I looked into things a bit further, and also found no support of your figures on NationMaster. The car theft rate is 1.5x in the UK; robbery rates are nearly the same with the UK a hair in the lead. To put things into perspective after your selective and misleading info, you are also 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK and twice as likely to be raped. You are about equally likely to be assaulted, with a hair's lead for the US.
You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.
However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.
While I agree with the first part of your post... "higher per capita crime rates"? WTF? America has the highest per capita crime rates in the first world.
Not only that; but I wouldn't even call it "behaving badly" (except perhaps toward some friends, but I think on the whole not). He wishes to start a new life; I personally congratulate him for being able to fit (hopefully) two lives into the space of one; but nobody has the right to judge him. And I for one completely understand his situation, and see nothing unusual about it. The people who condemn him are probably the ones who are afraid of any new and radical thought.
A lot of the posts below suggest his wife left him. That's indeed a possibility, but we shouldn't discount the other alternative of death, whether due to some accident or some violent crime, etc. The reason I think it's possible is the terms in which he describes his wife on the Why page. Of course, the chance is less than 50% on it, but I thought I'd throw it out.
Privately, Churchill was extremely frank. There was no self-delusion in his war cabinet. 4 generals in North Africa were sacked before Montgomery won.
As to your intelligence argument; it's been made before by calling Monty a 'materiel' general, but the fact is, all of his predecessors had access to the same intelligence. Don't forget that by late 1940, there wasn't a single German spy in the United Kingdom who was not a double agent working for the British government. U.S. generals had access to the same intelligence too, by the way. I didn't argue this point before because I considered it transparently bunk, but here's my argument now.
I can only wonder what you read. I, too, only dabble, but I've read Colville's diaries (who was Churchill's private secretary), and Churchill certainly had the highest confidence in him. So did Alan Brooke. Now, his personality may have angered his colleagues, but his record is faultless; he won all the campaigns he was assigned two, save the failed mission at Market Garden; and importantly, his troops loved and trusted him. Perhaps he was not a strategic genius like Dowding in his field -- and I don't know; who am I to say? -- but certainly a very successful commander, who handled his troops very well.
Who didn't actually manage to get to finish fighting long enough to have peace. No, quote me successful military commanders instead, like Wellington, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Macarthur, Zhukov, or whomever you like. Not failed megalomaniac loony commanders like Napoleon, Hitler or Bush.
Of course, that kind of thinking was prevalent in British politics before 1982 -- in fact, a huge cut was going to be made to the Royal Navy's budget, which would have left it unable to retake the Falklands. Nobody could agree more that science should be better funded; in fact, funded at least as well as the military, but it is not a good idea to abandon all but a nuclear force. A strong conventional army has never been, isn't, and never will be, a bad idea.
I don't know if you are joking -- I apologise for misunderstanding if that's the case -- but the "never fight a land war in Asia" rule is due to Montgomery, the WWII commander.
It's not pomposity (anymore) -- the honours system is the perfect meritocracy -- except, of course, the fact that they're bought and sold and some titles are inherited. They serve much the same service as medals and decorations do in a military, but in a much more personal way. It belongs perfectly well in any era. The remotest Zen monastery contains an elder or council of elders, who are referred to with an honorific title; the most far out hippie commune has a senior figure or figures referred to by a nickname -- the honours system is just nationally-codified deference. Again, excepting the ones bought or inherited.
It's still the land that wins wars fought halfway across the globe, but people form queues without being told. It's currently active in two war theatres, but guns and knifes longer than 3 inches are banned. It used to be an Empire that ruled a quarter of the globe and all the open seas, yet abolished slavery and gave up that Empire without bloodshed. It is above all a very civilised country, along with the rest of the Commonwealth and the US (although times change).
Oh, I apologise for misunderstanding you. It is worrying that it came across as a lawn thing -- I'm only 20 years old -- but I plead the excuse that the satire over IP protocol is still not very well supported. Cheerios!
No... the Angles and the Saxons were particular Germanic tribes. There is nothing more than a casual relationship between them and the concept of "Germany".
At its root, all of humanity is an African civilisation, since all humans came from Africa. But this is useless information for a modern perspective.
I'm not emotionally involved -- I'm not from either country. But according to the treaty, it was a tie, which the US sued for, as its economy was haemorrhaging.
If you disagree, do you mind arguing facts instead of personal attacks? Because you haven't got a leg to stand on -- I stated only facts, easily verifiable ones.
Factually incorrect, I'm afraid. Some people without a grasp of history modded my previous post Troll, but that's life. I suggest you read up on the relevant history.
Most successful example? Which civilisation introduced the concepts of human rights, liberal democracy, jury trial, separation of judiciary and legislature, freedom of speech, checks and balances, and a lion's share of the scientific advances which have propelled forward? Oh yes -- the Anglo-Saxon civilisation, encompassing the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and the rest of the Anglosphere. I would honestly call them the most successful civilisation, if only because they laid down the pattern for the modern world.
As other people have pointed out, this legislation is not yet law, and it has only a slim chance of passing the Lords in any case. It is probably just an exercise by Gordon Brown to appear strong.
I think I'm just going to block samzenpus' stories in the future. He seems to be basically an anti-Brit troll. If you look at how many wildly misleading headlines he has posted on politics in the UK, this bias is pretty evident.
To put things into perspective, do you recall the Meredith Kercher case? Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede have been held without charge for a damn sight longer in Italy (and can be, for up to a year), while the police gathers evidence. I don't want to say anything either way about the 28/42 days, but I do want to put the legislation and potential complexity into perspective.
As a matter of interest, the House of Lords functioned as the Supreme Court in the UK until recently. (Or is that just England and Wales?) In any case, this may make the system more understandable for you.
Lost? Did you actually look at the peace treaty? Who sued for peace? How many of the war goals of the belligerent country (the USA) were achieved? Hint: the number is the index used to denote the first element of an array in most programming languages.
I wish we could at least mod articles. The Wired summary inserts the misleading phrase 'kill switch'. The Pentagon is merely looking for a method of disabling planes on the ground that isn't completely destructive and entail massive loss of life. Nothing remote going on here.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked into things a bit further, and also found no support of your figures on NationMaster. The car theft rate is 1.5x in the UK; robbery rates are nearly the same with the UK a hair in the lead. To put things into perspective after your selective and misleading info, you are also 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK and twice as likely to be raped. You are about equally likely to be assaulted, with a hair's lead for the US.
You shouldn't compare data from different agencies, it's apples to oranges. That said, according to NationMater, the figures for total crimes per capita is 85 for the UK vs 80 for the US, per 1000 people.
However, wouldn't it be more relevant to look at gun violence, seeing as that's the policy in question? Most of the crime rate in either country has little to do with policy and everything to do with easy modern crimes like identity theft or criminal copyright violations. In Murders with firearms per capita, the US rate is about 30x the UK rate, and I was not even able to find the UK on Homicide rate, where the listing ended at about 9x below the US rate.
While I agree with the first part of your post... "higher per capita crime rates"? WTF? America has the highest per capita crime rates in the first world.
Not only that; but I wouldn't even call it "behaving badly" (except perhaps toward some friends, but I think on the whole not). He wishes to start a new life; I personally congratulate him for being able to fit (hopefully) two lives into the space of one; but nobody has the right to judge him. And I for one completely understand his situation, and see nothing unusual about it. The people who condemn him are probably the ones who are afraid of any new and radical thought.
A lot of the posts below suggest his wife left him. That's indeed a possibility, but we shouldn't discount the other alternative of death, whether due to some accident or some violent crime, etc. The reason I think it's possible is the terms in which he describes his wife on the Why page. Of course, the chance is less than 50% on it, but I thought I'd throw it out.
Privately, Churchill was extremely frank. There was no self-delusion in his war cabinet. 4 generals in North Africa were sacked before Montgomery won.
As to your intelligence argument; it's been made before by calling Monty a 'materiel' general, but the fact is, all of his predecessors had access to the same intelligence. Don't forget that by late 1940, there wasn't a single German spy in the United Kingdom who was not a double agent working for the British government. U.S. generals had access to the same intelligence too, by the way. I didn't argue this point before because I considered it transparently bunk, but here's my argument now.
I can only wonder what you read. I, too, only dabble, but I've read Colville's diaries (who was Churchill's private secretary), and Churchill certainly had the highest confidence in him. So did Alan Brooke. Now, his personality may have angered his colleagues, but his record is faultless; he won all the campaigns he was assigned two, save the failed mission at Market Garden; and importantly, his troops loved and trusted him. Perhaps he was not a strategic genius like Dowding in his field -- and I don't know; who am I to say? -- but certainly a very successful commander, who handled his troops very well.
In spite of all his accomplishments, you somehow still classify him a twit. Great armchair criticism there, mate. What do you know about war again?
Originator of the quote is Bernard Montgomery, during WWII. He was widely quoted.
Who didn't actually manage to get to finish fighting long enough to have peace. No, quote me successful military commanders instead, like Wellington, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Macarthur, Zhukov, or whomever you like. Not failed megalomaniac loony commanders like Napoleon, Hitler or Bush.
Of course, that kind of thinking was prevalent in British politics before 1982 -- in fact, a huge cut was going to be made to the Royal Navy's budget, which would have left it unable to retake the Falklands. Nobody could agree more that science should be better funded; in fact, funded at least as well as the military, but it is not a good idea to abandon all but a nuclear force. A strong conventional army has never been, isn't, and never will be, a bad idea.
I don't know if you are joking -- I apologise for misunderstanding if that's the case -- but the "never fight a land war in Asia" rule is due to Montgomery, the WWII commander.
It's not pomposity (anymore) -- the honours system is the perfect meritocracy -- except, of course, the fact that they're bought and sold and some titles are inherited. They serve much the same service as medals and decorations do in a military, but in a much more personal way. It belongs perfectly well in any era. The remotest Zen monastery contains an elder or council of elders, who are referred to with an honorific title; the most far out hippie commune has a senior figure or figures referred to by a nickname -- the honours system is just nationally-codified deference. Again, excepting the ones bought or inherited.
It's still the land that wins wars fought halfway across the globe, but people form queues without being told. It's currently active in two war theatres, but guns and knifes longer than 3 inches are banned. It used to be an Empire that ruled a quarter of the globe and all the open seas, yet abolished slavery and gave up that Empire without bloodshed. It is above all a very civilised country, along with the rest of the Commonwealth and the US (although times change).
I just do not see a contradiction where you do.
Oh, I apologise for misunderstanding you. It is worrying that it came across as a lawn thing -- I'm only 20 years old -- but I plead the excuse that the satire over IP protocol is still not very well supported. Cheerios!
No... the Angles and the Saxons were particular Germanic tribes. There is nothing more than a casual relationship between them and the concept of "Germany".
At its root, all of humanity is an African civilisation, since all humans came from Africa. But this is useless information for a modern perspective.
I'm not emotionally involved -- I'm not from either country. But according to the treaty, it was a tie, which the US sued for, as its economy was haemorrhaging.
If you disagree, do you mind arguing facts instead of personal attacks? Because you haven't got a leg to stand on -- I stated only facts, easily verifiable ones.
Factually incorrect, I'm afraid. Some people without a grasp of history modded my previous post Troll, but that's life. I suggest you read up on the relevant history.
Most successful example? Which civilisation introduced the concepts of human rights, liberal democracy, jury trial, separation of judiciary and legislature, freedom of speech, checks and balances, and a lion's share of the scientific advances which have propelled forward? Oh yes -- the Anglo-Saxon civilisation, encompassing the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and the rest of the Anglosphere. I would honestly call them the most successful civilisation, if only because they laid down the pattern for the modern world.
As other people have pointed out, this legislation is not yet law, and it has only a slim chance of passing the Lords in any case. It is probably just an exercise by Gordon Brown to appear strong.
I think I'm just going to block samzenpus' stories in the future. He seems to be basically an anti-Brit troll. If you look at how many wildly misleading headlines he has posted on politics in the UK, this bias is pretty evident.
To put things into perspective, do you recall the Meredith Kercher case? Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede have been held without charge for a damn sight longer in Italy (and can be, for up to a year), while the police gathers evidence. I don't want to say anything either way about the 28/42 days, but I do want to put the legislation and potential complexity into perspective.
As a matter of interest, the House of Lords functioned as the Supreme Court in the UK until recently. (Or is that just England and Wales?) In any case, this may make the system more understandable for you.
Lost? Did you actually look at the peace treaty? Who sued for peace? How many of the war goals of the belligerent country (the USA) were achieved? Hint: the number is the index used to denote the first element of an array in most programming languages.
I wish we could at least mod articles. The Wired summary inserts the misleading phrase 'kill switch'. The Pentagon is merely looking for a method of disabling planes on the ground that isn't completely destructive and entail massive loss of life. Nothing remote going on here.