If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   "People are also going into the sea to get the timber, which is madness."   (timesonline.co.uk) divider line 77
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

15094 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2008 at 5:30 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-21 09:40:37 AM  
dwalder: There's no "i" in wood but there's
a piece of wood in that bloke's eyeOH MY GOD!


I'm being greedy but it's just fun to reference two things I love from England.


Shaun of The Dead is a classic.
 
2008-01-21 09:44:44 AM  
canyoneer: SamTana: "The law covers all items, large or small, and any wreckage that remains unclaimed after a year belongs to the Crown."

I can't understand how the British tolerate their leech overlords. It's a whole county full of cowed boot-lickers. Despicable.


Of course, when we say "Crown" in reality we mean "the Government".

/Boot-licking, you say?
//Om Nom Nom!
 
2008-01-21 09:49:03 AM  
Dead-Guy
The reason the finders keepers "law" isn't used here is because if your ship was carrying something you shouldn't automatically be denied ownership just because your ship went down. Otherwise, folks would just sabotage boats, cause them to sink, and take all the goodies. They'd probably go to a port, and work ship to ship, making them all ready to sink soon.. then wait for them to go, and rush in to loot it. These days that's less likely to happen, but in the old days, it's not like you'd get caught... accidents happen.>

There also used to be a certain kind of pirate/saboteur who worked up and down the east coast and in England, around here they were called "moon cussers" but I'm not sure if the name was the same everywhere. They'd stand on a rocky part of the shoreline with a lantern, hoping to trick ships into thinking they were illuminating a safe harbor. When the ship ran aground they'd take the cargo.
 
2008-01-21 09:50:03 AM  
Timber? From the sea?

Whatever floats your boat.
 
2008-01-21 09:59:16 AM  
Yar! Shiver me timbers!
 
2008-01-21 10:02:42 AM  
canyoneer: SamTana: "The law covers all items, large or small, and any wreckage that remains unclaimed after a year belongs to the Crown."

I can't understand how the British tolerate their leech overlords. It's a whole county full of cowed boot-lickers. Despicable.


The same way the U.S. tolerates its politicians. A large part of the population being sheep, who do what they're told because they're afraid of police, and police willing to perform unjust actions to preserve their meager paycheck, and rich people bribing politicians because they want even more money and power. That's what it ultimately comes down to, a big ugly circle of fear and greed.
 
2008-01-21 10:12:05 AM  
SamTana: "Of course, when we say "Crown" in reality we mean 'the Government.' Boot-licking, you say?"

Ahem.

Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million. The Head of State Expenditure does not include the cost of security.

Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year.

Only some members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.

The Duke of York: £249,000 per annum
The Earl and Countess of Wessex: £141,000 per annum
The Princess Royal: £228,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester: £175,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: £236,000 per annum
Princess Alexandra £225,000 per annum
These amounts are repaid by The Queen from her private funds.

Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, the Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only the Queen and Prince Philip would receive civil list payments. Since 1993 the Queen's personal income has been taxed as any other Briton. The Queen's private estate (eg shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, however bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt.


Boot lickers.

Not only do you suckers lick the boots of these royal layabouts, you lick them knowing full well that these royal layabouts view you all as lowly commoners and untitled scum, no more worthy of consideration than insects. It's pathetic. If the British people had any guts or pride they'd have run the royals out of the country or chopped their heads off long ago. It's a ridiculous anachronism. The French and Americans tossed the royal leeches out over two hundred years ago. How does it feel to be on par with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
 
2008-01-21 10:28:10 AM  
canyoneer:

Ahem.

Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament.


Ahem back at you - "The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament". Parliament = the government.

/I'm not going to defend paying vast sums for royalty. I thought we were an anarcho-cyniclist commune!
 
2008-01-21 10:30:08 AM  
BTW, the point remains: steal wood from the beach, you'll find yourself in lumber.
 
2008-01-21 10:44:04 AM  
It's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
 
2008-01-21 10:44:37 AM  
i can see the point of not taking the wood if it is known where it came from, but isn't there something about flotsam and jetsam? or is that only when it is unknown where it originated? (kind of hard in this day and age when there is so much technology to track merchandise)
 
2008-01-21 10:49:08 AM  
SamTana

www.maps-of-britain.co.uk

=

www.alberta-canada.com

Savages.
 
2008-01-21 10:56:33 AM  
Weaver95: Are you serious? If it washes up on shore it should be fair game. Shouldn't it?

If it has no owner or its owner is unknown, then yes, but in this case the owners already have official salvage companies working on the beach to remove the wood. People who are taking it are removing it either from already salvaged piles, or from under the noses of the owners who are trying to collect it.

If you dropped money in the street and walked away without noticing, you might consider it lost, but if you dropped a handful of cash and people started to grab it and run while you were picking it up, I'm sure you'd consider that to be theft.

The wood is due to be auctioned off when it's been collected and sorted, anyone who wants some should buy it legally when it's sold off.

canyoneer: I can't understand how the British tolerate their leech overlords. It's a whole county full of cowed boot-lickers. Despicable.

Our royal family have zero powers over the citizenry of this country, unlike your ruling families who have shared the power in the Whitehouse for the last twenty eight years and might be there again for the next eight and who screw with your rights at every step.

Who're the cowed boot-lickers?

BTW, you might want to try to understand what property belonging to the Crown means in these circumstances.
 
2008-01-21 11:15:47 AM  
BarryJV

www.jumpstation.ca

"...and who screw with your rights at every step."

i53.photobucket.com
 
2008-01-21 11:22:57 AM  
canyoneer: If the British people had any guts or pride they'd have run the royals out of the country or chopped their heads off long ago.

We did.

Then we discovered that the alternatives were just as bad and we brought them back in a purely symbolic role as head of state. A role that's kept Britain out of the hands of dictators for over three hundred years. They get paid for performing public relations functions, such as hosting leaders from countries that the government wants to sell weapons to and other symbolic functions. The pay is less than they would receive for performing those roles if they were operating as a private PR company.

They are a rich family and own a lot of land, that's hardly unique. The lands, houses and estates of the sovereign are not taxable when inherited, but nor are they saleable, they have zero effective value because the value can never be realised.

All in all, a lot of British question whether we need a royal family, but there's no real movement for change because they cost so little compared with other government expenditure and, most importantly, they have no power over the everyday lives of British citizens.

Things the Queen cannot do:
- Use the invasion of another country to benefit a corporation run by her deputy.
- Appoint an attorney general that will ignore the law in order to trample the rights of citizens.
- Declare people to be enemy combatants and have them dragged off to a prison camp without a trial.

How's that president working out for you?
 
2008-01-21 11:26:59 AM  
one step beyond?
 
2008-01-21 11:39:13 AM  
some people had arrived with vans intending to steal a large quantity of timber.

Steal? I always thought that any cargo washing ashore was pretty well up for grabs. Especially considering that the maritime industry looses about a ship a month.
 
2008-01-21 11:41:40 AM  
BarryJV:

"Things the Queen cannot do:
- Use the invasion of another country to benefit a corporation run by her deputy.
- Appoint an attorney general that will ignore the law in order to trample the rights of citizens.
- Declare people to be enemy combatants and have them dragged off to a prison camp without a trial.

How's that president working out for you?"


That president hasn't changed my life one sh*tty little bit. In fact, my life has gone on as it would have with or without that president or the War On Terror or anything else that has happened in the last eight years. All of the arm-waving about all of that stuff has been a case of wild exagerration and crass political manipulation.

IMO, the individual in the White House makes very little difference in American policy.

As to Halliburton-KBR, they did just as well under Clinton, making billions supporting the illegal occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo (e.g.), the rights of American citizens were just as trampled under the last six presidents as under the current one (does the "War On Drugs" and its voiding of the 4th Amendment ring a bell? That goes back to Nixon), and the U.S. government has been performing extra-judicial executions and making people disappear for decades (as has the British government and any other government, for that matter).

Basically, everyone has gotten exercized over sh*t that's been going on since before they were born - or the people getting so exercized about it all were born yesterday - take your pick.

How're those mllions of CCTV cameras working out for you, Pom?

It's really quite simple, and I'll explain it to you in a quote:

Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase...The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive.

Given that your little island is becoming an anthill, I'd say you're further along that curve than me.

BTW, your royal family is an embarrassment. At least Brittney Spears doesn't host state dinners for foreign dignitaries, and her hats aren't quite so frumpy.
 
2008-01-21 11:42:20 AM  
Rik01: some people had arrived with vans intending to steal a large quantity of timber.

Steal? I always thought that any cargo washing ashore was pretty well up for grabs. Especially considering that the maritime industry looses about a ship a month.


This has been covered in the comments above.
RTFC!
 
2008-01-21 11:55:51 AM  
BarryJV

WIN. May I subscribe to your newsletter?
 
2008-01-21 01:01:47 PM  
 
2008-01-21 01:34:52 PM  
Weaver95: How can you tax something like that? can't have people going around keeping what they find. they might start getting ideas about freedom.

Oh, right, the freedom to take lost goods from the original owners.

The general rule in property is that a subsequent legal finder has a claim to the property that's only beaten by the original owner. Thus, when you find something valuable, you're supposed to report it to the authorities so the rightful owner has a chance to get it back.
 
2008-01-21 03:19:46 PM  
Just imagine the beach bonfire party you could have. All you need is that guy from Dublin who stole the truckload of Guiness.
 
2008-01-21 03:45:44 PM  
canyoneer: How're those mllions of CCTV cameras working out for you, Pom?

Hardly see any outside of London, so not a lot of impact on my life at all. As usual, even when you've got a point, you manage to mangle it so badly that it becomes nonsense. The royal family have nothing to do with the overuse of CCTV cameras. That's the fault of the democratically elected government. Also, CCTV is currently not a real problem in terms of civil liberties, the misuse of speed cameras is a problem, but they do tend to catch fire for some reason.
 
2008-01-21 04:02:33 PM  
Hey canyoneer,

UK has:
1) CCTV cameras.

USA has:
1) The death penalty.
2) Draconian "three-strikes" laws. Life in prison for stealing a bottle of coke.
3) World's largest prison population (many for recreational drug use). 2.5 million and counting.
4) A heavily-armed paramilitary police force.
5) Eminent domain (Wal-Mart can build a store on your land and if you try to stop them the aforementioned paramilitary police will come and shoot you in the head).
6) Asset forfeiture (police can legally stop you in the street, make you turn out your pockets and steal your cash by saying "this is drug money". No trial, no evidence, nada).
7) The Patriot Act. Bush just has to declare you an "enemy combatant" and they can shoot you dead or throw you in prison forever.
8) Warrantless wire-tapping.
9) The FBI keeping an eye on your subversive library-book borrowing habits.
10) Extraordinary rendition.
11) Secret torture camps in Eastern Europe.
12) Flag burning is a crime. I can wipe my arse on the Union Jack any time I feel like it.
13) And, finally, the USA suffered a coup d'etat in 2000 while most people sat at home watching TV, too stupid, fat and apathetic to vote or to care.
 
2008-01-21 05:29:41 PM  
I love finding stuff.

In December, a cab driver gave me an iPod. He didn't own a computer and said no one remembers their cab number or even the cab company they might have taken that night, so a lost iPod can very rarely ever be returned.

/"Uh...its black" (that narrowed it down by half)
//"Uh...it has Timbaland and Dr. Dre on it?" (you and every other tasteless loser)
 
2008-01-21 08:44:14 PM  
BarryJV
Thank you, I'm going to save that one.
 
Displayed 27 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report