Things Noticeable this week

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Ha! What did the Romans ever do for us?

The aqueduct.

Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that.

And the sanitation.

I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

And the roads....

Okay obviously the roads. The roads go without saying but aside from the aqueduct, sanitation and the roads.

Irrigation.

Medicine.

Education.

Health.

And the wine!

Public baths and public order.

All right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

What British history am I proud of?

How about those who fought for universal suffrage and equal rights for every person. Not something that any Monarch seemed particularly keen on promoting.

Certainly; a point which one suffragette was making when she was tragically trampled under the King's racehorse during the Epsom Derby in 1913; though modern historians mosty believe that she wasn't intentionally committing suicide, but seeking to attach a suffragette flag to the horse. It was a death by misadventure.

The point I would make here though is that it was WW1 which brought about the vote for women in the UK and in many other European countries. The counter arguments based upon the social inferiority and subservience of women could no longer hold when it was patently clear that the labour and independence of women, for example in highly dangerous ammunition works, had made it possible to sustain and supply vast armies in the field. The suffragette campaign had failed and was continuing to fail, because it did not win public support, even among most women.

I would also argue that we should take pride in our historic ability to manage seismic social changes peacefully. The constitutional crisis of 1910 is a good example and illustrates how the then monarch, George V, was no friend to the ordinary people and yet was unable to thwart their will. The hereditary Lords, and yes, you do have a point concerning the hereditary principle, were determined to reject measures which would impose much higher taxation on them. This was to pay for old age pensions and national insurance for the working people, who would still contribute for these benefits, as was only fair. The Lords rejected the budget twice and triggered two general elections in less than a year. When they threatened to reject the budget a third time, the King withdrew his support for them, feeling that two elections were sufficient to convince him that the people had spoken and should be obeyed. He agreed in principle to create as many Liberal peers as the government needed in order to swamp the Lords and get a positive vote there. The Lords gave in at once, knowing it was the end game if they didn't. To reinforce the point, the Liberals passed the 1911 Parliament Act, limiting the Lords to one veto in one session only; if the same Act was sent back the next year, they were legally obliged to pass it with no further discussion.

The British constitutional settlement is not monolithic. It bends with the wind; but it does not blow with the wind like a weathervane. There is always fashionable nonsense around with clever clogs people wanting to improve it: Tony Blair was a classic example of the breed. Who now still thinks we need or ever needed a written constitution like the Americans, after watching the fucking nonsense of the Congressional self created budget crises in 2010 and 2011-12? Who still thinks the Human Rights Act was a good idea, the one which created a human right to commit crimes abroad and claim asylum here when actually you are a fugitive from justice rather than a victim of persecution? Whenever the system really does break down, we find pragmatic means to fix it, as in 1910 and again in 1936, when we got rid of Edward VIII, who was the heir to the throne but unfit to be our King.

[vinceprince]

I was not just talking about suffragettes. Only 40% of men could vote until 1918. Women only got the vote then if they were married to a property owner. Most women couldn't vote till 1928.

Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorcee (was against the rules), however being close buddies with a Nazi dictator does not prevent you from becoming King.

If he hadn't married her and wanted to be King there is no constitutional way he could have been removed.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

You either have laws on the statute books that are supposed to be enforced by the Executive and the Judiciary, or - if there is a problem with the laws: get rid!

There are still laws on the books in some eastern US states that requires some one to walk in front of a car at night with a lit lantern!! This was before cars had headlights of course.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

There are still laws on the books in some eastern US states that requires some one to walk in front of a car at night with a lit lantern!! This was before cars had headlights of course.

Yep! As I have stated before I believe before a new law gets introduced you should have to remove at least one or more. I am all for smaller Government and lesser legislation but only if done so in a rational manner.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

There are still laws on the books in some eastern US states that requires some one to walk in front of a car at night with a lit lantern!! This was before cars had headlights of course.

Outdated laws are a worldwide thing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...are-named.html
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/bizarre/law-286219.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-n...izarre-2284278
http://thoughtcatalog.com/rachel-hod...ctually-exist/

Germany does seem to be a place that doesn't appear to want to join in as most of what are classed as daft German laws are fairly sensible
http://www.thelocal.de/galleries/lif...the-local-list

Maybe it's time some old anachronistic laws were looked at and put to bed at last and to make it relevant to the actual thread title
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/loc...laws/26852307/

[Wendigo]

One of my sporting heroes is in hospital after a stroke

Jimmy Greaves: Former England & Spurs striker in intensive care
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32580282

I wish him all the best and hope for a full recovery although I know from experience that it will take time and can involve some big lifestyle changes.

[Greenman]

He may have been a great footballer but paired with Ian St John he was a right idiot especially in that pale imitation of A Question of Sport, Sporting Triangles, which thankfully faded into obscurity. We of course wish him a speedy recovery.

Rolf Harris's daughter Bindi wants to clear her father's name BUT it was her testimony that practically damned him when she found out he had 'slept' with her best friend, who was alledgedly underage. She has over two hundred signatures on an online petition.

It's official. The baby princess has been named Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Nice.

[uli12345]

Putins Rock and Roll....

This is not me melody!


Uli

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by uli12345

[CENTER]Putins Rock and Roll....

This is not me melody!


Uli

The wind in their face must play havoc with their make up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32529980