Borat has been cut to pieces


-- 
Larry Gold
Arsenal For Life

Larry wrote:
> Borat has been cut to pieces

You are surprised?

In uk.media.tv.sky on Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Stephen O'Connell wrote :

>Larry wrote:

>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>
>You are surprised?

Disappointed... that it wasn't the irritating tosser himself!
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"Larry"  wrote:
 

>Borat has been cut to pieces

They stopped showing uncensored films a long, long time ago. Around
the time when they switched from rating films by the time they were
shown at (8, 10 and 11) to what the British Board of Film Censors use
for cinema and video/DVD ratings (12, 15, 18, etc). I don't know if
they were forced into doing that, or if they just decided to do it
themselves.

Before then, they used to show a lot of films with an 11pm rating that
were either heavily censored, or completely forbidden in this country.
Not just sex either. They showed Texas Chainsaw Massacar 2 and
Braindead while they were still banned here, and the uncensored
version of Terminator 2 that has still never been seen here anywhere
else.

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:s8uil3pvk79n0638o1ostii0pm36ovaq5s@4ax.com...
> "Larry"  wrote:
>
>
>>Borat has been cut to pieces
>
> They stopped showing uncensored films a long, long time ago. Around
> the time when they switched from rating films by the time they were
> shown at (8, 10 and 11) to what the British Board of Film Censors use
> for cinema and video/DVD ratings (12, 15, 18, etc). I don't know if
> they were forced into doing that, or if they just decided to do it
> themselves.
>
> Before then, they used to show a lot of films with an 11pm rating that
> were either heavily censored, or completely forbidden in this country.
> Not just sex either. They showed Texas Chainsaw Massacar 2 and
> Braindead while they were still banned here, and the uncensored
> version of Terminator 2 that has still never been seen here anywhere
> else.

That was just to keep up with the viewers of Canal+ and TV100 though ;-)

"Larry"  wrote in message 
news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Borat has been cut to pieces
>
What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess that 
must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!

John Russell wrote:
> "Larry"  wrote in message
> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>
> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!

Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie subscription 
channel.

Gaz

"Gaz"  wrote:
 

>John Russell wrote:
>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>
>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>
>Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie subscription 
>channel.
>
>Gaz 
>

Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:cejnl3daue6h93p0gfj65pavbnr4devecv@4ax.com...
> "Gaz"  wrote:
>
>
>>John Russell wrote:
>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>
>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>
>>Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie 
>>subscription
>>channel.
>>
>>Gaz
>>
>
> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.

God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government to 
do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person who 
objects to something you can find someone who believes the government should 
be doing it. Or indeed everything you  believe they government should be 
doing is someone else's idea of a nanny state!

The idea is to imply that some things are beyond reasonable discussion, to 
belittle those who suggest it rather than debate actual legislation, a bit 
like Guns Laws in the USA.

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:s8uil3pvk79n0638o1ostii0pm36ovaq5s@4ax.com...
> "Larry"  wrote:
>
>
>>Borat has been cut to pieces
>
> They stopped showing uncensored films a long, long time ago. Around
> the time when they switched from rating films by the time they were
> shown at (8, 10 and 11) to what the British Board of Film Censors use
> for cinema and video/DVD ratings (12, 15, 18, etc). I don't know if
> they were forced into doing that, or if they just decided to do it
> themselves.
>
> Before then, they used to show a lot of films with an 11pm rating that
> were either heavily censored, or completely forbidden in this country.
> Not just sex either. They showed Texas Chainsaw Massacar 2 and
> Braindead while they were still banned here, and the uncensored
> version of Terminator 2 that has still never been seen here anywhere
> else.
>
I'm glad I don't subscribe to Sky Movies, I would soon cancel anyway if they 
censored films. Everyone should cancel Movies and tell the operator that cut 
films won't be accepted, they would soon change their policy again. Trouble 
is, most viewers don't realise or care (same with DVDs, many people do not 
realise that the BBFC insist on cuts for lower ratings).

"Brian W"  wrote in message 
news:5wR6j.14508$yZ4.1461@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Edster"  wrote in message 
> news:s8uil3pvk79n0638o1ostii0pm36ovaq5s@4ax.com...
>> "Larry"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Borat has been cut to pieces
>>
>> They stopped showing uncensored films a long, long time ago. Around
>> the time when they switched from rating films by the time they were
>> shown at (8, 10 and 11) to what the British Board of Film Censors use
>> for cinema and video/DVD ratings (12, 15, 18, etc). I don't know if
>> they were forced into doing that, or if they just decided to do it
>> themselves.
>>
>> Before then, they used to show a lot of films with an 11pm rating that
>> were either heavily censored, or completely forbidden in this country.
>> Not just sex either. They showed Texas Chainsaw Massacar 2 and
>> Braindead while they were still banned here, and the uncensored
>> version of Terminator 2 that has still never been seen here anywhere
>> else.
>>
> I'm glad I don't subscribe to Sky Movies, I would soon cancel anyway if 
> they censored films. Everyone should cancel Movies and tell the operator 
> that cut films won't be accepted, they would soon change their policy 
> again. Trouble is, most viewers don't realise or care (same with DVDs, 
> many people do not realise that the BBFC insist on cuts for lower 
> ratings).
>

Seems sensible to me. Too many parents allow their kids to grow up to 
qucikly. So a movie which cinemas would only allow 12+ accompanied with an 
adult gets watched on DVD by 5 year olds. So blame bad parents  for more 
strict home video censorship.

How many homes with children store their adult DVD's separately?

"John Russell"  wrote:
 

>
>"Brian W"  wrote in message 
>news:5wR6j.14508$yZ4.1461@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Edster"  wrote in message 
>> news:s8uil3pvk79n0638o1ostii0pm36ovaq5s@4ax.com...
>>> "Larry"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>
>>> They stopped showing uncensored films a long, long time ago. Around
>>> the time when they switched from rating films by the time they were
>>> shown at (8, 10 and 11) to what the British Board of Film Censors use
>>> for cinema and video/DVD ratings (12, 15, 18, etc). I don't know if
>>> they were forced into doing that, or if they just decided to do it
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> Before then, they used to show a lot of films with an 11pm rating that
>>> were either heavily censored, or completely forbidden in this country.
>>> Not just sex either. They showed Texas Chainsaw Massacar 2 and
>>> Braindead while they were still banned here, and the uncensored
>>> version of Terminator 2 that has still never been seen here anywhere
>>> else.
>>>
>> I'm glad I don't subscribe to Sky Movies, I would soon cancel anyway if 
>> they censored films. Everyone should cancel Movies and tell the operator 
>> that cut films won't be accepted, they would soon change their policy 
>> again. Trouble is, most viewers don't realise or care (same with DVDs, 
>> many people do not realise that the BBFC insist on cuts for lower 
>> ratings).
>>
>
>Seems sensible to me. Too many parents allow their kids to grow up to 
>qucikly. So a movie which cinemas would only allow 12+ accompanied with an 
>adult gets watched on DVD by 5 year olds. So blame bad parents  for more 
>strict home video censorship.
>
>How many homes with children store their adult DVD's separately? 
>

How many homes don't have any children at all? Why should adults have
to buy their DVDs from another country just because a few people can't
control what their children do?

"John Russell"  wrote:
 

>
>"Edster"  wrote in message 
>news:cejnl3daue6h93p0gfj65pavbnr4devecv@4ax.com...
>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Russell wrote:
>>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>>
>>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>>
>>>Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie 
>>>subscription
>>>channel.
>>>
>>>Gaz
>>>
>>
>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>
>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government to 
>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person who 
>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government should 
>be doing it. Or indeed everything you  believe they government should be 
>doing is someone else's idea of a nanny state!
>
>The idea is to imply that some things are beyond reasonable discussion, to 
>belittle those who suggest it rather than debate actual legislation, a bit 
>like Guns Laws in the USA. 
>

What would you call treating everyone as if they are a child? Because
that is exactly what censoring all films down to a safe level for
viewing by children is. I don't see many 5 year old children in the
cinema watching 18 rated films, but those are also censored. And now
they've started banning games as well.

Edster wrote:
> "Gaz"  wrote:
>
>
>> John Russell wrote:
>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>
>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>
>> Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie
>> subscription channel.
>>
>> Gaz
>>
>
> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.

In many areas sensibilities are far more offended in the USA then here, but 
what you do find, is a stronger belief in 'horses for course' kind of 
liberty. Mainstream freely available TV is for more restrictive of sexual 
and violent behaviour then over here, but to counter balance that, you are 
able to subscribe to TV channels that are encrypted that are, pretty much 
free to do as they wish (within the law), from real hardcore adult 
pornography, to extreme political views etc.

Gaz

"Gaz"  wrote:
 

>Edster wrote:
>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>>
>>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>>
>>> Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie
>>> subscription channel.
>>>
>>> Gaz
>>>
>>
>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>
>In many areas sensibilities are far more offended in the USA then here, but 
>what you do find, is a stronger belief in 'horses for course' kind of 
>liberty. Mainstream freely available TV is for more restrictive of sexual 
>and violent behaviour then over here, but to counter balance that, you are 
>able to subscribe to TV channels that are encrypted that are, pretty much 
>free to do as they wish (within the law), from real hardcore adult 
>pornography, to extreme political views etc.
>
>Gaz 
>

I think the main difference with America is that their government
doesn't think its any of their business what people want to watch.
Unlike here and China.

In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>
>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>
>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government to
>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person who
>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government should
>be doing it.

But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to 
restrict freedoms. :(
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:08:44 -0000, "Gaz"  wrote:

>Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie subscription 
>channel.

Don't count on it. If I'm not mistaken, many of the 'unwitting'
participants in the film instituted legal action against the makers,
and amongst their demands was the removal of such scenes from all
further screenings in any medium. (Cinema, DVD, TV, etc.) 

--

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>
>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>
>>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government 
>>to
>>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person 
>>who
>>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government 
>>should
>>be doing it.
>
> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to 
> restrict freedoms. :(

And their opinions is not valid? The government gets blamed for all and 
sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.
Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms  have to be 
limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation. Think about the next time 
you want an ambulance in an emergency.

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:0b1ol39685igen9sor5rktaom0kd5al59n@4ax.com...
> "Gaz"  wrote:
>
>
>>Edster wrote:
>>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>>>
>>>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>>>
>>>> Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie
>>>> subscription channel.
>>>>
>>>> Gaz
>>>>
>>>
>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>
>>In many areas sensibilities are far more offended in the USA then here, 
>>but
>>what you do find, is a stronger belief in 'horses for course' kind of
>>liberty. Mainstream freely available TV is for more restrictive of sexual
>>and violent behaviour then over here, but to counter balance that, you are
>>able to subscribe to TV channels that are encrypted that are, pretty much
>>free to do as they wish (within the law), from real hardcore adult
>>pornography, to extreme political views etc.
>>
>>Gaz
>>
>
> I think the main difference with America is that their government
> doesn't think its any of their business what people want to watch.
> Unlike here and China.

Only the Liberals believe that. There are many in the US who believe 
Christian ethics should define what everyone in the US should do, hence the 
problem for any Republican who believes in a women's freedom to have an 
abortion. Really some people look at the USA through rose coloured glasses. 
If you like the US go there!

"John Russell"  wrote:
 

>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
>news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>>
>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>
>>>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government 
>>>to
>>>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person 
>>>who
>>>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government 
>>>should
>>>be doing it.
>>
>> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to 
>> restrict freedoms. :(
>
>And their opinions is not valid? The government gets blamed for all and 
>sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.
>Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms  have to be 
>limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation. Think about the next time 
>you want an ambulance in an emergency. 
>

They have ambulances in America.

"John Russell"  wrote:
 

>
>"Edster"  wrote in message 
>news:0b1ol39685igen9sor5rktaom0kd5al59n@4ax.com...
>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edster wrote:
>>>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>>>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie
>>>>> subscription channel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gaz
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>
>>>In many areas sensibilities are far more offended in the USA then here, 
>>>but
>>>what you do find, is a stronger belief in 'horses for course' kind of
>>>liberty. Mainstream freely available TV is for more restrictive of sexual
>>>and violent behaviour then over here, but to counter balance that, you are
>>>able to subscribe to TV channels that are encrypted that are, pretty much
>>>free to do as they wish (within the law), from real hardcore adult
>>>pornography, to extreme political views etc.
>>>
>>>Gaz
>>>
>>
>> I think the main difference with America is that their government
>> doesn't think its any of their business what people want to watch.
>> Unlike here and China.
>
>Only the Liberals believe that. There are many in the US who believe 
>Christian ethics should define what everyone in the US should do, hence the 
>problem for any Republican who believes in a women's freedom to have an 
>abortion. Really some people look at the USA through rose coloured glasses. 
>If you like the US go there! 
>

If you like censorship so much why don't you move to China?

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:8h4pl3p3ab7vierf6a31q6tn57qijo3loe@4ax.com...
> "John Russell"  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>>news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>>
>>>>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the 
>>>>government
>>>>to
>>>>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person
>>>>who
>>>>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government
>>>>should
>>>>be doing it.
>>>
>>> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to
>>> restrict freedoms. :(
>>
>>And their opinions is not valid? The government gets blamed for all and
>>sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.
>>Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms  have to 
>>be
>>limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation. Think about the next 
>>time
>>you want an ambulance in an emergency.
>>
>
> They have ambulances in America.

....and they charge if you don't have the right insurance!

"Edster"  wrote in message 
news:pj4pl3lakfhrrc9b16pdfgsnp89i3tju36@4ax.com...
> "John Russell"  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"Edster"  wrote in message
>>news:0b1ol39685igen9sor5rktaom0kd5al59n@4ax.com...
>>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edster wrote:
>>>>> "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Russell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Larry"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:TrednXYx5vse88XanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>>> Borat has been cut to pieces
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did they cut out? Anything that might upset Americans? I guess
>>>>>>> that must mean the cut film is 5 mins long!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie
>>>>>> subscription channel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gaz
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>>
>>>>In many areas sensibilities are far more offended in the USA then here,
>>>>but
>>>>what you do find, is a stronger belief in 'horses for course' kind of
>>>>liberty. Mainstream freely available TV is for more restrictive of 
>>>>sexual
>>>>and violent behaviour then over here, but to counter balance that, you 
>>>>are
>>>>able to subscribe to TV channels that are encrypted that are, pretty 
>>>>much
>>>>free to do as they wish (within the law), from real hardcore adult
>>>>pornography, to extreme political views etc.
>>>>
>>>>Gaz
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the main difference with America is that their government
>>> doesn't think its any of their business what people want to watch.
>>> Unlike here and China.
>>
>>Only the Liberals believe that. There are many in the US who believe
>>Christian ethics should define what everyone in the US should do, hence 
>>the
>>problem for any Republican who believes in a women's freedom to have an
>>abortion. Really some people look at the USA through rose coloured 
>>glasses.
>>If you like the US go there!
>>
>
> If you like censorship so much why don't you move to China?

Because the UK, as usual, has the right balance which pisses of both ends of 
the spectrum of opinion.

In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>>
>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>
>>>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government
>>>to
>>>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person
>>>who
>>>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government
>>>should
>>>be doing it.
>>
>> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to
>> restrict freedoms. :(
>
>And their opinions is not valid?

All right... the gov't *acts* on the suggestions of those who want to 
restrict freedoms, while ignoring the other side of the argument.

Hence we get : political correctness, the nanny state, 28 day 
'internment' without charge (pushing for much longer), etc. :(

>The government gets blamed for all and
>sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.

The back stops with them.

>Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms  have to be
>limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation.

But the gov'ts choice is arbitrary, not by consensus! :(

>Think about the next time
>you want an ambulance in an emergency.
>
Straw man.
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In uk.media.tv.sky on Mon, 10 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>
>>>Only the Liberals believe that. There are many in the US who believe
>>>Christian ethics should define what everyone in the US should do, hence
>>>the
>>>problem for any Republican who believes in a women's freedom to have an
>>>abortion. Really some people look at the USA through rose coloured
>>>glasses.
>>>If you like the US go there!
>>>
>>
>> If you like censorship so much why don't you move to China?
>
>Because the UK, as usual, has the right balance which pisses of both ends of
>the spectrum of opinion.
>
I don't hear the PC censorship-lovers complaining...
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In , Zero@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz
(Zero Tolerance) wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:08:44 -0000, "Gaz"  wrote:
>
>>Well, it wouldnt have been cut on an American late night movie subscription 
>>channel.
>
>Don't count on it. If I'm not mistaken, many of the 'unwitting'
>participants in the film instituted legal action against the makers,
>and amongst their demands was the removal of such scenes from all
>further screenings in any medium. (Cinema, DVD, TV, etc.) 

They may well have made such "demands", but I thought they'd been laughed
out of court?

John Russell wrote:
> "Edster"  wrote in message
> news:8h4pl3p3ab7vierf6a31q6tn57qijo3loe@4ax.com...
>> "John Russell"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>>> news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>>>
>>>>> God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the
>>>>> government
>>>>> to
>>>>> do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every
>>>>> person who
>>>>> objects to something you can find someone who believes the
>>>>> government should
>>>>> be doing it.
>>>>
>>>> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to
>>>> restrict freedoms. :(
>>>
>>> And their opinions is not valid? The government gets blamed for all
>>> and sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.
>>> Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms have to 
>>> be
>>> limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation. Think about the
>>> next time
>>> you want an ambulance in an emergency.
>>>
>>
>> They have ambulances in America.
>
> ....and they charge if you don't have the right insurance!

They charge for road traffic accidents here....

Gaz

John Russell wrote:
> "Edster"  wrote in message
> news:0b1ol39685igen9sor5rktaom0kd5al59n@4ax.com...
>> "Gaz"  wrote:

>
> Only the Liberals believe that. There are many in the US who believe
> Christian ethics should define what everyone in the US should do,

Thats why they have a secular system of government.

> hence the problem for any Republican who believes in a women's
> freedom to have an abortion.

From a political perspective, much of the controvesy over abortion is due to 
the over riding of the powers of the State to choose, the Supreme Court in 
essence decided for the whole country, for something which would normally 
decided on a state by state basis.

> Really some people look at the USA
> through rose coloured glasses. If you like the US go there!

The US has a lot of faults, but its benefits outweigh its faults.

Gaz

Paul Hyett  wrote:
 

>In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>
>>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>>news:rMc24QC9JEXHFw7e@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> In uk.media.tv.sky on Sun, 9 Dec 2007, John Russell wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>> Americans wouldn't put up with a nanny state.
>>>>
>>>>God I'm sick of that  term. Everyone has things  they want the government
>>>>to
>>>>do, and others things you wish they didn't. The fact is for every person
>>>>who
>>>>objects to something you can find someone who believes the government
>>>>should
>>>>be doing it.
>>>
>>> But the problem is, the Labour gov't *listens* to those who want to
>>> restrict freedoms. :(
>>
>>And their opinions is not valid?
>
>All right... the gov't *acts* on the suggestions of those who want to 
>restrict freedoms, while ignoring the other side of the argument.
>
>Hence we get : political correctness, the nanny state, 28 day 
>'internment' without charge (pushing for much longer), etc. :(
>
>>The government gets blamed for all and
>>sundry even by those who don't want the so called Nanny State.
>
>The back stops with them.
>
>>Civilisation is based on rights "and" responsibilities. Freedoms  have to be
>>limited to share in the  benefits of civilisation.
>
>But the gov'ts choice is arbitrary, not by consensus! :(
>
>>Think about the next time
>>you want an ambulance in an emergency.
>>
>Straw man.

They use the same tactics against anyone they want to demonise. If
you're against locking people up without trial for 3 months you must
be a terrorist sympathiser. If you're against censoring horror films
you must want there to be millions of psychotic killers on the
streets. Make people think anyone who speaks out is an enemy, and make
normal people afraid to speak out.

the strong slender body moving in front of him,
with  the scarlet sash that was just tight enough to bring out the curve of
her  hips, the sense of his own inferiority was heavy upon him. Even now it
seemed  quite likely that when she turned round and looked at him she would
draw  back  after all.  The sweetness of  the air and  the greenness of the
leaves  daunted him.  Already on the walk from the station the May sunshine
had  made  him feel  dirty and  etiolated, a creature  of indoors, with the
sooty dust of London in the pores of his skin. It occurred to him that till
now  she  had probably never  seen him in broad  daylight in the open. They
came  to the  fallen tree that she  had spoken of. The girl hopped over and
forced apart the bushes, in which there did not seem to be an opening. When
Winston followed her, he found that they were in a natural clearing, a tiny
grassy  knoll  surrounded by tall saplings  that shut it in completely. The
girl stopped and turned.
     'Here we are,' she said.
     He  was facing her  at several paces" distance. As yet he did not dare
move nearer to her.
     'I  didn't  want to say  anything in the lane,'  she went on, 'in case
there's  a mike hidden there. I don't suppose there is, but there could be.
There's  always  the chance of  one of  those swine recognizing your voice.
We're all right here.'
     He  still had not the courage to approach her. 'We're all right here?'
he repeated st

past in either
direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.
     'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
     'I  don't know.  I don't know. You  will kill me if you do that again.
Four, five, six -- in all honesty I don't know.'
     'Better,' said O'Brien.
     A  needle slid  into  Winston's  arm. Almost  in  the  same instant  a
blissful,  healing warmth spread all through his body. The pain was already
half-forgotten.  He opened his eyes and looked up gratefully at O'Brien. At
sight  of the  heavy, lined  face, so  ugly and  so intelligent,  his heart
seemed  to turn over.  If he could have moved he would have stretched out a
hand  and  laid it on O'Brien  arm. He had never  loved him so deeply as at
this  moment, and  not merely  because  he had  stopped the  pain. The  old
feeling,  that at bottom  it did not matter whether O'Brien was a friend or
an  enemy,  had come  back. O'Brien  was a  person who  could be talked to.
Perhaps  one did not  want to be loved so much as to be understood. O'Brien
had  tortured  him to  the edge  of lunacy, and  in a  little while, it was
certain,  he  would send him  to his death. It  made no difference. In some
sense  that went  deeper than friendship, they were intimates: somewhere or
other,  although the  actual words might never be spoken, there was a place
where  they  could meet and  talk. O'Brien was looking  down at him with an
expression  which suggested that the same thought might be in his own mind.
When he spoke it was in an easy, conversational tone.
     'Do you know where you are, Winston?' he said.
     'I don't know. I can guess. In the Ministry of Love.'
     'Do you know how long you have been here?'
     'I don't know. Days, weeks, months -- I think it is months.'
     'And why do you imagine that we bring people to this place?'
     'To make them confess.'
     'No, that is not the reason.

with a
servant-like air, the air of a valet enjoying a privilege. Winston regarded
him  out of the  corner of his eye. It struck him that the man's whole life
was playing a part, and that he felt it to be dangerous to drop his assumed
personality  even  for a moment. O'Brien  took the decanter by the neck and
filled  up  the glasses with  a dark-red liquid.  It aroused in Winston dim
memories  of  something seen  long ago  on a wall  or a  hoarding -- a vast
bottle  composed  of electric lights  which seemed to  move up and down and
pour  its contents into  a glass. Seen from the top the stuff looked almost
black,  but  in the  decanter it gleamed  like a ruby.  It had a sour-sweet
smell. He saw Julia pick up her glass and sniff at it with frank curiosity.
     'It  is called  wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have
read about it in books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I
am  afraid.' His face  grew solemn again, and he raised his glass: 'I think
it  is fitting that we should begin by drinking a health. To our Leader: To
Emmanuel Goldstein.'
     Winston  took up  his glass with a certain eagernes

pain  and  perhaps  with  a  broken  bone.  Already  he  had
instinctively  started forward  to help her. In the moment when he had seen
her fall on the bandaged arm, it had been as though he felt the pain in his
own body.
     'You're hurt?' he said.
     'It's nothing. My arm. It'll be all right in a second.'
     She  spoke as  though her  heart  were fluttering.  She had  certainly
turned very pale.
     'You haven't broken anything?'
     'No, I'm all right. It hurt for a moment, that's all.'
     She  held  out her  free hand  to him, and  he helped  her up. She had
regained some of her colour, and appeared very much better.
     'It's nothing,' she repeated shortly. 'I only gave my wrist a bit of a
bang. Thanks, comrade!'
     And  with  that she walked  on in the direction  in which she had been
going,  as briskly as though it had really been nothing. The whole incident
could  not have  taken as much as  half a minute. Not to let one's feelings
appear  in one's  face was  a  habit that  had  acquired the  status of  an
instinct,  and  in any case  they had been standing  straight in front of a
telescreen when the thing happened. Nevertheless it had been very difficult
not  to betray a  momentary surprise, for in the two or three seconds while
he  was helping her  up the girl had slipped something into his hand. There
was  no question that she had done it intentionally. It was something small
and  flat. As he  passed through the lavatory door he transferred it to his
pocket  and felt  it with the tips of  his fingers. It was a scrap of paper
folded into a square.
     While he stood at the urinal he managed, with a little more fingering,
to  get it unfolded. Obviously there must be a message of some kind written
on it. For a moment he

> They use the same tactics against anyone they want to demonise. If
> you're against locking people up without trial for 3 months you must
> be a terrorist sympathiser. If you're against censoring horror films
> you must want there to be millions of psychotic killers on the
> streets. Make people think anyone who speaks out is an enemy, and make
> normal people afraid to speak out.

I agree
I recommendet Alex Jones videos: "Zeitgeist", "Endgame".