The week in the world - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

27 Pages

< 1 2 3 4 5 > »

The week in the world, because the pace of events is immense it's easy to miss stu

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

vidcapper View member profile	Mar 3 2018, 02:39 PM Post #41
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 3 2018, 01:29 PM) 1. Yes those ones.. 2. both. Morally both are wrong. 3. Yes, it would have been catastrophic had they let the bansk collapse 4. I don't disagree! I wish we could agree more often.


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 06:50 AM Post #42
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 2 2018, 10:27 AM) 1. Err IRA/ terrorism/gangland... you have a very poor memory of your childhood. It was never as bad as the USA but then virtually nowhere outside war zones ever has been as bad as the USA. It's only the Good Friday agreement that stopped the violence. 2. There is no deterrent effect. All statistics prove it. 3. Burglars dont know which houses have or havent guns. they wait till you are out when they strike. Not a deterrent. If they are armed too then far more likely to shoot you than vice versa unless you hear them even if you are in. fake sense of security. 4. No I'm implying that your logic taken to it's logical end means there would be no laws on anything. I thought I made that clear. An outright ban is the only solution to the problem, but any legislation is better than no legislation. 5. yet you seem to look for reasons against something you say you support instead of stressing that, yes criminals may likely still get hold of guns, but gun-control is weak and non-existent generally in the USA so anything that can be done to improve the situation is welcome. I just summed up for you what you appear to have been saying.... You're welcome. Sorry, I missed this post before. 1. Now I'm confused - I thought we were talking about random loonies going postal, rather than organised violence? 2. My reply to that is surely very predictable : obviously existing deterrents aren't strong enough. 3. Most burglaries happen under cover of darkness, which is also the time most people are at home. Also, burglars have to be lucky every time - armed homeowners only have to be lucky once... 4. An outright ban was tried in the US, on alcohol - remind me how that turned out. In any case, an outright ban would require repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and I cannot see that ever happening. Also, how could you ever hope to confiscate guns from 100 million people - many of whom would fight to retain them? Some States might even secede rather than comply. 5. I merely point out the practical problems in the policy you advocate - something you seem keen on emphasizing where another issue is concerned <cough>Brexit<cough.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 11:01 AM Post #43
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 4 2018, 06:50 AM) Sorry, I missed this post before. 1. Now I'm confused - I thought we were talking about random loonies going postal, rather than organised violence? 2. My reply to that is surely very predictable : obviously existing deterrents aren't strong enough. 3. Most burglaries happen under cover of darkness, which is also the time most people are at home. Also, burglars have to be lucky every time - armed homeowners only have to be lucky once... 4. An outright ban was tried in the US, on alcohol - remind me how that turned out. In any case, an outright ban would require repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and I cannot see that ever happening. Also, how could you ever hope to confiscate guns from 100 million people - many of whom would fight to retain them? Some States might even secede rather than comply. 5. I merely point out the practical problems in the policy you advocate - something you seem keen on emphasizing where another issue is concerned <cough>Brexit<cough. 1. We were talking gun violence generally. 2. You can't get more deterrent than execution and that doesnt deter. If someone is intent on dying in a blaze of glory that negates any deterrent effect. ALL statistics prove it makes no difference what the penalties are. 3. Point to stats that show burglaries take place when people are in bed..... 4. An outright ban on pesticides in food took place. How did THAT turn out? PS. alcohol isnt used to murder other people, it's self-destruction, plus occasional friendly-fire of family and friends. It's not legal in the USA to drink and drive, for example. That is against the law. The right to drink alcohol is not universal, there are sensible restrictions. Age. Work. Driving. Others. There are restrictions on guns. Age. Republican conventions. Facts: gun-related incidents drop 20% when 80000 NRA members hold a convention. Think that speaks volumes about who's contributing towards causing the problems... 5. the Amendments have already been repealed (see Alcohol, and others) so it's not a god-given-right. They weren't in the original Declaration, it was an amendment. It's purely politics and the will of the People. 6. The practical side of it, taking away guns, is easy. You give a year to hand them in, and then make it illegal and deal with it on a case by case basis. It'll take decades but numbers will go down. I dont envisage gunfights at the OK Corral (except illegal suppliers), I envisage people getting caught in illegal acts being prosecuted for ownership. 7. Not pointing out practical problems is something you are also very selective about, cough, Brexit. Discussions on the economic future of the UK - being practical and using facts - is not quite the same as shrugging your shoulders and saying 10 million dead, waddya do hey...


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 11:28 AM Post #44
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 4 2018, 11:01 AM) 1. We were talking gun violence generally. 2. You can't get more deterrent than execution and that doesnt deter. If someone is intent on dying in a blaze of glory that negates any deterrent effect. ALL statistics prove it makes no difference what the penalties are. 3. Point to stats that show burglaries take place when people are in bed..... 4. An outright ban on pesticides in food took place. How did THAT turn out? PS. alcohol isnt used to murder other people, it's self-destruction, plus occasional friendly-fire of family and friends. It's not legal in the USA to drink and drive, for example. That is against the law. The right to drink alcohol is not universal, there are sensible restrictions. Age. Work. Driving. Others. There are restrictions on guns. Age. Republican conventions. Facts: gun-related incidents drop 20% when 80000 NRA members hold a convention. Think that speaks volumes about who's contributing towards causing the problems... 5. the Amendments have already been repealed (see Alcohol, and others) so it's not a god-given-right. They weren't in the original Declaration, it was an amendment. It's purely politics and the will of the People. 6. The practical side of it, taking away guns, is easy. You give a year to hand them in, and then make it illegal and deal with it on a case by case basis. It'll take decades but numbers will go down. I dont envisage gunfights at the OK Corral (except illegal suppliers), I envisage people getting caught in illegal acts being prosecuted for ownership. 7. Not pointing out practical problems is something you are also very selective about, cough, Brexit. Discussions on the economic future of the UK - being practical and using facts - is not quite the same as shrugging your shoulders and saying 10 million dead, waddya do hey... 1. But most of that is perpetrated by people who are already convicted criminals - a law-abiding American who buys a gun for self-defence doesn't suddenly turn into Rambo, just through owning a gun! 2. Sorry, but I simply do not accept that! 3. Burglaries happen mostly at night - people tend to sleep at night - therefore a lot of burglaries happen when people are in bed. 4. Strawman - people don't care about pesticides like they do about crime. 5. If the will of the people wanted guns banned, then they've had plenty of opportunities before now - but they haven't - so what does that tell you? 6. You make it sound so easy - but no-one in their right minds would voluntarily make it easier for themselves to be victims of crime! 7. This is not about me - I leave the practicalities of achieving Brexit to those who offered us the choice in the first place.


Dexton View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 11:42 AM Post #45
rip in peace Dickston Joined: 29 January 2017 Posts: 9,533 User: 25,045	Putting a ban (or just stricter control) on guns in place would not work logistically. It’s extremely impractical, not to mention dangerous, to attempt taking back a large proportion of all firearms issued in the US. Those who have to have their firearms taken back (ones who would not pass stricter background checks for example) are the ones more at risk of potential mental disabilities and I can assure you will NOT be open to giving their weapons back to the government. Thus there is a HUGE security risk which spans across the whole nation, opening gateways to basically anarchy as everyone refuses to give back their guns... using (or threatening to use) their guns to stop people taking their guns. Another option I believe would be for the government to buy back all weapons from the public. Preventing the ownership of guns in the first place would seriously cripple aspects of the US economy, and then the government buying back weaponry would make things a hell of a lot worse. The only way to avoid losing thousands of jobs (at least) would then be to focus on exporting more guns across the world as barely anyone in the US would be allowed them. Australia won’t buy US guns, Europe won’t, Canada doesn’t need to, China doesn’t need to... after that it only leaves the Middle East which of course would love an influx of weaponry... I can’t see devastating impacts not coming from a gun ban. Gun control would be less hurtful on the US population, but would also be much less effective. If simply removing all weapons from the public would work, then yes I and many others would completely endorse it. But I feel like the consequences of such an action would have serious impacts for everyone to the point where a gun ban could put the US in a worse, more deadlier state than it’s already in


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 12:25 PM Post #46
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Dexton @ Mar 4 2018, 11:42 AM) Putting a ban (or just stricter control) on guns in place would not work logistically. It’s extremely impractical, not to mention dangerous, to attempt taking back a large proportion of all firearms issued in the US. Those who have to have their firearms taken back (ones who would not pass stricter background checks for example) are the ones more at risk of potential mental disabilities and I can assure you will NOT be open to giving their weapons back to the government. Thus there is a HUGE security risk which spans across the whole nation, opening gateways to basically anarchy as everyone refuses to give back their guns... using (or threatening to use) their guns to stop people taking their guns. Another option I believe would be for the government to buy back all weapons from the public. Preventing the ownership of guns in the first place would seriously cripple aspects of the US economy, and then the government buying back weaponry would make things a hell of a lot worse. The only way to avoid losing thousands of jobs (at least) would then be to focus on exporting more guns across the world as barely anyone in the US would be allowed them. Australia won’t buy US guns, Europe won’t, Canada doesn’t need to, China doesn’t need to... after that it only leaves the Middle East which of course would love an influx of weaponry... I can’t see devastating impacts not coming from a gun ban. Gun control would be less hurtful on the US population, but would also be much less effective. If simply removing all weapons from the public would work, then yes I and many others would completely endorse it. But I feel like the consequences of such an action would have serious impacts for everyone to the point where a gun ban could put the US in a worse, more deadlier state than it’s already in This pretty well sums up the practical problems that I envisage.


Doctor Blind View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 12:31 PM Post #47
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	GroKo is a Go Go!! The SPD have voted in favour of a third grand coalition: This post has been edited by Doctor Blind: Mar 4 2018, 12:33 PM


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 02:32 PM Post #48
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(Dexton @ Mar 4 2018, 11:42 AM) Putting a ban (or just stricter control) on guns in place would not work logistically. It’s extremely impractical, not to mention dangerous, to attempt taking back a large proportion of all firearms issued in the US. Those who have to have their firearms taken back (ones who would not pass stricter background checks for example) are the ones more at risk of potential mental disabilities and I can assure you will NOT be open to giving their weapons back to the government. Thus there is a HUGE security risk which spans across the whole nation, opening gateways to basically anarchy as everyone refuses to give back their guns... using (or threatening to use) their guns to stop people taking their guns. Another option I believe would be for the government to buy back all weapons from the public. Preventing the ownership of guns in the first place would seriously cripple aspects of the US economy, and then the government buying back weaponry would make things a hell of a lot worse. The only way to avoid losing thousands of jobs (at least) would then be to focus on exporting more guns across the world as barely anyone in the US would be allowed them. Australia won’t buy US guns, Europe won’t, Canada doesn’t need to, China doesn’t need to... after that it only leaves the Middle East which of course would love an influx of weaponry... I can’t see devastating impacts not coming from a gun ban. Gun control would be less hurtful on the US population, but would also be much less effective. If simply removing all weapons from the public would work, then yes I and many others would completely endorse it. But I feel like the consequences of such an action would have serious impacts for everyone to the point where a gun ban could put the US in a worse, more deadlier state than it’s already in An economy which is based on the selling of weapons of death is morally corrupt and unstable in the long run. I'm sure if everyone stopped buying hairspray and skin creams it would be a hit to the economy but they dont kill people. If economies depended on the building of guns then all countries would do it. They don't. They don't suffer, they build other stuff. America is resourceful and has a whole continent of natural resources and is the most powerful nation in history ever. That isn't based on gun sales (worth about 15 billion dollars a year), and the US economy generates 19 trillion dollars a year. That's 1.5% of the annual GDP, I make it. Significant but not something that can't be worked out with investment in alternative industries to create something less hurtful. What the stats DON'T take into account is the cost of having guns to the economy: tourists stay away cos they are frightened of the violence (trust me it's a common explanation and reason so many choose not to go the USA), medical costs, insurance costs, cost of enforcement and court cases, not to mention the social costs of families destroyed by loss of earners. Pretty sure it would end up zero cost to the economy, bar those that depend on a constant supply of dead bodies (tax-payer paid, many of them). I didn't promote the forced taking back of guns. I suggested an amnesty for a year, that will get rid of loads, followed by making selling them illegal. Faced with a jail sentence the vast majority will comply. Some will go underground and they will be crooks, sooner or later they will go to jail. Home ownership will then be based on older weapons and they will decline over time, and as all these law-abiding citizens get caught doing something they will get prosecuted for having possession, and more guns get removed. It's a long-term prospect, with that many guns it will take a lifetime to sort, but there will be millions of people who dont die as a result, most of them non-gun-owners,


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 02:42 PM Post #49
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 4 2018, 11:28 AM) 1. But most of that is perpetrated by people who are already convicted criminals - a law-abiding American who buys a gun for self-defence doesn't suddenly turn into Rambo, just through owning a gun! 2. Sorry, but I simply do not accept that! 3. Burglaries happen mostly at night - people tend to sleep at night - therefore a lot of burglaries happen when people are in bed. 4. Strawman - people don't care about pesticides like they do about crime. 5. If the will of the people wanted guns banned, then they've had plenty of opportunities before now - but they haven't - so what does that tell you? 6. You make it sound so easy - but no-one in their right minds would voluntarily make it easier for themselves to be victims of crime! 7. This is not about me - I leave the practicalities of achieving Brexit to those who offered us the choice in the first place. 1. Most firearms deaths are committed by "law-abiding citizens". Those that do it habitually end up in prison or dead. 2. Don't care if you accept it. I have facts on my side. There is no study that shows murder rates are lower with the death penalty, or torture, or hung, drawing and quartering someone. 3. you are wrong (if one takes "night" to mean when asleep): When and Where does burglary occur? Every year, there are over 1 million burglaries and attempted burglaries. A burglary happens every 40 seconds in the UK. Most burglaries are not pre-planned but are committed by opportunistic criminals. Burglary victimisation occurs in 6% of cases when no or less than basic security, and 1% of cases where basic or enhanced security exists, in other words where there is window locks and double locks or deadlocks on outside doors. A poll by Halifax found out 34% of householders with an alarm fitted to their home said they rarely activated it while a further 33% also said that they assume sounding burglar alarms in their neighbourhood to be false. 73% of burglars use doors, which are open in 3% of cases. 64% of householders also confessed to occasionally leaving doors unlocked whilst away from home and a further 37% whilst inside the home – even though statistics show that 22% of burglaries are carried out with the thief aware that the home was occupied. Infographics say that 57% of burglaries occur when someone is at home. Through a Victim Support Survey, it has been discovered that 1 in 4 victims have had their house broken into more than once. A British survey has found that repeat victims are likely to make up between 60-80% of all crime incidents. Most likely break-in and burglary victims are single-parent families in urban UK areas as they are affected twice more than homes with two parents, and thrice more than households without children. Urban residents are twice more susceptible to be burglars’ targets than rural dwellers. 56% of burglaries happen at night. Most burglaries take place after dark; 10% occur in the morning, 20% in the afternoon, 32% in the evening and 23% during the night, whereas 30% occur in the weekend. 4. Not strawman. Read the whole paragraph. 5. It tells me the NRA pay for politicians. 80% of Americans dont want guns and dont own guns. Why are you so sure that most people don't want change when facts say otherwise. Stop making excuses for the gun lobby. 6. The UK had a gun amnesty. There were no murders, death and crime rates didn't go up. Statistics prove gun ownership makes you LESS safe and more likely to die. This is a fact. You might FEEL safer, but you are deluding yourself, as Oscar Pistorius's girlfriend found out (note: the problem is not confined to the USA). 7. You made it about me, I made it backatcha. Kettle calling frying pan.


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 02:43 PM Post #50
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 4 2018, 02:32 PM) An economy which is based on the selling of weapons of death is morally corrupt and unstable in the long run. [/qoute] The same could be said of cigarettes. I didn't promote the forced taking back of guns. I suggested an amnesty for a year, that will get rid of loads, followed by making selling them illegal. Faced with a jail sentence the vast majority will comply. Some will go underground and they will be crooks, sooner or later they will go to jail. Home ownership will then be based on older weapons and they will decline over time, and as all these law-abiding citizens get caught doing something they will get prosecuted for having possession, and more guns get removed. It's a long-term prospect, with that many guns it will take a lifetime to sort, but there will be millions of people who dont die as a result, most of them non-gun-owners, You're leaving aside the possibility of jury nullification, though. In a state where 50% support RKBA, good luck in finding 12 people who'll all vote guilty if the charge is just gun possession with no other associated criminal activity.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 4 2018, 02:50 PM Post #51
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 4 2018, 02:43 PM) You're leaving aside the possibility of jury nullification, though. In a state where 50% support RKBA, good luck in finding 12 people who'll all vote guilty if the charge is just gun possession with no other associated criminal activity. I said: gun-ownership coming to light as a result of other criminal activity. That could be traffic violations, burglaries, violence against a family-member. The gun-possession wouldnt be the key charge, and it wouldnt necsesarily have to be prison-based, a fine could cover it and a jury would not be required any more than it is when bunged up in front of a magistrate. They key point is: THE GUN IS GONNEY


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 06:35 AM Post #52
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 4 2018, 02:50 PM) I said: gun-ownership coming to light as a result of other criminal activity. That could be traffic violations, burglaries, violence against a family-member. The gun-possession wouldnt be the key charge, and it wouldnt necsesarily have to be prison-based, a fine could cover it and a jury would not be required any more than it is when bunged up in front of a magistrate. They key point is: THE GUN IS GONNEY But ISTM that idea might invite trumped-up charges designed to criminalise someone, just so the authorities would have an excuse to confiscate their guns. Also, trying to bypass the jury system in order to do so, would surely be an abuse of process, and be challenged through one or more articles in the Bill of Rights.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 10:08 AM Post #53
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 5 2018, 06:35 AM) But ISTM that idea might invite trumped-up charges designed to criminalise someone, just so the authorities would have an excuse to confiscate their guns. Also, trying to bypass the jury system in order to do so, would surely be an abuse of process, and be challenged through one or more articles in the Bill of Rights. you are making up ludicrous excuses and are unclear on American law. The law is always subject to abuse. All laws. One doesnt go to a jury in the UK OR the USA for minor misdemeanors - it's just a fact. Police found a gun, persons admits charge, gun is taken away, fine issued. It only becomes a jury issue in the case of serious charges which would be much worse than the possession of illegal firearms. At some stage, far in the future, gun ownership COULD become a serious charge - but there is no logical base to turn 20% into hardened criminals overnight and a legal system that couldnt cope. Let them die out naturally with age. Guns would reduce over time.


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 10:16 AM Post #54
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 5 2018, 10:08 AM) you are making up ludicrous excuses and are unclear on American law. The law is always subject to abuse. All laws. One doesnt go to a jury in the UK OR the USA for minor misdemeanors - it's just a fact. Police found a gun, persons admits charge, gun is taken away, fine issued. But what if they refuse to roll over - then the case could go to a jury. There's also the 4th Amendment to consider - the one that bans unreasonable searches. The only way the police could be sure there is a gun in a house, is if it is registered - and if it is, then what's the problem? This post has been edited by vidcapper: Mar 5 2018, 10:19 AM


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 02:16 PM Post #55
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 5 2018, 10:16 AM) But what if they refuse to roll over - then the case could go to a jury. There's also the 4th Amendment to consider - the one that bans unreasonable searches. The only way the police could be sure there is a gun in a house, is if it is registered - and if it is, then what's the problem? If there is a gun in the car that isnt covered. if the police have a warrant to search a house due to other crime (which is WHAT I SAID) then a gun would turn up, if they are carrying a gun in public they would be charged and the gun taken away. If someone is stupid enough to demand a jury trial over a minor misdemeanor it would end up more expensive than the fine and the jury, even if all redneck NRA members (which is unlikely) can't deny the police having found an unregistered/unlicensed* gun as evidence with fingerprints on it. As I say, you are making excuses and inventing issues that aren't there. There is only one issue: you either support guns or you don't. Everything else is just bullshit. Thankfully I live in a country (your tops absolutely fave country in the whole universe, blub) that sees things the way I do. If you don't, feel free to campaign, but stopping making excuses as to why not having guns is an impossible ambition. It isn't. (* I don't see sports guns and hunting rifles as problematic, and these could be licensed and used in controlled areas - even though I dont see the point of either, I accept they are not generally the cause of mass deaths or family tragedies on anything like the same scale)


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 02:49 PM Post #56
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 5 2018, 02:16 PM) If there is a gun in the car that isnt covered. if the police have a warrant to search a house due to other crime (which is WHAT I SAID) then a gun would turn up, if they are carrying a gun in public they would be charged and the gun taken away. That is not quite correct - we're back to the 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'. In most of the US, you can only use as evidence items that have been specifically named on a search warrant. A gun might be confiscatable in those circumstances, but you couldn't be prosecuted for owning it unless it was specifically being searched for.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Mar 5 2018, 05:09 PM Post #57
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 5 2018, 02:49 PM) That is not quite correct - we're back to the 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'. In most of the US, you can only use as evidence items that have been specifically named on a search warrant. A gun might be confiscatable in those circumstances, but you couldn't be prosecuted for owning it unless it was specifically being searched for. tell that to Trump - exceptions have been made: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3219840/s...-md-and-dc.html however, I'm not too worried whether there is a prosecution or not. The aim isn't to criminalise everyone this isnt a war against people who disagree, it's to get rid of the guns. Losing something they paid potentially hundreds of dollars for is enough...


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 6 2018, 06:26 AM Post #58
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 5 2018, 05:09 PM) tell that to Trump - exceptions have been made: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3219840/s...-md-and-dc.html however, I'm not too worried whether there is a prosecution or not. The aim isn't to criminalise everyone this isnt a war against people who disagree, it's to get rid of the guns. Losing something they paid potentially hundreds of dollars for is enough... iro the above Trump example, surely that's all the more reason to ensure the Constitution is adhered to?


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 6 2018, 06:57 AM Post #59
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	An example of hypocrisy : https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/kings...t-a3782206.html A King's College London building was evacuated after masked anti-fascist protesters stormed an event featuring a controversial 'alt right' speaker. ************** How can they justify calling themselves anti-fascist, when they use Brownshirt tactics themselves? The Mail's version : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-54...EECH-event.html The Guardian's version :


vidcapper View member profile	Mar 6 2018, 07:29 AM Post #60
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...oroner-religion Why I’d happily give up my place in the burials ‘cab rank’ queue Peter Ormerod The coroner who insists on the first-come, first-served principle when releasing bodies for burial misunderstands religion ************************************** I'm surprised the Guardian would even draw attention to an issue like this - normally they avoid anything that could stir up racial/religious tensions.