role in regulating political affairs and law that it does in the US. What you have is I understand a system we were toying with introducing sometime in the 17th Century, and didnt introduce it because, presumably, we figured it would lower the utility of the Sovereign. OTOH, it does mean the judiciary is almost completely removed from politics, which can sometimes be an advantage.

 

Parliament plays a role in regulating itself. Which of course does have something of an issue when it comes to expenses.

 

 

 

There was further deregulation out to the regions up to the 1970s, many of the Cities had powers that in some respects seem to have been like mini states in your country. They lost most of them in the fiscal squeeze in the 1970s, though there have been belated powers to derogate power to City Mayors, with mixed success.

 

Sorry, thats a rather eclectic discription of our political arrangement. OTOH, it clearly is eclectic. None of it is really considered, its just kind of evolved over 400 years without any real planning at all.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Perhaps it's less about the particular words used to describe it as it is about the power and authority exercised over people's lives.

 

 

Ours is a bit of an oddity in any case. It strikes me that much of the middle management, between local and central Government, traditionally fell under the Lords, and we still have of course a house of Lords. Today though, its purely a check on the House of Common, and an imperfect one at that.

 

In ages past, the lords did have rather more influence over commons, but since clearly their power declined with the power of the landowning class, there has nobody really taking over that position. As far as England, there is little intermediate tier of power, its cost us rather dear, with politics becoming more and more London centric. Ive always been one to emulate in England an emulate of your state system, and create regional assemblies to resemble the Scottish Welsh and Irish ones inside England. This is occasionally kicked around (some have called for a Wessex Assembly, and I believe there was a call for a Cornish one too) but as yet nothing has happened.

 

I notice the French political system has a number of different systems of lower level management. Their town mayors have considerably more power than ours, and they appear to have magistrates assigned as oversight of the police to investigate important cases. I quite like that idea personally, though it seems highly dependent on the skill of the particular magistrate.

 

I think it really comes down to how centralized political cystems are. Ours has become highly centralised to keep expenditure control in the hands of central Government. Other European systems seem rather more devolved.

[rmgill]

That whataboutery would embarrass a Russian.

That's not whataboutery you nob. That's comparative questioning.

 

'If this is X, what is that? Y? Z? Something else?'

 

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by rmgill