Page 1 of 4

Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:00 pm
by John McKenna
His death prompted Foreign Sec. William Hague to send a message to North Korea that this event should signal policy changes there.
One wonders what event it would take to signal policy changes here but one is left with the feeling that there is no such event.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:15 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
John McKenna wrote: One wonders what event it would take to signal policy changes here but one is left with the feeling that there is no such event.
Well, invasion and conquest by a power with completely different aims would do it. I should think any of Japan/China/Russia would be able to win such a war, although I wouldn't expect any of them to want to wage one.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:28 pm
by John McKenna
Why look so far? According to some we are already subject to a 'power with completely different aims' called the EU but strangely they, too, seem unable to change the policies of our 'coalition' gov.
Even when the new head of the usually pro-austerity IMF hinted our austerity plans might be too austere a Nelsonian blind eye was turned.
The UK may yet end up replacing Albania as the North Korea of Europe.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:36 pm
by John McKenna
In fact all we have to do is have the referendum and change the name from UK to Albion.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:55 pm
by Paul McKeown
John McKenna wrote:The UK may yet end up replacing Albania as the North Korea of Europe.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Do you have any sense of proportion, whatsoever?

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:04 pm
by John McKenna
Don't really see what 'Pete' and 'proportion' have to do with me. You should direct it at those whose sense of proportion led to robbing Pete to pay Paul.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:39 pm
by Rob Thompson
On a slightly more related note, we should clearly only refer to his son, Kim Jong Un as Lil' Kim. After all, there is no better way of delegitimizing a foreign dictator that mixing him with this.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:49 pm
by PeterTurland
John McKenna wrote:Don't really see what 'Pete' and 'proportion' have to do with me. You should direct it at those whose sense of proportion led to robbing Pete to pay Paul.
Mm I hesitate, because I do not run with the herd.

I would that affairs were run by principle not people. OK some people employed, purely to see principles are adhered to.

Thousands of years ago, a fantastic idea was understood, that a city was not efficiently run by narrow tribalism's, but was better run, by the idea that we were all citizens, meaning we had both rights and responsibilities.

Two freedoms that are probably sacrosanct, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Getting the balance between rights and responsibilities is never easy, I believe citizens walking around wearing masks, demand the right to do robberies without being recognized, this behavior is antisocial and the ability to be facially recognized in public, should be the responsibility of a citizen.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:23 pm
by John McKenna
You see that's precisely the new law in France regarding face coverings (including veils and burkahs) in public. Such a law could never happen in the UK because it's against European human rights.
That's the paradox of the UK's membership of the EU.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:30 pm
by John McKenna
Of course, if we leave the EU and become Albion we will have to be responsible for our own laws and will no longer be able to blame them on Brussels/Strasbourg. How inconvenient.
Anyway, I've lost the thread - what has this got to do with the death of the Dear Leader?

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:40 pm
by John McKenna
Oh, I remember - William Hague told the N. Koreans they should change their policies. (Shiny pot with burnt bottom calling on dirty kettle to clean itself up.)

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:02 pm
by Richard Thursby
John McKenna wrote: One wonders what event it would take to signal policy changes here but one is left with the feeling that there is no such event.
It's called a general election.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:48 pm
by John McKenna
Yes, and by law don't we have to wait until 2015 for that and we must also pay off the deficit by law by 2014. So we wait and pay and then if there is a similar outcome to the last election the policies will probably change but not to the ones people thought they were voting for.
A new political imperative will be found to base the next set of policies on and what will it be and where will it come from, I wonder? Certainly not from any democratic direction.

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:58 pm
by Rob Thompson
John McKenna wrote:Yes, and by law don't we have to wait until 2015 for that and we must also pay off the deficit by law by 2014. So we wait and pay and then if there is a similar outcome to the last election the policies will probably change but not to the ones people thought they were voting for.
A new political imperative will be found to base the next set of policies on and what will it be and where will it come from, I wonder? Certainly not from any democratic direction.
So what are you doing about it apart from whining on an irrelevant internet forum?

Re: Kim Jong Il (1942?-2011)

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:16 am
by John McKenna
Exactly the same as you - absolutely nothing that will have any effect. Did you notice that Time Magazine made the 'Protester' its person of the year? But the protester was an Arab because there you protest you risk death. While in the EU/UK/US you will be sidelined, ridiculed or ignored as they have no need to kill you.