Drewsifer wrote: What the hell is wrong with Britain.
Oral hygiene, cuisine, speed cameras...
Drewsifer wrote: What the hell is wrong with Britain.
Oral hygiene, cuisine, speed cameras...
pilotbraden wrote: < it's really a damn shame that the citizenry in the UK can't legally arm themselves. They are subjects
As I understand it, it's not that simple.
The British Nationality Act 1981 7. The British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983, replaced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies with three separate citizenships: (a) British citizenship for those persons who had the right of abode in the United Kingdom (as defined in Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971); (b) British Dependent Territories citizenship for those connected by birth or descent with a dependent territory; (c) British Overseas citizenship for those who did not belong to categories (a) or (b) above. The term "Commonwealth citizen" no longer has the same meaning as "British subject" although persons connected with the Republic of Ireland, India or Pakistan who were British subjects under the 1948 Act (see paragraph 5 above) retain that status under the 1981 Act. 8. Women, whether commonwealth or foreign, no longer have an entitlement to registration, but spouses (of either sex) may apply for naturalisation after three years residence in the UK. Citizenship may now be transmitted through either the male of female line, except that in the case of an illegitimate child it can be acquired only through the mother. 9. In general, since 1 January 1983, it has been possible to acquire British citizenship automatically: (a) by birth in the UK to a parent who is either a British citizen or settled in the UK under immigration law; (b) by adoption in the UK by a British citizen parent; (c) by birth outside the UK to a parent who is a British citizen "otherwise than by descent"; (d) by birth outside the UK to a British citizen parent in Crown, Designated or European Community service. 10. Special rules apply to the acquisition of British citizenship by British Dependent Territories citizens connected with Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
In reply to MG_Bryan:
So a British guy who fools around with a fine lady from the United States who bares a child in which is dubbed illegitimate, (the child) is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, but of the United States. How lucky for them.
That IS what you were getting at, right?
I like Britian. Goddamnit
You act like Britain is the only country run by a bunch of berkeleying Bob Costas.
N Sperlo wrote: In reply to MG_Bryan: So a British guy who fools around with a fine lady from the United States who bares a child in which is dubbed illegitimate, (the child) is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, but of the United States. How lucky for them. That IS what you were getting at, right?
Really all I was getting at was that there are several classes of British Nationality. Citizenship is, by my understanding, the most common form; thus it should be perfectly fine for me to refer to the "citizenry of the UK." Apparently we're being pedantic today.
...comment removed because it makes me sound like a richard domepiece
At least in the U.S you have to be rich, a politician, or a banker to avoid prosecution! Preferably any two. WTF England!?
EastCoastMojo wrote: ... I kinda wish four drunk women would try that E36 M3 on me.
You and me both.
Dear Penthouse Letters... Jackpot!
Salanis wrote:Drewsifer wrote: What the hell is wrong with Britain.Oral hygiene, cuisine, speed cameras...
You forgot multi-culturalism and it's effect on sovereign rights.
There's a long Wiki about self defense in Britain, the Cliff Notes version: a citizen can use reasonable force to defend himself or another. The unfortunate part is that a jury gets to decide what is and isn't unreasonable. In this case: for a man to hit a woman is looked down on as unforgiveable. Punch her in the chops, no matter how much she deserves it or what the provocation, and you are toast.
Regardless, if it had been me I would have figured 'they are playing a man's game so they obviously expect a man's ass whoopin' and done everything I possibly could to get them off my S/O.
One last thought which is true but will be construed as racist: when I was in high school I saw a couple of incidents similar to this. It was well known you did NOT want to be on the bad side of any group of black girls. Just about anyone else could be reasoned with; if nthey got pissed off at someone they would not listen to reason and thought nothing of whipping your butt. If several of them ganged up on someone and you were dumb enough to try to come to the defense of their subject, bystander black girls would pile on as well.
Curmudgeon wrote: There's a long Wiki about self defense in Britain, the Cliff Notes version: a citizen can use reasonable force to defend himself or another. The unfortunate part is that a jury gets to decide what is and isn't unreasonable. In this case: for a man to hit a woman is looked down on as unforgiveable. Punch her in the chops, no matter how much she deserves it or what the provocation, and you are toast. Regardless, if it had been me I would have figured 'they are playing a man's game so they obviously expect a man's ass whoopin' and done everything I possibly could to get them off my S/O. One last thought which is true but will be construed as racist: when I was in high school I saw a couple of incidents similar to this. It was well known you did NOT want to be on the bad side of any group of black girls. Just about anyone else could be reasoned with; if nthey got pissed off at someone they would not listen to reason and thought nothing of whipping your butt. If several of them ganged up on someone and you were dumb enough to try to come to the defense of their subject, bystander black girls would pile on as well.
Did you grow up in Flint? That hits close to home.
No, semi rural South Carolina. Might be worse for all I know.
93EXCivic wrote: I like Britian. Goddamnit You act like Britain is the only country run by a bunch of berkeleying Bob Costas.
no.. but it is further along the slippery slope than the rest of us.
What is wrong with that boyfriend? He fell over when it tried to hit the one girl!
Less to do with them being muslim and more to do with them being somalian.
I do find it absolutely retarded that the 4 bitches got a slap on the wrist because one "man" actually fought back when they started kicking the E36 M3 out of his girlfriend. Ignore that there was 4 of them, they have vaginas so how dare he raise a hand against them!
ThePhranc wrote: If you own a shop and a shoplifter steals from you and you stop him physically you go to jail for longer than he does.
This is probably one of the reasons why looting and riots went on for so long in London.
In contrast the L.A. riots had shop owners on the roofs of their buildings with rifles
Curmudgeon wrote: for a man to hit a woman is looked down on as unforgiveable. Punch her in the chops, no matter how much she deserves it or what the provocation, and you are toast.
Thats why my tactic wouldve been to pick up the lightest of the 4 and lumberjack the other 3 with her...that way Im not striking the girls, it technically becomes girl on girl violence, and Im off scott free!
MitchellC wrote: In other news, the US gets it right for once. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Now that's what needed to happen in that case. However the attorney for the two assailants had this to say:
"This was clearly a legally and morally unjustified attack on my clients," said Harold Baker, an attorney for the women in denouncing the grand jury decision. "Inappropriate behavior in the United States of America is not supposed to be met with deadly force."
I'm not sure this dumbass understands that the only way it could have been 'deadly force' would be for his client(s) to get killed, which unfortunately they were not. What an idiot.
Curmudgeon wrote:MitchellC wrote: In other news, the US gets it right for once. U-S-A! U-S-A!Now that's what needed to happen in that case. However the attorney for the two assailants had this to say: "This was clearly a legally and morally unjustified attack on my clients," said Harold Baker, an attorney for the women in denouncing the grand jury decision. "Inappropriate behavior in the United States of America is not supposed to be met with deadly force." I'm not sure this dumbass understands that the only way it could have been 'deadly force' would be for his client(s) to get killed, which unfortunately they were not. What an idiot.
Curmudgeon, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
4cylndrfury wrote: Thats why my tactic wouldve been to pick up the lightest of the 4 and lumberjack the other 3 with her...that way Im not striking the girls, it technically becomes girl on girl violence, and Im off scott free!
Dammit you owe me a new keyboard.
And yeah I shouldn't just rag on Britain. Crap like this happens everywhere. What really irks me though is the Judge KNOWS he's giving them a powder puff sentence, but doesn't want to seem like a wimp so he threatens that if anyone else does it they'll get berkeleyed. It just bothers me that he's admitting that he's giving them special treatment.
MitchellC said: In other news, the US gets it right for once. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Yeah I saw that. Glad he was acquitted.
You'll need to log in to post.
