Your Questions About Morality And Law Uk

Sandy asks…

I Love Great Britain (prior to 1997) or is it me just being paranoid?

I have just given this answer to another Q and was just wondering if I have some right arguments and right concerns in any topics.

Great Britain was far from perfect before the year 1997, but we were a proud nation. When Messier Tony Blair and his cabinet came into power they put the noose around Britain’s neck. New Labour as classless as anything can be, created a Scummy Britain. Britain gave birth to the chavs and hoodies and a Shameless attitude throughout Britain. It created a society in which everyone had to have the same, regardless if you earned it or if it was given to you by the tax payer. Then Britain went to war, a phony war. People demonstrated against it yet they were ignored. Our boys and girls and all those poor casualties are still dying and Bush and Blair are enjoying their glorious lives without a care in the world. Then we hear how badly our soldiers are treated once they return home. The British have their moralities rock bottom. Then Labour decided to allow or rather FORCED mass-immigration into Britain creating a choke throughout the communities and services. Schools,housing,NHS,prisons…not to mention the language barrier (because be truthful,lots of immigrants can not be bothered to learn full English. Why should they when the taxpayer can provide with all sorts of free translations for them and even print out important forms for them in their own language.)
Then we had the infamous courts of human rights act FORCED onto us. We read how foreign terrorists can not be deported. Or how paedophiles can redo their lives after their relative short sentences and if the paedophile feels fear of being recognised by the public they can, at the tax payers expense change their IDs, and live unchallenged in any area within the UK. Labour also surrendered many of our laws to the E.U. and FORCED us to live with it. Our Broken Britain is part of all the above. This country is infected with hundreds of human rights groups like who are just sitting there a waiting to shout their defence the minute a terrorist is threatened with deportation or a foreign murderer slams down his extradition because he has a right to a family life in the UK.
New Labour has poisoned our country with groups and anti-British communities that reside all around us. And if they are still not in your area then do not worry they soon will be or else you will be accused of being a racist. Everything has gone wrong in this country because of a party who was trying really hard to rid of our culture,Identity and heritage in the name of multiculturalism. The worst thing is that puppet Cameron and prick Clegg have not got the balls to fix it either. We need radical reforms and I am no hater but groups like the EDL are rising in numbers and the BNP has just recruited it’s 500.000 member. These groups are right winged because a government threw away their country. So I do not blame them. By the way I am from Gibraltar and I feel so sorry for the ordinary law abiding British citizen. You guys have been taken for a ride for too long now. But nothing else can go wrong for Britain, soon the Euro will crash and we will see the communist state of Europe burning like Rome. Britain may suffer slightly because of it but it will be bloody worth it. God Bless the Queen, Great Britain we still have faith in you. We still hear the lion. Wake up call people.

Pip answers:

Apparently it’s our human right to be ethnically cleansed these days.

Lizzie asks…

US Visa with criminal conviction?

A few years ago, my son, then aged 16 and a couple of his mates were involved in a scuffle with a group of other youths. Unfortunately one of them got a broken jaw and my son and his friends were jointly charged with Section 20 GBH without intent. For this they each got a 12 month referral order, which they completed. This was the first time my son had been in trouble with the police and he has not been in trouble since.

However, I am planning a family holiday to the USA, but want to know if he will need a US Visa to travel on holiday to the US for 2 weeks.

If I go to the US Embassy website and check on the Visa Waiver Program ‘wizard’:

it looks like they work on the lines that : if you have ever been arrested (whether or not the arrest becomes a conviction), cautioned or convicted of a criminal offence, then you need to apply for a US Visa.

It also does not matter if the offence is ‘spent’, as the USA do not recognise the 1974 Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act. So if you have completed a youth referral order, for example, this is not considered ‘spent’ by the United States (although it is in the UK).

However, the I94W form that you get (or used to get) on the plane before arriving in USA (which has now been replaced by ESTA) has the question:
B) “Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been a controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

It does NOT say have “you ever been arrested, cautioned or convicted of a criminal offence”.

So if you have been arrested or convicted of a crime, that was NOT moral turpitude, do you actually need a Visa to enter the United States? It seems to be a grey area and I cannot seem to find a definitive answer.

So, firstly what is ‘Moral Turpitude’?

According to: the U.S. Department Of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 – Visas

9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.2 Defining “Moral Turpitude”
Statutory definitions of crimes in the United States consist of various elements, which must be met before a conviction can be supported. Some of these elements have been determined in judicial or administrative decisions to involve moral turpitude. A conviction for a statutory offense will involve moral turpitude if one or more of the elements of that offense have been determined to involve moral turpitude. The most common elements involving moral turpitude are:
(1) Fraud;
(2) Larceny; and
(3) Intent to harm persons or thing.

9 FAM 40.21(a) N2.3-3 Crimes Committed Against Person,
Family Relationship, and Sexual Morality
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 – Visas
9 FAM 40.21(a) Notes Page 6 of 28

a. Crimes committed against the person, family relationship, and sexual morality, which constitute moral turpitude as it relates to visa issuance,include:
(1) Abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in the
destitution of the child);
(2) Adultery (see INA 101(f)(2) repealed by Public Law 97-116);
(3) Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude):
(a) Assault with intent to kill;
(b) Assault with intent to commit rape;
(c) Assault with intent to commit robbery;
(d) Assault with intent to commit serious bodily harm; and
(e) Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon (some weapons
may be found to be lethal as a matter of law, while others
may or may not be found factually to be such, depending
upon all the circumstances in the case. Such circumstances
may include, but are not limited to, the size of the weapon,
the manner of its use, and the nature and extent of injuries

Under this definition, I would say that Section 20 GBH Without Intent is NOT a crime of Moral Turpitude as there was ‘no intent’.

So there do you go with what the US Embassy says – in which case anyone who has ever been arrested, cautioned or convicted should apply for a US Visa to go on holiday to the USA,
do you interpret the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 notes and travel under the Visa Waiver Program, in all good faith that your crime is NOT one of moral turpitude and therefore have answered honestly to the question on ESTA (I94W)?

The dilemma is:

1) Do you play it safe and apply for a US Visa, which involves paying £80 application fee, £60 to get an ACPO form, travelling to the US Embassy to attend an interview and then ‘if’ you get a Visa paying another £14 to get it couriered back to you?

2) Take a chance that, under your understanding, ‘Section 20 GBH Without Intent’ is not

Pip answers:

Assuming you intend to tell the truth, your son would definitely need to apply for a visa, as regardless of the nature of the offense and the eventual outcome, he was in fact arrested. After his arrest, he wouldn’t be able to register successfully on ESTA and would be required to apply for a visa. A single incident, especially one committed as a juvenile, is rarely a visa ineligibility. But you would want to take your court records, or whatever you have concerning the incident to prove he’s not ineligible.

Sandra asks…

Christians, do you agree with this quote by Rich Allen Garcia, better known as ‘Shockofgod’?

Sources for his real name:…………

Anyway, here is the quote. Do you agree, or not?



And, this one better post…

Pip answers:

No, I agree with the following post from here
Thats say’s “What should be the Christian’s response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken. Homosexuality is not a special practice that is exempt from God’s righteous judgment simply because they claim they are born that way, or just want to be free to love, or say that it is normal. People are born with a tendency to lie. Does that make it okay? People want to love each other, but since when is “love” the determiner of what is right and wrong? If homosexuality is normal, then why is it practiced by so few? The great majority of people are heterosexual. Are they “more” normal?

Please understand that I don’t hate homosexuals. I wouldn’t care if my neighbor is gay. I’ve had homosexual friends and have loved them the same as I would anyone else. But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God’s Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners. We are all sinners and we need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).

We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person trapped in any other sin. This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don’t want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.

The homosexual is still made in the image of God — even though he (or she) is in rebellion. Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don’t injure them. Don’t hate them. Don’t judge them. Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus. Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin.

But, this does not mean that you are to approve of what they do. Don’t compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation. Be kind to them. Be loving. And, when appropriate, tell them the gospel.

Finally, if you are a homosexual, please understand that I do not hate you nor do I judge you. Sin is sin and the forgiveness of our sins is found in Christ.

Steven asks…

What would you say in this argument about free speech on Yahoo! Answers? (V. LONG)?

Some of you may have noticed the Crumpet troll, and how myself and other members of the [Troll Patrol] have been actively trying to stop him. I then notice another user had changed her name to add [No Troll Patrol] and added this little statement to her profile.

“I’ve added [No Troll Patrol] because I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to be offensive if only childishly. It is not for us to decide when we support a right and when we don’t, the right exists without support or it doesn’t.”

So, I ended up thinking about how I actually she may be right and how I may be in the wrong. So I did some reading and decided to write down a full argument for my case. This is what I wrote, and I would like peoples feedback. Please be a critical and as damning as you like. If it’s a good argument it should stand up to criticism, and if its not then its flaws will be on show.


Let me first start off by saying I do not oppose free speech. I am actively in support of enabling people to use their rights. And as such I appreciate that some people will want to say things that are offensive to others and that other people do not have the right to prevent them from saying so.

So you may be wondering why I report people for trolling on Yahoo! Answers, when they are using their right to free speech. To begin with, let’s outline what actually is free speech. Here is the link for the universal declaration of human rights:

Article 19 of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

So does this means anyone can say what they like about who or what they like. Yes, and you know why that is? Because you have the right to ignore things too. But only to a point.

Article 29(2) states: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

What this basically means is, I have the right to criticise anyone about anything. What I can’t do though is stop them doing it. The racists actually have a right to be racist, but only in thought and speech. Should they start attacking people, then it is a crime.

But still doesn’t defend me, or anyone else who reports another user on Yahoo! Answers. So on what grounds does anyone have to report? Well the community guidelines are the best source, so here’s the link ( ) but I have picked out the crucial bits.

At the very top of the ‘bad’ list is this – “Venting, ranting or using hate speech: Yahoo! Answers isn’t a soapbox to vent personal frustrations or rant about issues. We are a community of people with diverse beliefs, opinions, and backgrounds, so please be respectful and keep hateful and incendiary comments off Yahoo! Answers.”

The section on ‘Being mean or obscene’ states “Because kids as young as 13 may participate in Yahoo! Answers, sexually explicit and vulgar language and images are not welcome on the site. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs and generally objectionable speech. If you wouldn’t say it in public, don’t post it on Answers.”

The section on ‘misusing answers’ also adds “Don’t create multiple accounts to troll or otherwise violate these guidelines or the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Don’t post things that are incomprehensible or in the wrong language, and don’t post the same question over and over again.”

So it seems pretty clear that under the community guidelines, which everyone has to agree to abide by when using Yahoo! Answers, does not allow total free speech. In effect they are actually limiting our free speech. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with Yahoo themselves.

I will say in Yahoo!’s defence though, is that the limitations it places on us are very similar to the same limitations we voluntarily place on ourselves. We are careful of what we say because we don’t want to offend someone else. It’s only when we do want to offend someone that the PC brigade steps in and decides that we are in the wrong. For example, swearing in front of children. We might have the right to, but not everyone feels right doing so.

I touched on the terms of service earlier, so now let’s expand on that. What does it say in the terms of service about member conduct? Again, here is t
I touched on the terms of service earlier, so now let’s expand on that. What does it say in the terms of service about member conduct? Again, here is the link so you can read it all yourself – – It says this:

SECTION 6 “You agree to not use the Services to:
1. upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;”
Sorry this has not posted all of the details I wanted to, so here is a link to the document in my dropbox.

Pip answers:

Here’s an even simpler arguement:

The right to free speech doesn’t have any implications as to restrictive actions by private citizens. The right exists to protect people from GOVERNMENTS restricting thier speech. As a private citizen, not acting as a government agent, you have the freedom to restrict others’ speech in your presence. Yahoo Answers is a public forum, not a government sponsored entity. Yahoo has no obligation to protect “free speech” and as a user, you are entitled to request that offensive users are restricted from offending you.

Ken asks…

Are Equal Rights Even A Gay Issue?

The truth be told I do not need to be in your bedroom or know what goes on as long as the people are consenting adults. The truth be told morality is a complex issue which varies by the individual. To get into moral arguments is folly in my opinion since views on morality rarely if ever change. But if my laws are made so as long as what you are doing does not interfere with the safety, security, and rights of others and all parties are legal adults able to make their own decisions then why legislate it further?

I think if the Gay movement took that track I listed above equal rights for them could be a thing of the past. Similar thinking in the UK has allowed Gays rights they do not enjoy in the US. What do others feel? I was curious if someone knows a situation where legislating morality actually changed a large groups moral compass?
I would say Anti-miscegenation laws had minimal effect at best. I think the main driver was people watching Africans getting beatings and being shot on live TV had far more to do with the end of Apartheid.

But even so your example re enforces my idea of doing away with morality laws. Let me give an example of what I mean. You want abstinence before marriage for everyone in society so you pass a law stating that all body parts except for the arms and hands up to the elbows, the neck and face down to 2 inches below the shoulder must be covered. You further state that only vague outlines of the breasts can be shown. This law includes media as well as public appearances.
Do you think this law would have a meaningful effect on abstinence?
I did not mention Gay Marriage for a reason. Without even saying anything people equate rights with marriage. As a child of Black civil rights I can tell you unequal rights has little to do with Marriage. It is more of you telling me what I can and cannot do because you do not like my group. Gay Marriage is a term that is made up for recent times. Once upon a time when the battle for civil unions began in the 90’s people said it was just about Gay Unions no one is talking about Gay marriage now how times have changed. Tomorrow the battle will be someone else. Rights are consistent over time. Being able to legal pass over your possesions is a tangible benefit. Lets focus on the benefits and leave out the politics.

Pip answers:

Gay Marriage has about as much to do with Equal rights as Polygamous marriage. There are all kinds of Marriage types we do not allow does not mean we are trying to oppress someone. You have whatever union you want we just do not have to call it marriage. You can have every right we have. I watch tv and see the Iranians speak and they speak about equal rights the last thing on their mind is marriage of any kind. You got a bunch of activists mouthing off their talking points for answers. And I did expect them to all sound the same.

What I would like them to do is stop mouthing off talking points and tell me one civil action they wish to do but can’t. Marriage? Okay we will give you a civil union with same rights and benefits of marriage between a man and woman. But it is marriage between a man and woman. Let’s not make up definitions that just don’t exist in any government on this planet.

And to be a top contributer he knows little about Europe. They march and protest far more then we do. They have far more rights and freedoms then we have. And the moral majority does not agree with homosexuality. Most of our world society is very much against the very idea. So are you sure you want laws based on what the majority wants? That is the essence of Homogeniology. We tell you the minority what you should and should not do. So if you want laws based on that let us know because then this who equal rights debate becomes quite mute.

Me thinks you want your cake and eat it to. You want majority rule when it is something you agree with and minority rule when it is something you disagree with TOP CONTRIBUTOR. The problem is on homosexuality there are far more people who majority rule says no way jose….

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Previous Post

Your Questions About Uk Banks Ranking

Next Post

Your Questions About Uk Banks Interest Rates