Mfw Britain doesn't have a constitution like the USA

>mfw Britain doesn't have a constitution like the USA

Other urls found in this thread:

gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism
gov.uk/government/news/coercive-or-controlling-behaviour-now-a-crime
freedomhouse.org/report/fiw-2017-table-country-scores
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016.pdf
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/14/police-chief-told-officers-to-arrest-first-and-investigate-later/
theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/uk-security-agencies-unlawfully-collected-data-for-decade
theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier
youtu.be/MkR5X9d2Ark
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No country does. Each constitution is different.

However, in lieu of a codified constitution, the UK does have constitutional conventions older and stronger than the codified constitutions of many other countries.

Let's best honest here. At least you don't have paleo conservatives who regard the constitution as drafted a few centuries ago like holy scripture.

Britain has Sovereignty of Parliament, which is a much better basis for government than the necrocracy of a written constitution.

>which is a much better basis for government

Yes, goy. I sure do love our freedoms being taken away because our elected representatives think it makes us """""""safe"""""""""

Yes we do you stupid twat.

I think you mean "Britain doesn't have a written constitution like the USA". The fact that our constitution is one of the greatest advantages. In the past year alone several constitutional conventions that were sacrosanct for decades were cast aside when they became no longer useful, such as collective cabinet responsibility. Meanwhile in the US you have absolute chaos stemming from arguments over gun controls.

The UK constitution is the ultimate display of British pragmatism there is. A country where officially the Queen could order the armed forces into Parliament at any time, but in practice chooses not to. It saves all that mucking about with constitutional oversight and "muh sacred founding fathers".

Americans regard freedom as nationalistic meme they don't actually care about freedom and most unbiased freedom indexes put the USA well down in the list of developed countries.

>collective cabinet responsibility
>gone
>implying BoJo is on the cabinet for any reason other than t o shut his ass up
kk

>such as collective cabinet responsibility. Meanwhile in the US you have absolute chaos stemming from arguments over gun controls.

I sure do love our laws being tossed aside so easily, goy.

mmmMMMMMMM! Yes! Please fuck me in the ass government!

>Americans regard freedom as nationalistic meme
This. Just like France's obsession with Liberty or China's obsession with stability despite neither displaying much of them historically.

>and most unbiased freedom indexes put the USA well down in the list of developed countries.

nonsense and a complete fabrication on your part

I misspoke. I don't mean totally gone. I meant it was temporarily discarded so that the Cabinet could pick sides over the EU referendum.

You are right though, it's far better to have Boris in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in. The guy is too popular to have wandering about in the wilderness like a toddler with a hand grenade.

>I sure do love our laws being tossed aside so easily, goy.

If there's an issue, the judiciary can step in at any time due to judicial review. It's much better than total constitutional deadlock as you have to get all 3 branches of the state to agree with lot of arbitrary restrictions and required voting majorities.

And where has the judiciary been with the recent laws against our freedom of speech?

Or do you support such laws?

Would you specify which recent censorship legislation has jeopardised the UK constitution? Surely you don't mean the Investigatory Powers Bill/Snooper's Charter?

That is but one.


gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism

gov.uk/government/news/coercive-or-controlling-behaviour-now-a-crime

It does have a constitution you imbecile, its just not codified into one document.

freedomhouse.org/report/fiw-2017-table-country-scores

object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016.pdf

>claim that they care about freedom
>don't give a fuck about the government spying on them on a massive scale so long as the guy who initiates it is black

While I don't like the first one, you're mad if you think it represents a significant threat to free speech, or at least enough to be constitutionally significant in any way. Plus, you're assuming that it will be enforced.

Also

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted

What the hell has any of this got to do with freedom of speech? Under ss 1(b) you have to be personally connected with the victim for there to be a criminal offence, with ss 2 defining personally connected. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

That first link kind of puts it on par with most of Western Europe though

>Plus, you're assuming that it will be enforced.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHA

Yes, yes, don't worry, goy! It will not be enforced, it's just been put through for no reason!


telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/14/police-chief-told-officers-to-arrest-first-and-investigate-later/

Lets not be disingenuous. The NSA is one of the least trusted government agencies.

I didn't suggest they were Venezuela. I said they were well down the list of developed countries, which is accurate.

Certainly nothing to shout "freedom!" at other people from developed countries about on the Internet.

True. Ultimately it's the narcissism of minor differences.

>a law is on the statute books
>this means it is going to be enforced

Do you have any idea how the Crown Prosecution Service works? The Police don't have a say in what actually happens.

The criminal offence of wrongful trading for instance was supposed to be absolutely terrifying for business directors, but ended up not being enforced at all. There are hundreds of offences on the statute books that are theoretically in force but the CPS doesn't bother doing shit about them, and the Police don't arrest people for. There's the small matter of the right to drive sheep over London Bridge. You don't see people getting arrested for that offence too often even when people do it.

Should have fought for a Republican government then

Whatever, friend!

Enjoy your police-state!

If you think the Police making signals to shut the vocal Jewish minority up and stop their whining means we're a police state then you're obviously not fit to be on this board. Get back to lurking, kiddo.

Maybe, but the discussion was started by a Yank shouting "freedoms!" and I was then call a liar who fabricated my response about the independent freedom indexes not supporting this claim.

>Wow, now that's an argument!

Yes, we're definitely not a police state :^)

theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/uk-security-agencies-unlawfully-collected-data-for-decade


theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

This isn't Oceania, user. Yes that shit is bad, and worse even than America's actions, but it's not exactly hellish, or even close to what would constitute a police state. Our police is too incompetent, bureaucratic and downright silly to pose an actual threat to us. They don't even carry handguns.

>or even close to what would constitute a police state. Our police is too incompetent, bureaucratic and downright silly to pose an actual threat to us. They don't even carry handguns.

Yes, yes goy! Just keep passing laws which breach our privacy, the police are too dumb to act on them anyway!


Hey, what about that dodgy dossier that led to the wasting of billions of pounds and the deaths of thousands of innocent foreign civilians? What about the mysterious death of the wmd investigator?

S-SHUT UP GOY, WE'RE TOO INCOMPETENT TO ACT ON THEM ANYWAY!

You should return to /pol/ I think user.

Ah yes, no argument to be found.

>return to /pol/


The majority of those retards support government surveillance, idiot.

>Ah yes, no argument to be found.

May I refer you to post
You're throwing out /pol/ red flags like nobody's business. It's easier not to engage substantially with that once the contagion is detected.

Not the same user but you aren't really making an argument either.

The dodgy dossier, for example, isn't really much of an argument that you live in a literal police state.

It's no good making a wild claim and instead of supporting your position with actual substance to start moving off to specific issues that the user may or may not agree with you on and say "what about this?" and "what about that?".

>You're throwing out /pol/ red flags like nobody's business. It's easier not to engage substantially with that once the contagion is detected.

Like I said, /pol/tards support government surveillance which I don't.

It's a Liberal principle to believe in Freedom, not a Nazi one.

>The dodgy dossier, for example, isn't really much of an argument that you live in a literal police state.

Yes, a dossier which used information from a student thesis and was completely fabricated is definitely not evidence that the government is corrupt or that we live in a police state!

Why would it be?

What relevance does it have to your rights if you were say accused of shoplifting tomorrow?

Hows about the increased risk of civilian death from foreign war?

Hows about the billions wasted which could be spent on citizen health care?


Are you seriously excusing what happened? Are you that much of a government cuck?

How about I may or may not agree with you on say on that but it has little relevance to claiming to live in a police state?

You are being completely incoherent.

>Give evidence that the security services have been illegally collecting data for 2 decades (ruled by a court)

That's not evidence!!!!


>Give evidence that speech is being threatened


That's not evidence!!!


>Give evidence that police are arresting people before forming investigations on rape


That's not evidence!!!


Really makes you think

It's more evidence that the Labour administration between 1997 and 2010 was corrupt than anything else.

user you are a complete tool.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a police state is.

Yes because the Conservatives are definitely innocent with Libya, good goy.

Fuck off, Conservative shill.

Your arguments are fallacious, i.e. the premise does not meet the conclusion. Nothing you are saying is evidence you live in a police state.

You are claiming a=x and when I point out a≠x you just come back with....

>are you saying a is not true!!!!!

I didn't say they weren't. But you seem to be arguing that every single administration is intrinsically corrupt.

It's a typical /pol/ marker when someone mistakes incompetence and arse covering with maliciousness and evil.

Shouting /pol/ is not an argument. Fuck off, retard. I am NOT a Nazi.

Logic is not applicable to this discussion or MY opinion, retard.

You are such a braindead autist that you actually think the principles of logic are applicable to a subjective discussion of political opinion.

In other words, kill yourself.

I didn't even mention Nazis user. You seem to be acting very reflexively. Are you sure you are feeling alright?

>You are such a braindead autist that you actually think the principles of logic are applicable to a subjective discussion of political opinion.

My fucking sides.

Logic is applicable to every discussion and you claiming something is your opinion is not an argument.

>Are you sure you are feeling alright?

Nice attempt at trying to make your opponent feel paranoid. Might work on the schoolyard but not with me, idiot.

>Logic is applicable to every discussion

No, it is not, retard. Language is far more nuanced as is subjective opinion and Logic cannot be applied here.


Do not get into this discussion with me, retard. I spent 2 years at University studying formal logic and the entire history of 20th century philosophy/scientific method.

I will knock your fucking skull into a wall.

Knew it.

>I will knock your fucking skull into a wall.

Alright m8 I think it's time for your autism pills

Just because a topic is subjective that is not an excuse for being illogical or making a stupid point and then claiming it must be correct because "that's my opinion".

>then claiming it must be correct

No one stated this, shill.

This thread is why /pol/ needs to be gassed.

>believing in freedom of speech and small government makes you from /pol/


Pretty sure that's a Classically Liberal opinion, brainlet.

You specifically claimed you could be illogical because a subjective topic was being discussed and it was "your opinion".

I think he was referring to the low quality posting and terrible arguments.

Veeky Forums doesn't hate /pol/ because of its politics. It hates /pol/ because it is full of imbeciles.

Let's be real here, why does a country even need a constitution?

>you could be illogical

Still applying logic, brainlet.

user, as an outside observer, in their defense, you keep adding "goy" to half your posts. Is it really that surprising they'd assume your a nazi?

I use the word goy because it sounds funny and gets my point across.

I am actually very much opposed to anti-Semitism but I care about free-speech more.

You aren't even making sense at this point, not that you ever were. I'll let you have the last nonsensical post. I'm bored of you.

I believe in freedom of speech and small government. You're just an idiot.

Do you mean written constitution? They don't. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, and it works a thousand times better than most countries with written constitutions.

Well, whatever floats your boat user. I'm glad to see you support free-speech.

>mfw Ireland does

The only nations that need constitutions are those that have experienced chaos and depravity in the past three hundred years. Britain has transcended such barbarian concerns.

I know you're meaning well, but having a law come into effect and "not enforced" is actually even worse than having it come into effect and applied equally. Such "unenforced" laws can be selectively applied to anyone the government deems fit. For example, it's like an officer in the US having the power to stop you for speeding, but instead using that power as an in road to "legally" search your vehicle on other pretense.

If a law comes into effect, it should be enforced equally and diligently, not only when those in charge find it convenient or prudent to do so.

OP, the UK doesn't even have a constitution, the notion of a 'British constitution' is absolutely useless. If the UK has a constitution, it is no more than one sentence - the parliament can make or repeal any law it wants.

>i want to ban guns and people saying things I dont like

>holy scripture
I hate this meme.
It's the law of the land. While it remains law it has to be followed. If you don't like it, you can get an amendment passed to change things. If you can't do that then it means that less than 2/3rds of the states agree with your proposed amendment, so you can fuck off.

>bunch of rules written by people with no ulterior motives past the prosperity of their ingroup that has been 'set upon' by another group
>amendments by career politicians
I know which one I'd trust to value the individual more than being based entirely on self-interest.

I'd agree with that in principle, but you can't ignore the role that conventions also play in the regulation of the government.

Also, NZ inherited a better version of the English model in my opinion.

Behold the cry of Autism. No where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a gun, you could have one for use in a state militia which dont exist anymore as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Even if you did, theres no point. You cant use them to fight the government since it be the greatest military on earth vs a bunch of glocs and people too pussy to use them. Having guns only causes problems.

>No where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a gun
Wrong.

It's number 2 in the bill of rights
The right to bear arms

>No where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a gun,

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, free states are secured by a well regulated militia, and the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Since guns are arms, and I'm a person, I have a right to have a gun.

>inb4 muh militia!
Wrap your head around this one:
>A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to purchase and cook vegetables, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to purchase and cook vegetables: the people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

Also well regulated back then meant well trained, hence the term "regulars". People back then owned personal cannons and warships, that would be the modern day equalvlant of owning howitzers and battleships. There are numerous reasons to own firearms other than the quite frankly redicilous meme of overthrowing the ebil gubberment. Uses of firearms are and not only limited to; self defense, hunting, sports/competition shooting, collecting rare or antique firearms, and it is even used as a relaxing tool or hobby.

This is bait.

>the uk has 20% of the world's cctv cameras
>but we're not a police state though
ah yes
your time is over nigel

>muh militia

Here's it broken down for a child to understand
A "free state" is any nation autonomous from any other.
The militia protects the state.
The state can use said militia to oppress the people of said state.

Thus, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms is guaranteed.

Am I supposed to be amazed at these autistic levels of mental gymnastics around the phrase "for use in a state militia" aka not personal use, or is this a joke?

No, a Free State is a Germanic rendition of the word Republic you retard.

>autistic levels of mental gymnastics
It's the linguistic analysis provided to the SCOTUS you faggot.

But this guy summed it up for complete simpletons like you: >A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to purchase and cook vegetables, shall not be infringed.
>Who has the right to purchase and cook vegetables: the people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

>tfw denmark has a constitution

>German = Germanic
You need to get your mug stomped into the pavement for being such a fucking retard

The people who are members of a state militia have the right to bear arms.

In the 18th century, militia members were required to keep arms in their homes. That's why "keep" is mentioned.

So in other words, the states have a right to maintain their national guards, which ever since the Civil War can be under federal command any time the President says so.

>reddit spacing
Yeah it's not like we have a legal reference of usage of the word "people" in the founding documents or anything.

Just because Britain doesn't have a written codified constitution doesn't mean that Britain doesn't have a constitution.

Legal illiterates. Ignorantia iuris nocet

The wording of the Constitution doesn't support your statement, the Supreme Court doesn't support your belief and has upheld ownership and usage of arms as an individual right (DC v. Heller, MacDonald v. Chicago). What is the point that you're attempting to make? Do you believe that ownership of arms is or should be restricted to the states?

It's phone spacing or even Veeky Forums X spacing. If the width of the textbox is small enough the user it tempted to insert unnecessary paragraph breaks.

I agree that the lack of gun rights and other things that people mention suck.
But with an unwritten constitution, 'nothing is ever lost because nothing is ever gained' - all these things can be reversed by repealing certain bills. In the US if the supreme court was subverted by some bizzaro 'living document' school and things like the 1st or 2nd amendment were abridged by their judgements, then they'd be fucked for decades due to the rigidity of the constitution.
A written constitution itself is no guarantee to liberty, East Germany had a written constitution that supposedly guaranteed all sorts of civil freedoms

It is hard for me to regard the conventions as a source/part of the constitution since if they are broken, they cease to exist most of the time, also they cannot be enforced by the courts.
I've got no idea on how the NZ model works, can you spoonfeed me please?

>Worship a goddamned piece of paper and not change it to fit an ever changing society because muh worshipped goddamned piece of paper said so.

>MUH RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS

Also the right of a million gangbangers who will use it to shoot you in the face for your shit car.

>gangbangers
>buying guns legally

This is why you retards have no argument.

>The right to be bombed and beheaded in the Caliphate of Londonstan right before westminister MPs molest your children

fixed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier

>Also the right of a million gangbangers who will use it to shoot you in the face for your shit car.
Not if I shoot them first, like this guy:
youtu.be/MkR5X9d2Ark