talkingtocactus
Coroner
hmm not sure yet, i think people were quite surprised he won, most people expected his big bro.
World Politics
- Thread starter Jacquie
- Start date
His Leaders speech was really really good, very impressive. He knows where he wants to take the party, and say Iraq was right to say the Iraq war was wrong. I was a supporter of David Miliband but Ed's really impressed me with this speech. I hope he sticks to his word. On Saturday I felt the Labour Party made the wrong decision to elect him, today I have take that back. However, I suspect his brother will probably leave front bench politics for a few years. It would just be too difficult and would drag Labour back into the Blair/Brown years if he did stay and if he was given the job of Shadow Chancellor.
I still feel, I don't know why, that Labour made the wrong choice. David would have been a better leader and the only candidate who could take on David Cameron and the coalition.
Last edited:
Okay,
I am rambling about my country again.
We are getting probably the most strict law in the world against smoking (yay!)
Means under 18 cannot posses tobacco (even you don't get any fee or conseq...whatever - unlike with alcohol)
Tobaccoproducts cannot be seen in stores where it's sold
Smoking at places, where are lots of people will be forbidden (like outside concerts)
Schools have to remove their smoking spots, if there is under 18 and smoking is prohibited by anyone at school property.
Buying and giving tobacco to under 18 is prohibited
The point is to stop kids to start smoking, not denying smoking from those over 18.
And oh god what fuss is going on. I cannot understand why those adults who smoke whine because they are allowed to smoke.
I almost cried at Iron Maiden concert when saw people smoking and throwing cigges at mondo (track), which probably has cost about a million to have.
Or the people who smoke in outside concerts or places like that.
People are just so stupid again. No, one one is telling them to stop. They can still buy tobacco, they can still smoke it but where, it's another thing and OH MY GOD you cannot compare it to freedom of speech or somethng else that's constitutional right.
So many been happy when smoking was prohibited in restaurants. I've been one of those. It was so bad to be at bar, lungs hurting and eyes all went and your clothes smelly and your hair and when you went to sleep, then your bedsheets smelt the same and then your room.
Then they pull alchol, which is more stricted except selling beer in stores. Yes, we can sell only beer/cider under 4,7% at general stores. Otherwise you have to go to get your stuff from liquer store. So I don't care if I'd have to buy my beer from liquer store. Nope, not at all.
For years there's been argument if wine should be sold in general stores and it's been strict no so far.
And alcholic country like we, I think it's wise.
I am rambling about my country again.
We are getting probably the most strict law in the world against smoking (yay!)
Means under 18 cannot posses tobacco (even you don't get any fee or conseq...whatever - unlike with alcohol)
Tobaccoproducts cannot be seen in stores where it's sold
Smoking at places, where are lots of people will be forbidden (like outside concerts)
Schools have to remove their smoking spots, if there is under 18 and smoking is prohibited by anyone at school property.
Buying and giving tobacco to under 18 is prohibited
The point is to stop kids to start smoking, not denying smoking from those over 18.
And oh god what fuss is going on. I cannot understand why those adults who smoke whine because they are allowed to smoke.
I almost cried at Iron Maiden concert when saw people smoking and throwing cigges at mondo (track), which probably has cost about a million to have.
Or the people who smoke in outside concerts or places like that.
People are just so stupid again. No, one one is telling them to stop. They can still buy tobacco, they can still smoke it but where, it's another thing and OH MY GOD you cannot compare it to freedom of speech or somethng else that's constitutional right.
So many been happy when smoking was prohibited in restaurants. I've been one of those. It was so bad to be at bar, lungs hurting and eyes all went and your clothes smelly and your hair and when you went to sleep, then your bedsheets smelt the same and then your room.
Then they pull alchol, which is more stricted except selling beer in stores. Yes, we can sell only beer/cider under 4,7% at general stores. Otherwise you have to go to get your stuff from liquer store. So I don't care if I'd have to buy my beer from liquer store. Nope, not at all.
For years there's been argument if wine should be sold in general stores and it's been strict no so far.
And alcholic country like we, I think it's wise.
Ajbuckly
Lab Technician
Well it doesn´t seem that strict. It seems as the "world" in general is going more PC. Isn´t smoking prohibited in all Scandinavia (outside allowed)???
Drinking in Sweden or Norwege is allmost impossible expect from moonshine alcohol? In a way I am torn between the individual right/choice and the fact that people in general choose wrong. Look at alcohol allowed in Denmark which in turn as more yought drinking then in any European Country. I watch a debate on TV as to "fat people" or " overweight people" - a personal problem or a sociaty problem????Most of the libarale wanted freedom of choice and most left - wing people wanted a over - all angle on the problem.
I am ranting so I will return later to adjust and clearfy where I am going with this.
For the moment I am just happing that we didn´t join the Euro. Way cheaper to go shopping in Sweden and Germany...
By the way I saw the older Miliband left politics for good??
talkingtocactus
Coroner
but that's basically the crux of it: are you pro-choice, which means including choices you disagree with or think are wrong; or are you anti-choice and therefore going to shove your beliefs onto everyone else regardless of whether that's what they want, because you believe them so strongly? nb: when i say you, i mean people in general, not *you* specifically
as far as i'm concerned i'm 100% pro choice, in everything. it should always, always be up to the individual. by all means educate and inform people about the risks they are taking, but still, the ultimate decision should be theirs.
*slight tangent ahead* i was having a row with my ex about this (ha!) - actually we were arguing about that jamie oliver programme on tv where he's in a US town that was found (statistically) to be the unhealthiest, most obese town in the US (and probably the world by extension) trying to educate people as to healthier food choices, not just people generally but trying to get better food options into school dinners - because jamie (accurately, imho) thinks that if you teach people the right choices as kids, they will grow up with those choices as the norm. my ex was convinced that jamie is dictating to this town what they should eat, and said that basically everyone knows already that eating tons of saturated fat and fried crap is unhealthy, so he should stop preaching - he believed that jamie was going against freedom of choice and making people eat better.
my counter argument was that on the contrary, judging by the people he was working with (and he did a similar project here in the uk) everyone doesn't already know that. as i said i am totally 100% behind freedom of choice** but i don't think it *is* freedom of choice if it's made without all the available information. how can i legitimately choose what i want to eat if i don't know what each thing is?
so to go back to the banning of smokes and alcohol - well, one thing i take issue with is banning stuff generally: as far as i can tell, banning something automatically makes it more attractive, especially to impressionable kids. when i was at school people ran books on who'd smoke/drink/have sex before the age of consent because those things were obviously more fun when they were illegal. but on the other hand, i also think that having cigarettes and alcohol blatantly on display but out of reach makes them more attractive so maybe keeping them hidden is a middle ground, i'm not sure. either way it should be an informed choice, so by all means put those pictures of half dead lungs on the packets, that's fine (in fact all those do is make me want to light up, and i know a lot of other people who feel the same) but let people make their own decision, armed with all the facts.
** hell, i smoke even though i had open heart surgery, and drink despite being on some pretty hardcore psychiatric medicine, if that isn't exercising freedom of choice, i don't know what is!:lol:
Well it doesn´t seem that strict. It seems as the "world" in general is going more PC. Isn´t smoking prohibited in all Scandinavia (outside allowed)???
[FInland is not in Scandinavia
]Hmm, I am bit confused about your post. Over 18 can smoke (don't know if it's the same in Sweden and Norway) and buy tobacco. Here you can buy anything under 22% when you turn 18 and anything by the time you turn 20. in Sweden legal drinking age is 20. I assume Norway is the same with us. Sweden and Finland are similar of where to buy what. Beer/cider/long drinks and breezers that are manufactured in certain way and under that 5% (or 4.7) can be sold in stores and kiosks and so on between 9am and 9pm. everything stronger that and wines and whiskies, liquers and booze and so on can be only sold in official liquer stores or served in bars.
And I think here we don't have people making moonshine anymore, I think that all that is used here (black market) comes behind the eastern border
(and I swear I cannot understand who drinks that, disgusting)We have limited alcohol selling, but it's because we are a drunk nation. (and fattest after the USA) It's the same discussion sometimes, what lisa said there. If people were allowed to buy their booze from stores, they wouldn't buy it so much
Few years ago (first, you cannot buy alchohol after 9pm, except bars and those restaurants that have A-rights) we got a law that prohibits to sell alchohol in stores (kiosks, supermarkets) before 9am and this is to prevent people to go drinking several days in a row (because if you leave bar at 4, go to celebrate with buddies and have drinki probably for those few hours and then at 7 you can hit the stores and buy more beer)
And yes, everything forbidden is more interesting. When I was kid, 16 yrs old could buy tobaccoproducs. I understand that those born in 60s and 70s and earlier, weren't aware of smoking's bad effect.
But us, 80s kids and so on, we've had so much lectures about tobacco (and alcohol for that matter) and what it can cause (higher risk if you smoke -stuff) and STILL more and more kids are smoking, especially girls, so something has to be done.
Then for tobacco vs. alcohol. Smoking disturbs people around you (if they don't smoke) you cannot avoid that. I've never smoked and I find it really disgusting smell. Same with my bf, even he smoked for few years. Or my dad, who smoked some 20yrs and quit in the 80s. Or many of those, who have babies and they say even they could take the smoke, they don't want their babies to breath that smoke.
Alcohol doesn't straight people next to you (except when you've had too much and behave badly, throw up next to them or get violent)
I guess drinking is something that has gone down a bit (teens) but we do have something what to lose
the numbers are so high.But every kid who doesn't start smoking before turning 18 is a saved kid and is less likely that they'd start then. I just get mad when I see 10yrs old with ciggys.
There was few months ago headlines about one celebrity, who had grabbed ciggys from 12-yr-old girl. She had threated him with police and stuff but he had called her father, who came to the spot and they discussed about it. :lol: :lol:
But I just hate (with so many new law and politics in general) when people miss the point and get angry about somethng that will not exsist. Smoking in general isn't prohibited and adults can smoke like always [perhaps few places where they cannot smoke]
They thought it's end of the world when smoking in restaurants were prohibited few years ago. Now, so many are glad. Dad said in the 70s when smoking became prohibited in buses, they thought it was end of the world and now people are shocked, if they think that people could smoke in the buses.
I guess my rant is over for now. I am sorry if there's some wrong words, I have a bad flu and my thinking is bit slow
talkingtocactus
Coroner
but does it? if it's their own choice and they're of legal age, it's up to them! also, out of interest, why is it more important to target girls? i'm guessing maybe because of something to do with pregnancy? it is possible to quit if you get pregnant, many women do so.
very true - as far as i'm concerned it's just about being aware of other people's space - even before the smoking ban here i would never, ever smoke around anyone that was eating, ever, that's just plain inconsiderate. now it's banned in indoor spaces anyway, so it's kind of a moot point (and by the way i pretty much support the ban on smoking in indoor public places), although i smoke in my house and if anyone comes over, there's no way i'd smoke when food was involved (or even if no one came over!). also i'd never smoke around kids. my best friend has a 3 year old (my godson) and her mum & stepdad smoke loads, like 60 a day or more, and they smoke in her house, around her kid. when i go over there she says it's fine for me to smoke in the house because they do so it's not an issue, but i don't, i always go outside, it's just kinda rude to assume you can do it in someone else's house. even if i'm outside/in public i'd only do it at a reasonable distance from other people, like if i'm waiting for a bus i'll try to stand further away etc. it's just about being sensible - of course it impacts on others but you can try to minimise that. of course i guess the best way to minimise it would be to stop altogether but i don't want to! if it means only doing it in my own house, that's fine.
agreed - it should be the person's own choice but only once they are (a) old enough to understand the choice and (b) fully informed of the risks.
i do too, people think they're being restricted but unless something is outright banned, they're not, it's just a question of respecting other people.
having just said i support the ban, there's one place i think the ban should not be happening and that's psychiatric hospitals - they didn't ban smoking at the same time as the rest of the uk but they have since and it's just wrong. having spent far too much time in those places, smoking is one of the few good points, it's one of the only social activities (because believe me in psych units everyone does it, i even managed to get up to over 100 a day in there
), and only being able to do it outside gives far too much leeway to nurses to barter with it, which is not a good idea. obviously i see the contradiction in trying to keep smoking in a medical facility but i feel quite strongly about it, i was really angry when they went ahead with the ban.I don't know do they target more girls, recenty girls just have started to smoke more and more. While boys smoking has decreased, girls smoking have increased.
And I don't care if someone starts smoking when they turn 18 or those now under 18 keep smoking. It's their right and no one else's problem (unless they smoke where it's prohibited
)It's just that age of 13 (when you head for 7th grade and usually change to different schoolbuilding and that's the grade when many start smoking or at least try it) - you just want to be like your friends (I had only a few, all smoked but they didn't even try to get me to smoke, because they knew I'd get mad) and there you go. When you are 18 you _may_ be bit smarter and you don't even start smoking.
...I do have a friend who started to smoking regularry in age of 20
(it all started after her fave ice hockey team got to National league and she partied several days :lol: )Anyways, I don't think the law is any different of movie ratings or alcohol laws. They are created to protect _kids_
Anyways, to the other question.
Does anyone else think media's behaviour against politics and politicians have changed to more aggressive? here it's gotten incredibly evil and they goddamn dig everything. we've had a big mess around here for few years, but the main news channels have gone with the tabloids.
Who texted who, and who is dating who and now PM got seperated from his gf. And every level.
Like a year ago. Every 2nd year Universities Student unions have elections. there are groups among the studysubjects and then there are political studen unions. about 20% of students only vote. So even little trouble in those made the frontpages of major news sites. I mean, even the students don't care but oh they saw the name of the political party there and it had to be evil. If some small local politician says something in Facebook, it's out there.
In UK, has media gotten more aggressive after the "scandal" about the money, stuff they demanded refunds and all that? Are they more eager to dig the stuff up from everything, even the small things?
And then people just have gotten away from how things work. MPs shouldn't get paid, their relatives should stop working and not making any money during the time and after the big headlines, even papers would say they are wrong or that no fault was done, the people are already against politicians in question.
And if it only was the taboids and similar to it, but also main news go down that road. Even our broadcasting comapany YLE has gotten aggressive for digging these. I think YLE is as red and left as it was in the 70s
Finns are whiny people. They whine about everything and the whiners have never ever visited outside country borders to see that we have things pretty well in here.
Like every Finn, who complaisn about breakfast in Finnish hotel, should be taken to some foreign hotel
talkingtocactus
Coroner
oh yeah, i agree it's wrong for kids to start doing it, although i'm not sure banning it is the best way to make them not start. banning something automatically makes it very attractive to kids. i was 15 when i started, i had quite a few "firsts" that night! as it happens i always had a specific reason to start smoking, but it being illegal at 15 made it a much easier decision!
er, yes and no. i think the media has always been pretty agressive. actually no, when i say always i mean in the last, oh 40-50 years or so, probably since WWII. before that it was much more about reporting the news, and was pretty dr. i guess maybe the press learnt during WWII that it could get away with being more critical of the government. but i think the aggression ramped up in the 70s-80s, certainly here in the uk. i don't want to blow our trumpet (especially because at least half of what i'm going to say is something i can't stand!) we are an important nation media-wise because (a) we have the bbc which is where a lot of other international media get their content, because it's renowned for its impartiality (this is good!), and (b) we're where rupert murdoch honed his "skills" (and this is very very bad) - he now owns a huge chunk of the world's media, over here and more critically in the states (fox news anyone...? not to mention the WSJ and he's slowly choking the NY times out of business - he's a ruthless and vile man) and he has *real* power, he's directly influenced australian prime ministerial elections and indirectly (but obviously) influenced british ones too. and he is *really* aggressive. he doesn't seem to have any moral boundaries either in terms of how he collects news or how he reports it. but because he's so huge in media, everyone else has to keep up, so the entire industry has got more aggressive.
added to that the fact that in the "old" days (ha, like 20 years ago) there was no net, no facebook, no twitter, no rss feeds etc, everyone got their news twice a day: the daily paper, and the daily tv news. now we get it from about 500 angles a second, which makes it feel more aggressive. it might not really be that way so much, as i guess each outlet only reports things once, but in the past it was only 1 outlet and now it's millions so the consumer feels bombarded by it.
naturally the direct result of this is that in a world where news has to be "now!" it doesn't look good for media agencies to not have anything to say, so they start lowering their standards on what counts as news. in the past it would be only things that were important to the public interest. then as they had to fill more news time, they had to take material from the next level of interest down the scale and so on until eventually we lucky consumers get to know what colour simon cowell's breakfast was. it's pretty sad but given how fast technology's going, it'll get worse. i reckon there'll be full media saturation before long. it's all getting a bit 1984...:wtf:
Desertwind
Head of the Day Shift
BIN LADEN IS SAID TO BE PART OF EUROPE'S PLOTTING
Washington..U.S. counter-terrorism officials say they believe that senior al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are involved in the latest terror plot against European cities. The multipronged scope of the emerging plan--which aimed to launch coordinated shooting sprees or attacks in Britain, France and Germany-is an al-Qaida hallmark. One U.S. intelligence official added, however, that the details of how the plan was directed or coordinated by the group's leaders is not yet clear. The involvement of bin Laden and his core leaders, believed to be in hiding [ya' think?] in Pakistan, underscores concerns about that country's role as a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists. U. S. officials have pressed Pakistan to increase it's efforts to root out the militants hiding in the mountainous border region. bin Laden's role in the European plot was first reported by the NPR. Counterterrorism officials said that they are now working under the assumption that bin Laden played a role in the plotting, but they would not detail what indictions they've seen that lead them in that direction. One senior U.S. official, meanwhile, discounted any involement in the Europe terror plot by al-Qaida's North African affiliate. A Pakistani intelligence official said last Thursday that 8 Germans and 2 British brothers are at the heart of the terror plot, which is still in the early stages. One of the Britons was killed in a recent CIA missile strike, he said. The U.S. has dramatically stepped up it's missile attacks in North Waziristan and is believed to have launched at least 21 this month. The covert campaign is largely carried out by CIA drones, and has led to the deaths of a number of top militant leaders. Pakistan has complained vocally about the program, but is believed to provide intelligence assistance for at least some of the strikes~ [Hey all of you gals and guys take care and be careful over there] bin Laden is such a big a..hole:brickwall:
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS~
Washington..U.S. counter-terrorism officials say they believe that senior al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are involved in the latest terror plot against European cities. The multipronged scope of the emerging plan--which aimed to launch coordinated shooting sprees or attacks in Britain, France and Germany-is an al-Qaida hallmark. One U.S. intelligence official added, however, that the details of how the plan was directed or coordinated by the group's leaders is not yet clear. The involvement of bin Laden and his core leaders, believed to be in hiding [ya' think?] in Pakistan, underscores concerns about that country's role as a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists. U. S. officials have pressed Pakistan to increase it's efforts to root out the militants hiding in the mountainous border region. bin Laden's role in the European plot was first reported by the NPR. Counterterrorism officials said that they are now working under the assumption that bin Laden played a role in the plotting, but they would not detail what indictions they've seen that lead them in that direction. One senior U.S. official, meanwhile, discounted any involement in the Europe terror plot by al-Qaida's North African affiliate. A Pakistani intelligence official said last Thursday that 8 Germans and 2 British brothers are at the heart of the terror plot, which is still in the early stages. One of the Britons was killed in a recent CIA missile strike, he said. The U.S. has dramatically stepped up it's missile attacks in North Waziristan and is believed to have launched at least 21 this month. The covert campaign is largely carried out by CIA drones, and has led to the deaths of a number of top militant leaders. Pakistan has complained vocally about the program, but is believed to provide intelligence assistance for at least some of the strikes~ [Hey all of you gals and guys take care and be careful over there] bin Laden is such a big a..hole:brickwall:
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS~
Desertwind
Head of the Day Shift
Desertwind
Head of the Day Shift
I'll be sooo glad when this is over, the advertisments are getting ridiculous and overwhelming the TV air-waves:scream:
2010 ELECTIONS
http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/2010-Elections/
2010 ELECTIONS
http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/2010-Elections/
talkingtocactus
Coroner
very scary and sad day in british politics today. lots of people very, very angry!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979
on 2nd thoughts this article really clearly states the problem. it is written in a leftist newspaper, but it quotes the FT (which is not) and i think these views are probably pretty widespread. apart from with the daily fail/daily hate/whatever the daily mail should really be called:
http://ind.pn/cCarVE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979
on 2nd thoughts this article really clearly states the problem. it is written in a leftist newspaper, but it quotes the FT (which is not) and i think these views are probably pretty widespread. apart from with the daily fail/daily hate/whatever the daily mail should really be called:
http://ind.pn/cCarVE
Last edited:
Desertwind
Head of the Day Shift
Tomorrow is the big Mid-Term Elections, as far as polls go, it look's like the GOP may take the House and The Senate
http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/2010-Elections/
http://www.politicsdaily.com/tag/2010-Elections/
talkingtocactus
Coroner
^ i really hope they don't. i really feel for obama. sure he's made the odd mistake but good god, the mess he was given, he'd have to be a miracle worker to sort that out.