h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your generation used up all the available weirdness, leaving none over for us. Ye were just so completely freaky that we're condemned to be bland.

It's the same here in Ireland. Students protest that the student grant isn't big enough. They wouldn't be bothered protesting about anything else. I found it all a bit dispiriting.

TRiG.

Oh no I don't doubt it, but nostalgia is a corruptive thing. I myself long for the days of a scary, passionate angry young men style of youth that protests and gives a damn. Perhaps now universities are having to charge more the idea of just going to university 'cos you don't know what else to do will die out and we will once again be left with the academic elite and the people who really strive and care in life.
Effing well hate people sometimes, grrrr

Hi T2T/PC

But even nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

I was brought up when all everyone ever talked about was WW2, all the films were westerns or about WW2, most of the politicians fought in WW2, and our teachers. That was real nostalgia...sigh

The days when a Bobby, yes they were called that then, could take a young hooligan to task about some minor offence and frighten him rigid. He didn't have to spend half an hour recording the 'interview', and give the thug a receipt, he didn't have to worry about being sued for infringing the little b-st-rd's 'hoomin rights', he didn't need to use an ASBO, he knew where the little bleeder lived and his dad.

Tell the kids that today and they think you lived in an Ealing Studios comedy. But I didn't, and it happened and I was that hooligan.

We had a certain grudging respect for our elders, hope came through hard work, people saved for stuff, and looked after it because they had, the government was not particularly trusted, but neither did people think it was utterly corrupt.

We had fear, of nuclear war and other rather nebulous foreign things, but terrorism was what the irish did to each other.

People could still be shocked.

People walked, and I mean everywhere. If it was too far to walk they got a bus or got on their bikes. I thought nothing of popping over a 2,500' mountain to visit my mates for tea, and getting the bus back because otherwise his mother would worry.

We wrote to people. I had penpals, all over the world. A letter arriving was a really big thing, I'd collect the stamps, read and re-read the letter a dozen times and then slowly pen a clear, cheery reply.

A telephone in the house was a sacred object to be venerated. it was possibly the only one in the street.

Going to university was a badge of honour. It was free, you even got grants to fund your living expenses. When I got into grammar school people I hardly knew stopped me in the high street to congratulate me.

Go on list all the bad stuff, I don't care.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>The days when a Bobby, yes they were called that then, could take a young hooligan to task about some minor offence and frighten him rigid. He didn't have to spend half an hour recording the 'interview', and give the thug a receipt, he didn't have to worry about being sued for infringing the little b-st-rd's 'hoomin rights', he didn't need to use an ASBO, he knew where the little bleeder lived and his dad.

'course these days the polis and local councils have got the power to make up the law as they go along, without parliamentary scrutiny, in clear violation of Article 7 of The Human Rights Act. And the process for imposing Asbos is a breach of Article 6.

See? I don't see students taking to the barricades against this sort of thing.

Incidentally, Math - do I infer that you're no fan of The Human Rights Act? Myself, I think its the best bit of legislation we've ever had - the nearest we've got to a constitution. So I'm puzzled. Pray, precisely which of its provisions do you think are inappropriate? Here's the text in full, and I'd welcome your comments:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm

Hi Eddie

The Human Rights Act, and associated regulatory instruments, is a complete reversal of common sense. This has resulted in an industry of human rights lawyers and the effective paralysis of many arms of government, commerce and industry.

The problem lies with the central tenet that we, as humans, have rights. That is defined privileges that we can exercise, and sue the ass off anyone who even thinks about preventing full use of.

It codifies and underlines the philosophy of the compensation culture. As a result much of local government, the national health service and other bodies spend literally billions ensuring that they cannot be sued and if they are that their insurance will cover it.

The correct approach would have been to define a common set of Social Responsibilities. These would state what was expected of you as a member of this society. It would encompass, honesty, respect, common decency, and the duty of care to others.

I intend, when I get the time, to rewrite the main parts of the Act in this way, as an example of what I mean.

Which would you prefer to hear at the scene of some minor accident:
- I know my rights!
- I know my duty.

The first is the whining demand of a Child, and the latter is the considered response of an Adult. The first is about finding someone to blame, the latter about someone taking responsibility.

This country was built by people who understood their duties to others and the nation as a whole. This act is single-handedly undermining it.

Think on.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>This has resulted in an industry of human rights lawyers and the effective paralysis of many arms of government, commerce and industry.

They've not been delivering the Daily mail to your house by mistake have they, Math? You should be ashamed of falling for such mythology.

Since the Act's introduction, there has NOT been a deluge of human rights cases. There is NOT an army of human rights lawyers. Rather, two phenomena have occurred. Firstly, various decisions have been associated quite erroneously with The Human Rights Act. Secondly, in a few cases, risk-averse organisations with a poor knowledge of the Act have done stupid things *just in case* they fall foul of the Act. Not that they would have anyway.

>>Which would you prefer to hear at the scene of some minor accident:

The Human Rights Act says absolutely nothing about how we should conduct ourselves at the scene of an accident. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In fact, it's about government and judicial conduct, not individual conduct. You'll know that, of course, having read it. Perhaps you'd like to do so again - see link in my previous post - and, as I suggested, comment on which of its provisions you disagree with. One example, just one, will do. There's only one proviso I'd like to make - that you might consider focusing on what the bleeding thing actually says, rather than diverging into irrelevant, half-baked rhetoric concerning rights vs duties.

Really, Math, I'm surprised at you. I thought that you'd approve of a written constitution - or at least the nearest thing we've got to one - which states the limits on the extent to which the government can f-word us up. Theoretically, anyway.

I don't really know anything about the UK legislation, but this reminded me of a conversation I was having some time ago with a school friend. He's a devout communist - one of the token left-wingers at my relatively conservative school - and we were having a political discussion one day that turned round to the US Constitution. I remember advocating the Bill of Rights and all that, and I remember at some point saying "But the Constitution says..."

This boy says, "I don't care what the Constitution says, I care about what's right."

But that doesn't seem quite as sensible to me, somehow. I know it sort of goes against the values I espoused in starting this thread, but it seems to me that not only is "right" deeply subjective, it makes sense to have ethics codified in a system of government - precisely because "right" is subjective. One person's "right" is that all lifestyles should be tolerated - another's is that it is the will of God to persecute anyone who is different. That's why, I think, we need laws to preserve human rights - and why it's sometimes necessary to break other laws - laws about trespassing or obstructing traffic or disturbing the peace - to ask that laws are passed about allowing everyone to marry, to practice or not practice religion, to live in peace, to speak against the government, to vote, to form unique opinions... the list could go on for a very long time, but if these things aren't codified there is no way of ensuring that civil rights and human rights are not eventually eroded - and sometimes they are anyway, regardless of the law.

Well, not sure if that did have to do with the subject, but...

Hi Eddie

Okey dokey, I will give you a good going over on this one next week when I have the time (at work) to strip the bleedin' thing down.

A wise friend of mine (my social psychology lecturer in uni) once remarked that 'we have an awful lot of law in this country, but precious little justice'. And my old favourite right wing nutjob, Lord Denning - former Master of the Rolls and Law Lord, commented that he could reduce the entire legal system to just twelve lines - I'm still waiting for those to be published.

In the mean time I will rely on the founders of Wild Stallion, William S.Preston and Theodore Logan, who expressed all you need to follow in the pronouncement that we should "Be Excellent to One Another".

As for the Daily Mail, well that is one of the prohibitions listed on the brass plaque on my front gate, along with "The Daily Express, any Red Top Tabloid, Candidates for any Political Party, christians who wish to retain their faith, cold callers and other scum - on pain of a good thonging".

I do NOT APPROVE of a written constitution. I studied the US one, the French one and that of the former USSR at college. Both are quite, quite useless because they did not and still do not have a legislature that respects them and a politically-free judiciary to enact them. Also a written constitution can and is often used to justify all sorts of evil. Many Americans are so happy with the way their constitution protects their freedoms that the main case the NRA uses to keep the clause 'to bear arms' is that the guv'mint should fear the people and not vice versa. Lovely, don't mind me I'm just prising this assault rifle from Charlton Heston's cold dead hand...

And last, but not least, the constitution has spawned a compensation/rights based legal industry. Which is now spreading over here. Have you had a trip or fall anywhere in the last three years...?

The advantage we have in the UK is that our Judges and the Civil Service can still put the brakes on the more looney schemes of government. Every time the guv'mint tries to tie tha hands of these two institutions disasters follow.

You know there are people doing good there when Murdoch's dogs take every single opportunity to criticise and condemn them.

Can you please tell me what you believe the overall effect of the Human Rights Act has been on the present guv'mint? Only when a Judge stands up to them does it actually work, for a few days that is, and then Tony's croneys invent another offence to slice that freedom out of the herd.

Laws and constitutions do not make you safe and they certainly do not make you free. Educating people to understand their responsibilities to others, their duties as a citizen, and to respect and even celebrate difference - these might.

Anyhoo, I'll get back to you when I've done some thorough deconstruction on the HRA

Blessings,
Matholwch the anarchist/antichrist .

Job done, Math - I've got you to read the thing at least. You may well have a point about the malaise of selfishness and egocentricity in modern society. You'll see that that has absolutely zilch to do with The Human Rights Act.

Yes, I take the point about criticisms of written constitutions. Governments will always do whatever they want, irrespective of constitution. But the Human Rights Act is a damned sight better than the rest of our famous 'unwritten constitution'. much of which is made up on the hoof by a shadowy elite.

I was a little taken aback, though, given your obvious disapproval of much of the anti-freedom of speech legislation of the Blair government. Ok - so they've been riding roughshod over their own Act. But consider - the govt. has given serious consideration to repealing part of the Act in order to let them bring in whatever anti-terrorism legislation they like. Arbitrary and indefinite detention without trial. That sort of thing. *Surely* you can see that anything that stands in the way of such anti-democratic measures must be 'A Good Thing'?

Can we just get one thing right? The UK does have a written constitution, those statute books containing all the laws, they are real, they aren't just floating round the air ephereally.

To put forward this as an easy syllogism:

A constitution is a set of laws.
The UK's laws are written down.

Ergo, the UK constitution is written down.

Heaven forbid that we should ever have a Consitution other than our beloved monarch and all that goes with her. Looking around the world I see no trace of a credible alternative.

I'm sorry what? Do you somehow have the internet in 1161? Oooh we have a monarch - that does bugger all to do with Parliament other than in name. Our constitution has nothing to do with sovereignity other than in tradition, ostensively it's all under Queen Elizabeth II, but if she wanted to stop a bill, she couldn't. And no monarch really has had total power or control since the dark ages, the Tudors aside due to so much civil war, Parliament has had some power over the monarch since the 13th Century and since the Civil War an increasingly noticable amount.

The Royal Family sit there, increase tourism, retain our reputation, organise charity events, give the red tops a source of stories to sell, give their opinion on things, involve themselves in authority - but they don't do a single jot in terms of what our consitution now is.

er-hum! Your 'beloved' german monarch maybe, but not ours.

But the statutes lack a coherent expression of the limits of their application and of the limits that the legislature can add to them. The Human Rights Act is the first real summation of the overiding principles the statutes. All laws must now be interpreted within the Acts framework. Parliament may not pass laws which contravene the Act.

(But still, Math, nothing whatsoever to do with what we must do following a road accident )

While in Canada over Christmas I was watching a documentary on the Queen on CBC (something you wouldn't get on American public television), and I came across what I've seen as the one good argument for having a constitutional monarchy. The idea of having a head of state who is there for life and who doesn't have any say in government does provide a certain sense of stability for the country, perhaps? I think that the model of the US, where our head of state *is* the head of government, is a poor model - call me ridiculous (and many people have), but it makes more sense to me to allow the ceremonial head of state to be neutral. Of course, there's ways to do this without a monarch - you could have a Governor-General who's completely independent from the Queen, which would certainly be lovely in Canada's case.

Do the other Commonwealth countries have Governor-Generals?

I believe they do, yes. I know Australia certainly does.

"Laws and constitutions do not make you safe and they certainly do not make you free. Educating people to understand their responsibilities to others, their duties as a citizen, and to respect and even celebrate difference - these might."

I'm curious as to why you think this has not already happended. School children have PSE (Personal and Social Education) classes and citizenship lessons. And as to difference, I think the UK is more tolerant now than it has ever been. There certainly appears to be a great deal less racism, homophobia and so on than there has been in even relatively recent decades.

Here the President has very limited powers. All laws must be signed by the President before they are officially entered on the statute books, so she can block new legislation. Our previous President, Mary Robinson, who went on to chair the UN Human Rights thingumijig, refused to sign a couple of laws. But that's about it. So she's a semi-ceremonial head of state.

The head of government is the Taoisech. He is not directly elected. He's just the leader of whatever party happens to get the most seats in the Dáil (Parliment).

TRiG.

How do you pronounce Taoisech and Dail, TRiG? (Imagine that there's an acute accent over the "a".)

Tee-shock (Roughly: the ch is a bit softer than the ck, and the vowel sound is a bit closer to that in /but/.)

Rhymes with /ball/. But it's a light l, not a dark l. I find it very hard to hear the difference.

I have only poor school Irish, and very little linguistic training. Gnomon might give you better answers. These two words, though, are heard on the news almost every day, even on the English language channels. I've even heard them occasionally on BBC Radio 4, though they more usually call Bertie Ahern the "Irish Prime Minister".

TRiG.

>>Do the other Commonwealth countries have Governor-Generals?

No. But some have GovernorS-General. See also Attorneys-General, Sargeants-at-arms, Procurators Fiscal...etc.

Remember that the US constitutional model of an executive president is not the only one possible. Many countries - Ireland, German, Italy - have non-executive presidents with a non-political, constitutional role. Not quite a figurehead...but still, they'd be alarmed if anone could actually remember the president's name.

Vive la republiqe!

Ca ira, ca ira ca ira/ Les aristos a la lanterne!

(French revolutionary song. Approx. translation: " 'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go/ String up the poshos.")