If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And yes, if he was to serve his wife or selected friends beverages or offer them services in a commercial capacity, then he would be trading illegally, and there are laws to protect against that.
It already does, and I think it's quite a pleasent place to live actually.
Well it gives you the power, as you say legally, to get away with doing certain things, such as removing someone from a particular piece of completely open and public space because you claim "ownership" of it. And it removes anyone elses right (through force as you say) to walk into a certain area without permission from the "owner". So yeah, I agree with you, the law does only stop you from committing certain actions. It stops you from entering a certain (phyiscially open) area without prior permission from someone who claims to have authority in that area based on a piece of paper stating that he is the owner.
Hmm, we're getting a bit post-whorey here.
Where are you getting your info on fascism from? It's not entirely accurate.
I got some of it from here and some from books a friend of mine (Politics sudent) lent to me last year. Most were written before the Second World War.
Wish I still had them.
Skinhead was a youth subculture. It took influences from Jamaican rude boy culture and they listened to ska. It later got a big racist element, but it also had an anti-racist element too, e.g. SHARP (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). To call it a "far right group" is simply not true.
is also completely inaccurate. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would tell you.
Protect who ?
I wasn`t aware of a law that would compel "I`m with Stupid" to, for example
(1)Have a sexual encounter with Jade Goody because you had offered the same "service" to your girlfriend.
(2)Fill your ipod with the complete works of Celine Dion because you had offered to do the same with the works of Radiohead.
(3) Enter into a pay per view contract with a synchronised swimming organiser because you had done the same with the Ricky Hatton fight.
Each to his own.
I follow your reasoning with regards to the (allegedly owned) open space.
Would you expand that ("legal authority") to the service/action of the person ?
I disagree !
Nevertheless,I can happily tolerate it
I hope your explicitness has helped my understanding of your position which I`ll summarise.
You think the lawful infringement on freedoms should be limited to what you perceive as commercial transactions, in a sort of "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" way.
Accepting your polarised buyer/seller position (merely for the exploration of this idea ), would you limit the infringement to the seller`s property ?
To clarify (hopefully ) I`ll try to envisage a hypothetical.
Say, someone who is offering a mobile service ?
Would you welcome the "full force of the law" coming to bear on such an individual, if that individual subsequently refused (on whatever personal predilection) the service to someone who had requested it ?
You've been known to use Wikipedia quite a lot.
Yeh but his figures are wrong either way you look at it.
Yes, but it's not the only source I look at.
What exactly would be wrong with a community that required its' members to all be from the same "group?"
Stepping up the trolling a notch are we?
Yawn.
Aladdin,
Why not try answering the question ?
It seems a reasonable one to me,given what you had previously said.
You have now got me thinking that I don`t know ANY of it.
I do and from my experience with you in the "Define White" thread, you seem to be very threatened (or frightened) by people that dissent from your opinion.
Could that be why you are refusing to respond in a civil way now?