Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I’m not clear why they needed to arrest the old man, couldn’t he have just made a statement?
I refer to my previous comment about natural justice not being the same as justice, and about people not understanding this.
Someone was killed. They HAD to arrest him. It was the only right thing to do.
He got exactly what he deserved.
Ease up there Judge Dredd, summary executions aren't a legal recourse on our streets just yet.
It isn't about what he deserved, it is about what is just, proportionate and reasonable.
Its also worth bearing in mind, that with such scrutiny on surrounding Police and CPS over collapsed trails and miscarriages , that they decided that a marginal case wasn't worth pursuing. Especially in the face of media coverage.
Not saying that this is the case. But a possibility.
Just look at the scenario from the point of view of a Crown Prosecutor..
A wanted criminal and his accomplice, with a history of distraction burglary of pensioners, invade a pensioner couple's house about midnight, and threaten the disabled wife to force the husband at weapon point (I would say knife but it was a screwdriver).
Somehow the husband manages to seize the screwdriver and stabs a burglar with it.
The burglar's accomplice, rather than phone an ambulance and face justice, drags the casualty off to their getaway car.
The police arrive in time to arrest one burglar, another one escapes, and the third has bled to death on the floor of his getaway vehicle.
You couldn't find a jury in Britain who would convict in this case.
There were three of them? I thought was just two, one died and the other fled. No honour between thieves. You can be sure the family and friends know who the other was, probably a relative.
I'm glad that pensioner is no longer facing charges for defending his home - it would have been an utter travesty if he'd been charged.
It's also troubling and tragic to see so many young people getting killed on London's streets
We've discussed this before, but is it as simple as saying less police = more crime?
Everybody knows where I stand on the Tories. Utterly, utterly incompetent buffoons that should have been ran out of the country years ago, but comparing what they did in Glasgow, to what they're doing in London, throws up some interesting debates.
The problem is not eradicated in Glasgow, but they had a massive response which involved social workers, schools, judges, prosecutors, and intelligient use of stop and search. And they mostly have the gang and knife problem under control.
Even if they had the money in London, I'm not sure the political will or competence is there to make a difference. Both Labour and Tories seem more interested in point scoring rather than band together for the common good.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Splits over Brexit, weak leadership, diminishing base, loss of fiscal credibility, lack of vision, no core values, a rampant extreme right wing, demonstrable failure in Govt.
Are we watching the end of conservatism as we know it? Are the very acts designed to try and hold the party together at the expense of all else actually the actions that lead to its ultimate split and demise?
We can only hope so.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Yes, but there’s also the much greater number of people who have non lethal stab wounds and the large numbers of crimes carried out using threats made with knives. There’s a huge number of people carrying knives, admittedly some just for self defence and don’t intend to use them unless threatened by a knife themselves. But that’s just symptomatic of the problem. Knive and gun crime resulting in deaths is mostly involving gangs on other gangs, bystanders are unlikely to be involved... most of the time.
It’s not about the 8.5 million in the whole city, that’s too generalised and hides a problem. Consider that the majority of this violence tends towards a few notorious areas like Tottenham, Brixton, Peckham. Young black men are not only the most likely perpetrators, but also the most likely victims. Don’t tell them a few murders a week in a population 8.5 million isn’t much, the reality is living in these areas that it occurs is quite dangerous.
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
The TL/DR: India is in no rush to make a trade deal with the UK to match the one they've been working on since 2007 with the EU and when they do get around to us they want easier immigration for Indians as a condition.
We'll need feth-tons of extra sovereignty to get this one to make sense.
I broke the swear filter again. I seem to have a talent for it.
UKIP have an utter scumbag as a candidate, no surprises there, but I love they now seem to be issuing statements in Footballerese -
Ukip said they would look into the tweets. “The lad is deeply ashamed and embarrassed,” said a spokesman. “He can’t remember doing it, but he doesn’t claim he didn’t. It’s deeply unedifying and unpleasant, there’s no question about that, but it was six years ago. He’s terribly embarrassed and ashamed, as rightly he should be.”
I think it's the Savage dialect. Expect to hear soon -
"It's a Brexit of two halves"
"It only takes a second to win a referendum"
"Neil Hamilton gave 110%"
This explains why they change their leader every 3 months anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/09 12:51:24
UKIP have an utter scumbag as a candidate, no surprises there, but I love they now seem to be issuing statements in Footballerese -
Ukip said they would look into the tweets. “The lad is deeply ashamed and embarrassed,” said a spokesman. “He can’t remember doing it, but he doesn’t claim he didn’t. It’s deeply unedifying and unpleasant, there’s no question about that, but it was six years ago. He’s terribly embarrassed and ashamed, as rightly he should be.”
I think it's the Savage dialect. Expect to hear soon -
"It's a Brexit of two halves"
"It only takes a second to win a referendum"
"Neil Hamilton gave 110%"
This explains why they change their leader every 3 months anyway.
Is it any surprise that the true bottom feeders are rising to the surface.
Not really sure that Anonymous millionaire donors , who apparently aren't even sure that they're actually trying to form a new party, is really going to fix things.
That's really interesting, I think there is definitely room in the centre ground since the Lib Dems seem to have failed to capitalise on Brexit.
I was so disillusioned with the Tories following the result, but with Corbyn taking Labour in such a repugnant direction and Tim Farron showing that he couldn't even stand up for his own beliefs I was completely without options! A proper attempt to create a new centrist party would give me some serious food for thought.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm glad that pensioner is no longer facing charges for defending his home - it would have been an utter travesty if he'd been charged.
It largely depends on the circumstances. Most people will be arrested in similar circumstances as I think it's procedure to do it. It means that flight risk people can be stopped and prevented from having bail before they fly to and ask for asylum in Brazil etc.
There is a balance between protecting your home and the implications of doing so. If you allow for no charges in any circumstance then it can end up making the situation worse. If a thief thinks he might be shotgunned / stabbed in any potential property then they are more likely to arm themselves because of fear of that action. That escalates the violence as the thieves then arm themselves and that increases the probability of a violent assault/murder etc being committed. On the other hand if the thief recognises that they have some protection in law from a violent assault then that alleviates the fear that the householder might go all Rambo on them. The balance being that there are violent criminals out there and in those cases people should be entitled to defend themselves. It doesn't allow them, for example to pin them down and then slowly extract their innards as in braveheart. In some ways the pensioner should consider himself lucky. In a lot of cases it is the householder that gets injured.
It's also troubling and tragic to see so many young people getting killed on London's streets
We've discussed this before, but is it as simple as saying less police = more crime?
To an extent. Extra police likely means more people are investigated and caught from low level incidents that might then prevent them getting ever more confident and aggressive. Do I think a few extra people on patrol will stop the violence overall, no I don't.
There's more the violence that just police. The systematic destruction of social support systems by the Tories especially for the poorest is likely driving people into other social groups, likely gang associated. That leads to certain evolved territorial behaviour especially when there is a fight over 'resources'. Be that looking 'cool' and powerful to the local women, gang territory etc.
So I think it is a problem with the Tories exploiting the poor for the benefit of the wealthy rather than specifically there are less police (although it will be a factor)
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Splits over Brexit, weak leadership, diminishing base, loss of fiscal credibility, lack of vision, no core values, a rampant extreme right wing, demonstrable failure in Govt.
Are we watching the end of conservatism as we know it? Are the very acts designed to try and hold the party together at the expense of all else actually the actions that lead to its ultimate split and demise?
We can only hope so.
Hopefully just the end of neo-liberal conservatism.
I've little problem with the centre-right. Indeed, we need them to balance out my lefty principles by providing a counter narrative.
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
And as a result, there's a generation, maybe two, that've known nothing but the poo covered end of the stick in terms of opportunity and earnings.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Kroem wrote: ... but with Corbyn taking Labour in such a repugnant direction....
That's an interesting turn of phrase, why do you think Labour's return to more socialist principles is repugnant?
Fundamentally it is the impression I get from them that being successful is something to be punished for with higher taxes, or that sweeping social change is necessary or even desirable that puts me off Labour atm!
I've done well in the current society and want a nice boring government that changes a little as possible :-p
Fear not, I find the prospect of Reese Mog or Micheal Gove being the prime Minister similarly repugnant! It was only Teresa May winning the leadership contest that brought me reluctantly back into the fold.
Its weird in that if you go back 10 years the ideological argument was won. Centrism was the way forward and whether Labour, Tory or even Lib Dem were in power you didn't have to worry about the country being wrecked as everyone would do pretty much the same thing.
At the moment it seems like both sides are keen to conduct their own brand of crackpot social experiment on the country with us all as guinea pigs!
Fundamentally it is the impression I get from them that being successful is something to be punished for with higher taxes, or that sweeping social change is necessary or even desirable that puts me off Labour atm!
I've done well in the current society and want a nice boring government that changes a little as possible :-p
It's not about punishment but about providing support the rest of society so that those that, for whatever reason, are less successful and provided the ability to improve their lives through state support. If such people have children, those children then they are hamstrung because they are born in areas where education is poor resulting in a continued cycle of poverty that is very difficult to get out of. If you don't care about society then why should society care about you? If you take the approach that I'm successful so I don't want to change then if whatever reason you suddenly become unsuccessful then why should the rest of country come to your rescue at such times.
For example suppose you are doing all well, have a family and nice house/mortgage with 2.4 children and then without warning someone side swipes you in car and causes you serious injuries leaving your permanently disabled. Because of lowered employment standards you are made redundant, that's no more employers private health care scheme, pension and so on. Then perhaps to make things worse one of your children is diagnosed with cancer, but because of lack of funding NHS waiting times have increased and the number of rounds of treatment is dropped from 6 to 4 (which lowers the success rate). You lose the house, nice car and so forth. At that point you despise the system because it is then punishing you for things outside of your control. However you've supported that position simply because of the "I'm all right Jack approach". You can't then expect that to change because your circumstances have changed. i.e. You didn't care about society as whole so society doesn't care back.
Now I hope that none of this ever happens to you, but I ask you to take a moment and consider how your would want society to be like if this does happen to you...and for some people it does. I would consider myself successful too, but I consider it more statistical luck because of genetics, where I was born, that I simply was in the right place at the right time and I'm more than happy to pay more tax to help those that simply didn't get those same lucky breaks.
That's the basis of socialism. It's not communism where everything is split equally between everyone (not that this ever really happened); it's about supporting those worse off than yourself to help them to aspire and be given those same opportunities. That makes the whole of society better off because we are all wealthier and that drives real growth.
In other news....we now have flag burning in the UK....all encouraged by Farage
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/10 09:44:31
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yea and this is very similar to the conversations I have in the pub with my mates that support Labour haha!
I think a democracy works best when everyone votes selfishly, as then the total result adds up to what is best for the most amount of people.
I 'should' be the expert on what is in the best interests for me and I 'should' look at the policies and adapt my opinion for each election and my changing circumstances.
If I try to vote for what's best for society, that's very open to interpretation and I'm not a sociologist! I don't like the idea of voting for a politician who supports policies against my own interests just because he says its better for someone else. That's basically emotional blackmail I can see a situation arising where an election result is based on what is best for a particularly sympathetic minority rather than what is best for the most people if you see what I mean?
It doesn't matter very much if individuals vote selfishly on their personal concerns, or on wider social issues.
The UK is a representative democracy, and the government will be elected from one of the two main parties by the FPTP system which is often significantly unprepresentative of the actual ratio of voters choices.
Each party has a manifesto laying out what it intends to do in government, and in theory you have voted to support one or other manifesto. At any rate, it doesn't matter much, as no government ever manages to carry out its entire manifesto, and will often drop pledges or add new legislation which wasn't in the manifesto at election time.
From all the above, the effect of individual votes is negligible.
The UK is a representative democracy, and the government will be elected from one of the two main parties by the FPTP system which is often significantly unprepresentative of the actual ratio of voters choices.
Kroem wrote: Yea and this is very similar to the conversations I have in the pub with my mates that support Labour haha!
I think a democracy works best when everyone votes selfishly, as then the total result adds up to what is best for the most amount of people.
I 'should' be the expert on what is in the best interests for me and I 'should' look at the policies and adapt my opinion for each election and my changing circumstances.
No it is still 'selfish' voting. It's just longer term selfish thinking rather than short term thinking. At some point I may need the NHS / pensions / disability benefits / the police etc. I may not need it now but I might in the future hence I would like to bank these services when I need them.
If you vote for what is best now then that is short term selfish thinking. It's the principle that because everything is OK now I'll take what I can without any thought to the future (spending your pension rather than saving because you may never need it etc.). It's the idea that we may as well emit all the carbon we want because we'll never see the consequences.
I also find it rather sad (as in literally, not in an insulting way) that being selfish is the ideal way of managing society, that a representative democracy can't be about what society feels is best for society rather than what the bulk of individuals want for their own selfish desires? The best selfish vote is that everyone's money should just be given to 'me'...which strangely just happens to be Tory policy albeit that 'me' happens to them and their friends. So maybe a Tory party government is the outcome from a selfish voting ideology?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/10 11:31:13
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
I do rather agree with this. I think Eddy occupied a more palatable spot in the middle between Corbyn and the New Labourites; but suffered from a lack of personal charisma or political effectiveness; and was still rather beholden to the Nu-Labourites.
I find it strange the extent of the dislike some people appear to have towards a number of Corbyn's proposed policies; like nationalising the railways. Whilst I don't think he's really thought them through, there's nothing intrinsically objectionable to them or left wing policies generally. They're responsible for much of the good in this country. Yet some people react to such ideas as if they involve raising the Hammer and Sickle over Buckingham and setting up the Stasi.
No it is still 'selfish' voting. It's just longer term selfish thinking rather than short term thinking. At some point I may need the NHS / pensions / disability benefits / the police etc. I may not need it now but I might in the future hence I would like to bank these services when I need them.
Yea and if a policy is sold to me in a way where I can see the benefits to me, I'm much more likely to be supportive.
Take the recent rise in minimum pension contribution for example. If I paid the minimum in then it would make me worse off every month, but I can see the benefit it gives me later. That's an easy sell.
Tuition fees are the same, I'm worse off in the short term for paying them, but I understand that in order to have such top notch universities they need to have money and I don't mind investing in my own future because I know I can make a success of it.
I don't think Labour are very good at this though.
The reason Corbyn is doing so well is the last few elections have been Tory, Diet Tory or Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory as options - and that's not good for democracy, as it's not a wide enough political spectrum (same would be said if they were all lefty options too. Got to have variety to have discourse).
I do rather agree with this. I think Eddy occupied a more palatable spot in the middle between Corbyn and the New Labourites; but suffered from a lack of personal charisma or political effectiveness; and was still rather beholden to the Nu-Labourites.
I find it strange the extent of the dislike some people appear to have towards a number of Corbyn's proposed policies; like nationalising the railways. Whilst I don't think he's really thought them through, there's nothing intrinsically objectionable to them or left wing policies generally. They're responsible for much of the good in this country. Yet some people react to such ideas as if they involve raising the Hammer and Sickle over Buckingham and setting up the Stasi.
I like to think Ed's performance at the GE was because somebody was saying "you must act like this" etc etc. He seems a far more interesting person after the event from various tv appearances and his podcast.
