It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Civil Law, which governs contractual disputes such as business deals, marriages, etc...anything where one person or group enters into an agreement with another. This will be stated at the outset of the contract terms to be resolved under any set of laws you wish...whether English, Scottish, Norwegian, Maritime, or Sharia law, and on the condition that is is a fair and above-board contract that all parties agree to be bound by under terms
Why don't we have NO FLAG over Downing street. Stops a load of childish argument. Can anybody explain to me why we have to wave these damn things anyway?
Anyhoo, as for the video, I wouldn't pay it much attention. It's someone's opinion and we have freedom of speech.
Taking sides is not the answer here. This is a fantastic country, and the way we can live and work together is an example to the world.
At my workplace we've had British, Iraqi, Afghani, Iranian, Turkish, East European, West European, Canadian, aethiest, Christian, Muslim, Seikh, male, female, straight, gay etc everybody working together, happy together and NO WAR HAS BROKEN OUT BETWEEN US.
Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by ENGLISH BOB
I think you missunderstand me, to quote you :
So having pride in one's country and the Union flag, and wanting to promote and defend this is a "childish argument" The Union flag should always fly over Downing Street. This is the official resident of The Prime Minister and we should be proud to have The Union Flag atop. And of course you have a choice not to have pride in this country and its flag.
I'm proud of what's been acheived here and most of the world, and wouldn't want any different laws to apply to anyone. I just have trouble seeing what a piece of coloured cloth has to do with it.
Having the ability to express my views on a video that talks about another flag flying over Downing Street is my right. And why would you be on ATS if you did not want to debate a point of view or take a side.
I'll debate a point of view, no problem, but I want everybody to be on the same side talking, not different sides shouting.
And your point? No war has broken out here on ATS or the country in general over this issue. Just people who want to debate both sides of this question.
The point I was trying to make there was we can all exist together quite normally, being different but fully integrated, all part of the same system. No flags required. To be honest if it was up to me all the world would be one country with our (European/American) laws and no flags, but that's just my opinion.
[edit on 15-9-2009 by ENGLISH BOB]
[edit on 15-9-2009 by ENGLISH BOB]
[edit on 15-9-2009 by ENGLISH BOB]
[edit on 15-9-2009 by ENGLISH BOB]
[edit on 15-9-2009 by ENGLISH BOB]
Originally posted by Freedom ERP
The BNP are not proposing to impose a totally alien belief and legal structure on the indigenous population of the UK.
Originally posted by neformore
Griffin is a facist and a racist.
How many other leaders of political parties in the UK can you find photos of in "White power" T-Shirts?
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
you are aware that the BNP came from the National Front, who came from the National Socialists (Nazi party). so their history is rooted in fascism. Like it or not.
Originally posted by Cythraul
How many other leaders of political parties in the UK can you find photos of in "White power" T-Shirts?
Originally posted by Karilla
We are a nation of immigrants, always have been. Saxon, Norman, Viking, Breton, German (The Royals), all have come and been absorbed, even those that came with invasion in mind.
Originally posted by phoenix103
You people have no idea what being British is about. I and millions of others are thoroughly ashamed of you.
Originally posted by neformore
I don't think his conviction for incitement of racial hatred was made up by the media, do you?
Originally posted by neformore
As for the holocaust thing (he refers to it as the "holohoax" btw - but he's not a denier....no.... ) - why does he question it in the first place?
The truth should never fear scrutiny
Originally posted by neformore
So maybe he's trying to do it for historical "accuracy", but if he's so interested in history why does he protest that historical record shouldn't be used against the BNP?