Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ A Three Strikes Law
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 07:27 AM
Would you support such a law for the UK, which several US states have?
Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.
Maybe it should be more than 3 strikes - but how many convictions would it take to convince you that a person was incapable of rehabilitation?
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2017, 07:45 AM
Nope. It is an absolutely hideous law that see's people locked up for life for quite minor offences. There's no clear evidence that it does anything other than exponentially raise prison occupancy rates.
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 07:59 AM
QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Dec 2 2017, 07:45 AM) 
Nope. It is an absolutely hideous law that see's people locked up for life for quite minor offences.
Did you miss my proviso 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.'
QUOTE
There's no clear evidence that it does anything other than exponentially raise prison occupancy rates.
You say that like it would be a bad thing?
Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2017, 08:35 AM
We already have the second largest prison population (per head of population) in the developed world. Why would we want to add to that buy adopting a gimmick like this? Sentencing should be decided on the facts of the case (including pasty behaviour) and not by some arbitrary rule such as this.
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 09:02 AM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 2 2017, 08:35 AM)
We already have the second largest prison population (per head of population) in the developed world. Why would we want to add to that buy adopting a gimmick like this?
Err, to protect the public from irredeemable recidivists?
QUOTE
Sentencing should be decided on the facts of the case (including pasty behaviour)
You have something against the Cornish? 
QUOTE
and not by some arbitrary rule such as this.
But the problem is - THAT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals are obviously not deterred by the punishment courts currently hand out.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2017, 09:08 AM
No.
The USA abuses the system against black people and they get decades-long sentences for trivial offences that require just a fine.
THe UK is not a paragon of virtue immune to system abuses (take a look at our police, MPs and bankers, or any number of wrongfully convicted people). Giving police an excuse to get repeat offenders put away to save them potential work down the line is not how democracy works.
Innocent until proven guilty, and you get found guilty for what is is you are convicted for, not for what you may have done, may not have done, or might do.
People don't commit crimes worrying about getting caught. If they did there would be no crime and we would live in a paradise on earth. They commit crimes because they think they WON'T get caught (or are prepared to take that risk, or don't care if they get caught).
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 10:12 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 2 2017, 09:08 AM)
No.
The USA abuses the system against black people and they get decades-long sentences for trivial offences that require just a fine.
The USA abuses the system against black people and they get decades-long sentences for trivial offences that require just a fine.
Did anyone read the second line of my first post?
QUOTE
THe UK is not a paragon of virtue immune to system abuses (take a look at our police, MPs and bankers, or any number of wrongfully convicted people). Giving police an excuse to get repeat offenders put away to save them potential work down the line is not how democracy works.
But *is* democracy actually working here in the first place?QUOTE
Innocent until proven guilty, and you get found guilty for what is is you are convicted for, not for what you may have done, may not have done, or might do.
Have I ever said otherwise?
Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2017, 10:49 AM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 2 2017, 09:02 AM)
Err, to protect the public from irredeemable recidivists?
You have something against the Cornish?
But the problem is - THAT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals are obviously not deterred by the punishment courts currently hand out.
You have something against the Cornish?
But the problem is - THAT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals are obviously not deterred by the punishment courts currently hand out.
The reoffending rate for some offences is indeed high. However, there is no evidence to support the contention that tougher sentencing makes a scrap of difference. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that certain types of non-custodial sentence have a much better record of rehabilitating offenders.
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 02:57 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 2 2017, 10:49 AM)
The reoffending rate for some offences is indeed high. However, there is no evidence to support the contention that tougher sentencing makes a scrap of difference. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that certain types of non-custodial sentence have a much better record of rehabilitating offenders.
Wouldn't that depend somewhat on how many previous convictions a felon has - if it were dozens, then rehabilitation would be unlikely.
Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2017, 03:08 PM
The cornerstone of a good justice system is rehabilitation. There’s so many cases of people racking up dozens of charges in their youth turning their life around. So many it’s a freaking TV/Movie cliche!
There’s evidence from the US that those facing their third strike actually commit crimes that are more violent than they would have been. Kind of a “I’m going down for life if caught anyway, may as well go big”
Everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. Extending what could have been a 1-5yr sentence to 20-25yr one for earning frequent visitor miles is cruel and will lead to poor outcomes for these people that may not have reoffended had they been rehabilitated.
Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 04:04 PM
QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Dec 2 2017, 03:08 PM)
There’s evidence from the US that those facing their third strike actually commit crimes that are more violent than they would have been. Kind of a “I’m going down for life if caught anyway, may as well go big”
Err, how about the 'never commit a crime again' option?
QUOTE
Everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. Extending what could have been a 1-5yr sentence to 20-25yr one for earning frequent visitor miles is cruel and will lead to poor outcomes for these people that may not have reoffended had they been rehabilitated.
But prisoners *do* have a chance to rehabilitate, *every* time they're sent down - am I supposed to have sympathy for them if they don't take that opportunity?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2017, 05:22 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 2 2017, 10:12 AM)
Did anyone read the second line of my first post?
But *is* democracy actually working here in the first place?
Have I ever said otherwise?
But *is* democracy actually working here in the first place?
Have I ever said otherwise?
1. Yes I did. I made the point referring to a complete lack of trust on my part that even that scenario would get perverted by those in authority. "Why do you constantly misunderstand my posts and twist them"
2. Not if the referendum is any indication and the sort of Brexit that is being imposed on us, that there is no evidence 52% of the country voted for.
3. The whole thread is devoted to a scenario where what you have done before DOES influence what sentence you get (and which you appear to arguing in favour of). So, I'm glad to hear you don't feel that way and that you would vote "No" along with the rest of us.
Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 06:46 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 2 2017, 05:22 PM)
1. Yes I did. I made the point referring to a complete lack of trust on my part that even that scenario would get perverted by those in authority. "Why do you constantly misunderstand my posts and twist them"
2. Not if the referendum is any indication and the sort of Brexit that is being imposed on us, that there is no evidence 52% of the country voted for.
3. The whole thread is devoted to a scenario where what you have done before DOES influence what sentence you get (and which you appear to arguing in favour of). So, I'm glad to hear you don't feel that way and that you would vote "No" along with the rest of us.
2. Not if the referendum is any indication and the sort of Brexit that is being imposed on us, that there is no evidence 52% of the country voted for.
3. The whole thread is devoted to a scenario where what you have done before DOES influence what sentence you get (and which you appear to arguing in favour of). So, I'm glad to hear you don't feel that way and that you would vote "No" along with the rest of us.
1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned?
2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course...
3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (*). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty.
(*) This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 09:36 AM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 06:46 AM)
1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned?
2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course...
3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (*). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty.
(*) This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.
2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course...
3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (*). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty.
(*) This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.
1. Telepathy not required. Just reading skills and the ability to absorb information.
2. Err, polls and what people were told during the referendum and said afterwards that they felt they were voting for. This fact is one you continue to ignore because it suits your aim (which is total Hard Brexit).
3. You forget about Magistrates who dispense justice on up to 6 months imprisonment based on what they know. How do you define what is "minor"? There has to be a cut-off point in your scenario between what is or isn't "minor". So someone can do 130 burglaries? Two physical attacks? Not pay a TV licence a million times? Just the one murder followed by parking fines? The whole concept is just ridiculous. Sorry.
Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 10:29 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 09:36 AM)
2. Err, polls and what people were told during the referendum and said afterwards that they felt they were voting for. This fact is one you continue to ignore because it suits your aim (which is total Hard Brexit).
3. You forget about Magistrates who dispense justice on up to 6 months imprisonment based on what they know. How do you define what is "minor"? There has to be a cut-off point in your scenario between what is or isn't "minor". So someone can do 130 burglaries? Two physical attacks? Not pay a TV licence a million times? Just the one murder followed by parking fines? The whole concept is just ridiculous. Sorry.
3. You forget about Magistrates who dispense justice on up to 6 months imprisonment based on what they know. How do you define what is "minor"? There has to be a cut-off point in your scenario between what is or isn't "minor". So someone can do 130 burglaries? Two physical attacks? Not pay a TV licence a million times? Just the one murder followed by parking fines? The whole concept is just ridiculous. Sorry.
2. Not quite true - it would be preferable to maintain a trading relationship with the EU, but the price might well be more than I'm prepared to accept.
3. I did say in my first post 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.'.
If I were a politician proposing a three strikes law, then obviously I would have to set up conditions in advance - but I am not, so why do you consider it so crucial that I provide some?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 12:29 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 10:29 AM)
3. I did say in my first post 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.'.
If I were a politician proposing a three strikes law, then obviously I would have to set up conditions in advance - but I am not, so why do you consider it so crucial that I provide some?
If I were a politician proposing a three strikes law, then obviously I would have to set up conditions in advance - but I am not, so why do you consider it so crucial that I provide some?
Don't care if you provide conditions or not. Just pointing out how complex the issue is and how simplistic your approach is. Bit like Brexit.
Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 02:22 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 12:29 PM)
Don't care if you provide conditions or not. Just pointing out how complex the issue is and how simplistic your approach is. Bit like Brexit.
But the Brexit question *was* very simple : In/Out.
Sometimes I feel like I've been made a scapegoat for the 17.4m others unavailable to ask, though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd December 2017, 02:35 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 06:46 AM)
1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned?
2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course...
3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (*). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty.
(*) This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.
2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course...
3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (*). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty.
(*) This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.
It is now a lot more common for the prosecution to be allowed to refer to a defendant's past record (including arrests that have not led to charges).
Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 03:13 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 02:22 PM)
But the Brexit question *was* very simple : In/Out.
Sometimes I feel like I've been made a scapegoat for the 17.4m others unavailable to ask, though.
Sometimes I feel like I've been made a scapegoat for the 17.4m others unavailable to ask, though.
Yes, VERY simple. Much like the Leave Politicians version of events that hasn't happened.
I don't see you as scapegoat for the 17.4m by the 43m who didn't vote for it! I just see you as adopting the same stance most of those 17.4m are taking these days: I don't care if it ruins us! It's a matter of principle!
They have to, otherwise they look like gullible fools taken in by errr "over-optimistic" politicians who are trying to delete all their past quotes.
BTW being naive can be very charming (except when it affects the well-being of everyone else)
Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 03:51 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 3 2017, 02:35 PM)
It is now a lot more common for the prosecution to be allowed to refer to a defendant's past record (including arrests that have not led to charges).
Just 10 years when I was on jury service, it was still practically taboo.
Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 03:53 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 03:13 PM)
Yes, VERY simple. Much like the Leave Politicians version of events that hasn't happened.
I don't see you as scapegoat for the 17.4m by the 43m who didn't vote for it! I just see you as adopting the same stance most of those 17.4m are taking these days: I don't care if it ruins us! It's a matter of principle!
I don't see you as scapegoat for the 17.4m by the 43m who didn't vote for it! I just see you as adopting the same stance most of those 17.4m are taking these days: I don't care if it ruins us! It's a matter of principle!
But the point is - if we genuinely believed the country would be 'ruined' by Brexit, then we wouldn't have voted for it.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd December 2017, 03:59 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 03:51 PM)
Just 10 years when I was on jury service, it was still practically taboo.
And should still be now. Unfortunately, successive governments have pandered to the tabloids and changed the rules.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 09:01 PM
QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 03:53 PM)
But the point is - if we genuinely believed the country would be 'ruined' by Brexit, then we wouldn't have voted for it.
Well, not true, I had a VERY sweary heated debate about it with my brother soon after the referendum - and he genuinely doesn't care what happens he so loathes the EU he'd rather see the UK ruined than be a member. So not 100% of people who voted Leave had altruistic reasons, sorry! (You see, my family and friends split 50/50 pretty much Leave/Remain, and for a variety of reasons, some of them racist, some of them not so I know you can't claim to represent the viewpoints of all Brexit voters, as we pretty much represent the same percentages as the nation)
We could always have "three strikes and you're out" (the country) to anyone fooled by the liars IF it all goes belly-up? 1. The Referendum result 2. Voting for the Brexiting Tories and one more chance and "STEEEERIKE!" Bye now!
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th December 2017, 09:49 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 09:01 PM)
Well, not true, I had a VERY sweary heated debate about it with my brother soon after the referendum - and he genuinely doesn't care what happens he so loathes the EU he'd rather see the UK ruined than be a member. So not 100% of people who voted Leave had altruistic reasons, sorry! (You see, my family and friends split 50/50 pretty much Leave/Remain, and for a variety of reasons, some of them racist, some of them not so I know you can't claim to represent the viewpoints of all Brexit voters, as we pretty much represent the same percentages as the nation)
We could always have "three strikes and you're out" (the country) to anyone fooled by the liars IF it all goes belly-up? 1. The Referendum result 2. Voting for the Brexiting Tories and one more chance and "STEEEERIKE!" Bye now!
We could always have "three strikes and you're out" (the country) to anyone fooled by the liars IF it all goes belly-up? 1. The Referendum result 2. Voting for the Brexiting Tories and one more chance and "STEEEERIKE!" Bye now!
I vote that they be sentenced to listen to Farage and Johnson on a continuous loop for eternity.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th December 2017, 12:31 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 4 2017, 09:49 AM)
I vote that they be sentenced to listen to Farage and Johnson on a continuous loop for eternity.
Well it would reduce the pension problem as they all jump into the nearest chasm after a couple of years, though some of them might be masochists. That would explain a lot
Posted by: vidsanta 4th December 2017, 02:34 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 4 2017, 12:31 PM)
Well it would reduce the pension problem as they all jump into the nearest chasm after a couple of years, though some of them might be masochists. That would explain a lot
If only people got *my* humour like you do each other's.
Posted by: vidcapper 17th June 2018, 05:35 AM
I decided to bump this thread up, as there was more I wanted to say about this issue.
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 16 2018, 08:27 AM)
3. I'm not interested in getting back into the 3 strikes argument in this thread
... so I moved it here instead.
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 17 2018, 12:02 AM)
2. Me neither. Because u can't supply examples of definitive justice. No one can.
What do you mean by 'definitive justice'?
My ideal would be a form of justice that persuades a convicted criminal never to commit another crime again.
And before you ask, I'm not thinking of capital punishment here - perhaps some sort of virtual prison could do the trick instead?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th June 2018, 06:10 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 17 2018, 06:35 AM)
I decided to bump this thread up, as there was more I wanted to say about this issue.
... so I moved it here instead.
What do you mean by 'definitive justice'?
My ideal would be a form of justice that persuades a convicted criminal never to commit another crime again.
And before you ask, I'm not thinking of capital punishment here - perhaps some sort of virtual prison could do the trick instead?
... so I moved it here instead.
What do you mean by 'definitive justice'?
My ideal would be a form of justice that persuades a convicted criminal never to commit another crime again.
And before you ask, I'm not thinking of capital punishment here - perhaps some sort of virtual prison could do the trick instead?
we have virtual prison. It's called Community Service.
How clear do I ned to be? You seem to have some sort of ESP able to tell who is guilty of something and think newspapers have the same ability, and that every nation and every person in the world holds the same views on what constitutes a crime and what the exact punishment should be regardless of individual circumstances, or heaven forbid the notion that someone might be wrongly accused, cos that NEVER ever happens in a million years, and guilty people with enormous wealth never ever get away with it by hiring expensive lawayers good at finding loophole technicalties.
I imagine you are thinking of "God". Because I can't see how any human can possibly have that sort of power.
Well, of course, if you executed every person after committing a crime that should do the trick. In fact let's just execute them for looking like they were thinking about committing a crime, or just looking a bit too Muslim-ey and suspicious, or just believeing every accusation made by anybody about anybody else and dispensing swift justice without the expense of a trial. Saves on prison fees, keeps jobs open for English people. Sorted.
(PS what I'm saying is the world is complicated, shades of grey and you see things only in black and white absolutes, and I most certainly don't trust any human being who sees other people's lives as something they can absolutely rule on themselves because they "know better" than namby pamby liberals whinging about justice and rights.)
(PPS societies that have harsh laws do not get rid of crime, all they do is increase injustice. Stats available)
Posted by: vidcapper 18th June 2018, 05:54 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 17 2018, 07:10 PM)
we have virtual prison. It's called Community Service.
Otherwise known as 'a slap on the wrist'
QUOTE
How clear do I ned to be? You seem to have some sort of ESP able to tell who is guilty of something and think newspapers have the same ability, and that every nation and every person in the world holds the same views on what constitutes a crime and what the exact punishment should be regardless of individual circumstances, or heaven forbid the notion that someone might be wrongly accused, cos that NEVER ever happens in a million years, and guilty people with enormous wealth never ever get away with it by hiring expensive lawayers good at finding loophole technicalties.
Well, of course, if you executed every person after committing a crime that should do the trick. In fact let's just execute them for looking like they were thinking about committing a crime, or just looking a bit too Muslim-ey and suspicious, or just believeing every accusation made by anybody about anybody else and dispensing swift justice without the expense of a trial. Saves on prison fees, keeps jobs open for English people. Sorted.
You really love melodrama, don't you.Well, of course, if you executed every person after committing a crime that should do the trick. In fact let's just execute them for looking like they were thinking about committing a crime, or just looking a bit too Muslim-ey and suspicious, or just believeing every accusation made by anybody about anybody else and dispensing swift justice without the expense of a trial. Saves on prison fees, keeps jobs open for English people. Sorted.
QUOTE
(PS what I'm saying is the world is complicated, shades of grey and you see things only in black and white absolutes, and I most certainly don't trust any human being who sees other people's lives as something they can absolutely rule on themselves because they "know better" than namby pamby liberals whinging about justice and rights.)
(PPS societies that have harsh laws do not get rid of crime, all they do is increase injustice. Stats available)
(PPS societies that have harsh laws do not get rid of crime, all they do is increase injustice. Stats available)
As I see it, the problem is not so much rights, as responsibilities. Crime suspects are very quick to claim their rights, but very few give a sh1t about the responsibilities that go with them. This irresponsibility is why I support ideas like '3 strikes'. If criminals cannot be persuaded to go straight, then the best we can do is protect the public from them as long as possible.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th June 2018, 09:03 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 18 2018, 06:54 AM)
Otherwise known as 'a slap on the wrist'
You really love melodrama, don't you.
As I see it, the problem is not so much rights, as responsibilities. Crime suspects are very quick to claim their rights, but very few give a sh1t about the responsibilities that go with them. This irresponsibility is why I support ideas like '3 strikes'. If criminals cannot be persuaded to go straight, then the best we can do is protect the public from them as long as possible.
You really love melodrama, don't you.
As I see it, the problem is not so much rights, as responsibilities. Crime suspects are very quick to claim their rights, but very few give a sh1t about the responsibilities that go with them. This irresponsibility is why I support ideas like '3 strikes'. If criminals cannot be persuaded to go straight, then the best we can do is protect the public from them as long as possible.
1. Known as reducing expense of prisons and rehabilitating people for minor crimes on people who are no danger to society. Simple concept. Why do you not understand it?
2. Not melodrama. It's sarcasm. Quite a difference. If only someone could put a dictionary on the web? I did look for a great latin equivalent to help but drew a blank, sadly.
PS that is also sarcasm.
3. Crime "suspects" are guilty of nothing under British law. Innocent until proven guilty. You seem to have problems with that concept. I refer you back to my ESP comments. You seem to have gifts beyond us mere mortals able to tell criminals at a glance. Truly awesome talent you have. Maybe you should get in touch with the Police forces of Gloucestershire and help them remove all criminals before they do anything? While you're at it you could help the British Legal system work out what is the best way to build a whole new county of prisons to house all the people you decide would be the correct response to stealing a bag of crisps? I'm sure they could do with your help in coming up with a new system of punishment. Try writing to your local MP with the ideas. Or Christopher Chope, he'll be open to ideas.
PS that is also sarcasm. Sarcasm is a way of making a point by taking a useless argument inverting it to an extreme and pretending to be impressed to show how ridiculous it is.
Posted by: vidcapper 18th June 2018, 10:49 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 18 2018, 10:03 AM)
1. Known as reducing expense of prisons and rehabilitating people for minor crimes on people who are no danger to society. Simple concept. Why do you not understand it?
I understand that it is not a magic bullet - what about career criminals who've been in & out of jail dozens of times? Anyone with common sense can see the only solution to *them* is to 'lock em up & throw away the key'.
That's the whole point of three strikes - to protect the public from people who have proven they *cannot* be rehabilitated, either through unwillingness or incapability.
QUOTE
3. Crime "suspects" are guilty of nothing under British law. Innocent until proven guilty. You seem to have problems with that concept.
Nonsense - I have never ever said criminals should be convicted without trial!QUOTE
I refer you back to my ESP comments. You seem to have gifts beyond us mere mortals able to tell criminals at a glance. Truly awesome talent you have. Maybe you should get in touch with the Police forces of Gloucestershire and help them remove all criminals before they do anything? While you're at it you could help the British Legal system work out what is the best way to build a whole new county of prisons to house all the people you decide would be the correct response to stealing a bag of crisps? I'm sure they could do with your help in coming up with a new system of punishment. Try writing to your local MP with the ideas. Or Christopher Chope, he'll be open to ideas.
PS that is also sarcasm.
PS that is also sarcasm.
I would describe that as abusing sarcasm.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th June 2018, 04:12 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 18 2018, 11:49 AM)
I understand that it is not a magic bullet - what about career criminals who've been in & out of jail dozens of times? Anyone with common sense can see the only solution to *them* is to 'lock em up & throw away the key'.
That's the whole point of three strikes - to protect the public from people who have proven they *cannot* be rehabilitated, either through unwillingness or incapability.
Nonsense - I have never ever said criminals should be convicted without trial!
I would describe that as abusing sarcasm.
That's the whole point of three strikes - to protect the public from people who have proven they *cannot* be rehabilitated, either through unwillingness or incapability.
Nonsense - I have never ever said criminals should be convicted without trial!
I would describe that as abusing sarcasm.
1. No. For f***s sake, someone committing 3 minor offenses is not a danger to society. They are at best a minor nuisance. You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong and what is minor and what is serious, you just lump every human being into one homogenous "villain" category when the truth is if you were hungry, starving and society controls broke down you would be grabbing someone else's food rather than starve. That makes everyone a potential criminal given the right circumstances.
2. You said "suspects" abusing their "rights" to get "off". There is no such thing. You are either found guilty or innocent, and until found guilty everyone has a right to assumed innocence. It's enshrined in our law and copied throughout the Empire that you love so much. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty until the truth comes out. In your world you would just say "tough" and carry on seeing the world in simplistic terms.
3. I would call your comments that sparked my sarcasm pretty banal. See my comments above about the world being complex and your response being simplistic. Plus, it doesn't work. It's expensive. It causes real hardship for families. You still have given no list of crimes and punishments so I'll keep on with the sarcasm thanks. You make it so easy
Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 05:38 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 18 2018, 05:12 PM)
1. No. For f***s sake, someone committing 3 minor offenses is not a danger to society. They are at best a minor nuisance. You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong and what is minor and what is serious, you just lump every human being into one homogenous "villain" category when the truth is if you were hungry, starving and society controls broke down you would be grabbing someone else's food rather than starve. That makes everyone a potential criminal given the right circumstances.
2. You said "suspects" abusing their "rights" to get "off". There is no such thing. You are either found guilty or innocent, and until found guilty everyone has a right to assumed innocence. It's enshrined in our law and copied throughout the Empire that you love so much. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty until the truth comes out. In your world you would just say "tough" and carry on seeing the world in simplistic terms.
3. I would call your comments that sparked my sarcasm pretty banal. See my comments above about the world being complex and your response being simplistic. Plus, it doesn't work. It's expensive. It causes real hardship for families. You still have given no list of crimes and punishments so I'll keep on with the sarcasm thanks. You make it so easy
2. You said "suspects" abusing their "rights" to get "off". There is no such thing. You are either found guilty or innocent, and until found guilty everyone has a right to assumed innocence. It's enshrined in our law and copied throughout the Empire that you love so much. Plenty of innocent people get found guilty until the truth comes out. In your world you would just say "tough" and carry on seeing the world in simplistic terms.
3. I would call your comments that sparked my sarcasm pretty banal. See my comments above about the world being complex and your response being simplistic. Plus, it doesn't work. It's expensive. It causes real hardship for families. You still have given no list of crimes and punishments so I'll keep on with the sarcasm thanks. You make it so easy
1. I'm not talking of 3 offences, but of dozens, over the course of decades!
I was not talking of a fantasy 'society breaking down' scenario, as you well know.
However, since you like out-there scenarios - I propose that criminal-loving lefties each have a hardened career criminal (or junkie) put in their custody for a month. Long before the end of that period, they will have their naivety blasted away, and advocate measures against criminals that would make even Trump squirm!
2. I prefer my 'simplistic terms' to your suicidally naive ones!
Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 06:22 AM
Is *this* criminal enough for you?
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5857511/Ex-councillor-jailed-9-years-sex-13-year-old-girl-shared-bed-wife.html
Mayor of Godalming is jailed for nine years for sex with 13-year-old girl - who even shared bed with him and his wife - after telling arresting police: 'Do know who I am?
Former Mayor of Godalming Simon Thornton, 46, has been jailed for nine years
When arrested in 2017 Mr Thornton was the town mayor in Godalming, Surrey
Thornton abused a girl for three years and even made her sleep in his marital bed
*************
I sincerely hope you are not going to make excuses for this vile p****.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 06:48 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 19 2018, 07:22 AM)
Is *this* criminal enough for you?
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5857511/Ex-councillor-jailed-9-years-sex-13-year-old-girl-shared-bed-wife.html
Mayor of Godalming is jailed for nine years for sex with 13-year-old girl - who even shared bed with him and his wife - after telling arresting police: 'Do know who I am?
Former Mayor of Godalming Simon Thornton, 46, has been jailed for nine years
When arrested in 2017 Mr Thornton was the town mayor in Godalming, Surrey
Thornton abused a girl for three years and even made her sleep in his marital bed
*************
I sincerely hope you are not going to make excuses for this vile p****.
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5857511/Ex-councillor-jailed-9-years-sex-13-year-old-girl-shared-bed-wife.html
Mayor of Godalming is jailed for nine years for sex with 13-year-old girl - who even shared bed with him and his wife - after telling arresting police: 'Do know who I am?
Former Mayor of Godalming Simon Thornton, 46, has been jailed for nine years
When arrested in 2017 Mr Thornton was the town mayor in Godalming, Surrey
Thornton abused a girl for three years and even made her sleep in his marital bed
*************
I sincerely hope you are not going to make excuses for this vile p****.
Piss off. One actual criminal who has received the sentence he deserves according to British justice does not in any way give you any argument for allowing lawlessness. No doubt he will be on a sex offences register and monitored quite rightly for the rest of his life and his life made a misery. If you think the sentence is too light then you are free to write to your MP and campaign for harsher sentences for specific crimes. Or you can just whinge melodramatically to anyone listening about all criminals and how crap British justice is.
And as for your deliberately provocative offensive innuendo I think I have expressed my view on paedophiles many many times enough for you to know exactly what you are doing.
Someone else has made an argument which I find very convincing:
"@kumailn
2h2 hours ago
More
I have always believed that there is no inherent sense of right and wrong within people, that morality comes from a just society. An unjust society leads to immoral people. It’s how mass atrocities happen. What is happening in this country right now makes me believe this more."
Your way of dealing with criminals makes things worse. This is historically 100% obvious and you are deluded. You know of nothing of the legal system, your views are entirely aroused by Daily Fail headlines and propaganda.
Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 07:09 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 19 2018, 07:48 AM)
Piss off.
Oh, very sophisticated response.
QUOTE
One actual criminal who has received the sentence he deserves according to British justice does not in any way give you any argument for allowing lawlessness. No doubt he will be on a sex offences register and monitored quite rightly for the rest of his life and his life made a misery. If you think the sentence is too light then you are free to write to your MP and campaign for harsher sentences for specific crimes. Or you can just whinge melodramatically to anyone listening about all criminals and how crap British justice is.
And as for your deliberately provocative offensive innuendo
What are you talking about? I am absolutely mystified as to what on earth you *possibly* find offensive about my sincere hope that you would not excuse him in any way? And as for your deliberately provocative offensive innuendo
QUOTE
Your way of dealing with criminals makes things worse. This is historically 100% obvious and you are deluded. You know of nothing of the legal system, your views are entirely aroused by Daily Fail headlines and propaganda.
IMO there would be far less crime if the DM was in charge of the judicial system...
Posted by: Suedehead2 19th June 2018, 11:34 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 19 2018, 08:09 AM)
Oh, very sophisticated response.
What are you talking about? I am absolutely mystified as to what on earth you *possibly* find offensive about my sincere hope that you would not excuse him in any way?
IMO there would be far less crime if the DM was in charge of the judicial system...
What are you talking about? I am absolutely mystified as to what on earth you *possibly* find offensive about my sincere hope that you would not excuse him in any way?
IMO there would be far less crime if the DM was in charge of the judicial system...
No, there would be more crime. I’m sure even the DM would agree, if pushe, that people should still be tried before sentencing. If jurors think the potential punishment is excessive, they simply won’t convict.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 12:02 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 19 2018, 08:09 AM)
Oh, very sophisticated response.
What are you talking about? I am absolutely mystified as to what on earth you *possibly* find offensive about my sincere hope that you would not excuse him in any way?
IMO there would be far less crime if the DM was in charge of the judicial system...
What are you talking about? I am absolutely mystified as to what on earth you *possibly* find offensive about my sincere hope that you would not excuse him in any way?
IMO there would be far less crime if the DM was in charge of the judicial system...
It was the response you deserve, as well you know.
Your justification for holding your views is to hold up a criminal guilty of abusive a girl and then say "do you condemn it" insinuating that in some way that means anything you say holds any water on the grounds that no reasonable person would disagree. This is complete bollocks and is just intended to be inflammatory because you are incapable of holding logical conversations on things you find it difficult to justify.
You: "Well I think I'm right, so there, na na na na" and then go off to sulk in the playground....
It would be very easy to reverse it, and say anyone who doesn't believe in British justice and the British Legal system is a Traitor. An Enemy Of The People. Y'now Headlines you LOVE to bits. Moan for years about wanting the British to have control and then moan when they do. Basically, just moan either way. So, you would rather a millionaire living in the EU to guard his billions has control over the British people than people trained and a legal system that has been drawn up over centuries and which has been the template for most of the Western World...
As you clearly don't believe in democracy and experts anymore I think we have at long last established something useful to refer back to.
Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 02:00 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 19 2018, 01:02 PM)
It was the response you deserve, as well you know.
I don't agree - I am never abusive to you, so there's no justification for your abuse of me.
QUOTE
As you clearly don't believe in democracy and experts anymore I think we have at long last established something useful to refer back to.
I *do* believe in democracy - lets start with 23 June 2016...
Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 07:27 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 19 2018, 03:00 PM)
I don't agree - I am never abusive to you, so there's no justification for your abuse of me.
I *do* believe in democracy - lets start with 23 June 2016...
I *do* believe in democracy - lets start with 23 June 2016...
It wasn't personally abusive. It was an expression of disbelief that you are reduced to inane attempts to link paedophilia with the argument for harsh sentencing as if (without actually saying it) you believe 9 years isn't enough and anyone who disagrees is somehow a supporter of perverts.
Why, for example, did you specifically aim your comment at me rather than say:
"Here is one example where I feel the law needs to be harsher"
as opposed to leaping to the conclusion (as you continually do) that all sentences for all people arent harsh enough and we are too wishy washy letting people off who YOU feel are guilty despite having no background knowledge of the specific cases or specific instances. And all the while hypocritically turning a blind eye to the illegal activities of people like Trump and Farage who personally I believe should be in prison for their crimes but who avoid it thanks to their establishment connections and wealth. You know, REAL actual traitors and Enemies Of The People, colloborating with fascists and Russians as we find more evidence coming out on a weekly basis.
Condemn them, show some continuity in your statements, and agree they need locking up, and you just MAY have a moral high ground to condemn all criminals. Failing that all you are doing is nitpicking because the damage they have done to lives far outweighs that of any petty thief.
The Referendum was fixed by alliances with Russia and lies. That's not democracy. That's propaganda. That's why you and all Brexiters are petrified of a re-run or an actual vote by MP's. Piss-scared of democracy, but sneakily trying to hide behind pretending to be democratic.
Full circle.
Posted by: vidcapper 20th June 2018, 05:51 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 19 2018, 08:27 PM)
as opposed to leaping to the conclusion (as you continually do) that all sentences for all people arent harsh enough and we are too wishy washy letting people off who YOU feel are guilty despite having no background knowledge of the specific cases or specific instances.
It's funny you should mention 'leaping to conclusions', as that's exactly what you just did about me! Despite your above claim, I do *not* automatically believe that *all* sentences are too light, regardless of circumstances. My position is that : since the sentences that do get handed out are frequently ineffective, we should look at means of punishment that will be most effective at preventing recidivism.
QUOTE
And all the while hypocritically turning a blind eye to the illegal activities of people like Trump and Farage who personally I believe should be in prison for their crimes but who avoid it thanks to their establishment connections and wealth. You know, REAL actual traitors and Enemies Of The People, colloborating with fascists and Russians as we find more evidence coming out on a weekly basis.
I will condemn them if/when they are convicted of actual crimes, rather than trial by media.QUOTE
The Referendum was fixed by alliances with Russia and lies. That's not democracy. That's propaganda.
Yes, Remainer propaganda - but you have no *proof* that :
1. It actually happened
2. That even if it did, it was enough to change the result.
Posted by: kindagood 20th June 2018, 02:05 PM
Sending people to prison does not stop crime. If it did the USA would be a low crime paradise and Scandanavia would be a crime ridden nightmare. However I think we can all agree that is not the case. Crime is caused by a range of factors including poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility. These factors are high in the UK, and US. We need to challenge these issues amongst others. Also a lot of crime is economic in nature, why? Lack of equality. Until we make the world fairer this will continue
Posted by: vidcapper 20th June 2018, 02:33 PM
QUOTE(kindagood @ Jun 20 2018, 03:05 PM)
Sending people to prison does not stop crime. If it did the USA would be a low crime paradise and Scandanavia would be a crime ridden nightmare.
However I think we can all agree that is not the case. Crime is caused by a range of factors including poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility. These factors are high in the UK, and US. We need to challenge these issues amongst others. Also a lot of crime is economic in nature, why? Lack of equality. Until we make the world fairer this will continue
However I think we can all agree that is not the case. Crime is caused by a range of factors including poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility. These factors are high in the UK, and US. We need to challenge these issues amongst others. Also a lot of crime is economic in nature, why? Lack of equality. Until we make the world fairer this will continue
1. It doesn't stop crime, but it does protect the public from it for the duration of their incarceration.
2. Unfortunately the fly in the above ointment is that the enforced equality of communist countries does not stop crime either. Also, not everyone in reduced circumstances turns to crime, so 'poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility' cannot offer a full explanation for crime either.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st June 2018, 08:25 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 20 2018, 06:51 AM)
It's funny you should mention 'leaping to conclusions', as that's exactly what you just did about me! Despite your above claim, I do *not* automatically believe that *all* sentences are too light, regardless of circumstances. My position is that : since the sentences that do get handed out are frequently ineffective, we should look at means of punishment that will be most effective at preventing recidivism.
I will condemn them if/when they are convicted of actual crimes, rather than trial by media.
Yes, Remainer propaganda - but you have no *proof* that :
1. It actually happened
2. That even if it did, it was enough to change the result.
I will condemn them if/when they are convicted of actual crimes, rather than trial by media.
Yes, Remainer propaganda - but you have no *proof* that :
1. It actually happened
2. That even if it did, it was enough to change the result.
1. Your posts belie your claims about light sentences
2. Harsh jail sentences make no difference to crime levels. This is a fact. Rehabilitiation does. This is a fact.
3. The current guilty pleas of most of the people accused in Trump's government should be a clue that they are guilty. But feel free to deny facts as usual.
4. How hypocritical are you condemning trial my media (based on actual facts as reported and not lies) but wholeheartedly embrace total lies and propaganda when Daily Mail performs Trial By Media. Such a hypocrite. You NEVER EVER condemn any Daily Mail headlines yet here you are making feeble excuses for people are and have admitted they are guilty of offences (they just havent got the court cases sorted yet). Not being in prison does not mean they arent guilty when they have admitted they are guilty. Such as the man who just tried to claim credit for ending (he hasn't though) child imprisonment in inhumane conditions, a policy he created. Feel free to try and support that evil nasty and utterly unnecessary policy devised to try and blackmail Democrats into voting to pay for a wall that he could have paid for instead of giving the tax breaks to the richest 1% of Americans.
5. And you have no proof it didn't affect the result. I do however have proof it took place, Aaron Banks admitted meeting Russians, Cambridge Anal Lickita met Russians, the FBI are investigating links to brexit as a trial run by the above for the American election. But all means keep calling it fake news, as all right-wingers do when trying to discredit facts. Liars favourite phrase is "fake news" when faced with facts. That's a fact.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st June 2018, 08:30 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 20 2018, 03:33 PM)
1. It doesn't stop crime, but it does protect the public from it for the duration of their incarceration.
2. Unfortunately the fly in the above ointment is that the enforced equality of communist countries does not stop crime either. Also, not everyone in reduced circumstances turns to crime, so 'poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility' cannot offer a full explanation for crime either.
2. Unfortunately the fly in the above ointment is that the enforced equality of communist countries does not stop crime either. Also, not everyone in reduced circumstances turns to crime, so 'poverty, lack of equality of opportunities, and lack of social mobility' cannot offer a full explanation for crime either.
1. Well duuuuuuuhhhhhhh! What's your point? Nobody is arguing against criminals going to prison where the crime justifies a sentence. You just claimed you didn't have a problem with sentencing, necessarily. Contradicting yourself again.
2. Some people like crime as a means to get rich. Some people are forced into crime to survive. Some fall into it by stupidity. Some by accident. What's your point if you don't have a problem with British sentencing?
Posted by: vidcapper 22nd June 2018, 05:56 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 21 2018, 09:25 PM)
1. Your posts belie your claims about light sentences
2. Harsh jail sentences make no difference to crime levels. This is a fact. Rehabilitiation does. This is a fact.
3. The current guilty pleas of most of the people accused in Trump's government should be a clue that they are guilty. But feel free to deny facts as usual.
4. How hypocritical are you condemning trial my media (based on actual facts as reported and not lies) but wholeheartedly embrace total lies and propaganda when Daily Mail performs Trial By Media. Such a hypocrite. You NEVER EVER condemn any Daily Mail headlines yet here you are making feeble excuses for people are and have admitted they are guilty of offences (they just havent got the court cases sorted yet). Not being in prison does not mean they arent guilty when they have admitted they are guilty. Such as the man who just tried to claim credit for ending (he hasn't though) child imprisonment in inhumane conditions, a policy he created. Feel free to try and support that evil nasty and utterly unnecessary policy devised to try and blackmail Democrats into voting to pay for a wall that he could have paid for instead of giving the tax breaks to the richest 1% of Americans.
5. And you have no proof it didn't affect the result. I do however have proof it took place, Aaron Banks admitted meeting Russians, Cambridge Anal Lickita met Russians, the FBI are investigating links to brexit as a trial run by the above for the American election. But all means keep calling it fake news, as all right-wingers do when trying to discredit facts. Liars favourite phrase is "fake news" when faced with facts. That's a fact.
2. Harsh jail sentences make no difference to crime levels. This is a fact. Rehabilitiation does. This is a fact.
3. The current guilty pleas of most of the people accused in Trump's government should be a clue that they are guilty. But feel free to deny facts as usual.
4. How hypocritical are you condemning trial my media (based on actual facts as reported and not lies) but wholeheartedly embrace total lies and propaganda when Daily Mail performs Trial By Media. Such a hypocrite. You NEVER EVER condemn any Daily Mail headlines yet here you are making feeble excuses for people are and have admitted they are guilty of offences (they just havent got the court cases sorted yet). Not being in prison does not mean they arent guilty when they have admitted they are guilty. Such as the man who just tried to claim credit for ending (he hasn't though) child imprisonment in inhumane conditions, a policy he created. Feel free to try and support that evil nasty and utterly unnecessary policy devised to try and blackmail Democrats into voting to pay for a wall that he could have paid for instead of giving the tax breaks to the richest 1% of Americans.
5. And you have no proof it didn't affect the result. I do however have proof it took place, Aaron Banks admitted meeting Russians, Cambridge Anal Lickita met Russians, the FBI are investigating links to brexit as a trial run by the above for the American election. But all means keep calling it fake news, as all right-wingers do when trying to discredit facts. Liars favourite phrase is "fake news" when faced with facts. That's a fact.
1. Not at all, since my idea of 'more effective means of preventing recidivism' is the polar opposite of yours.
2. I regard this as nonsense - it is common sense that the harsher the punishment, the more the deterrent.
4. I don't condemn the Mail's headlines because I tend to agree with them - is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
5. The result is all that matters - as long as it was not obtained by actual vote fraud (i.e. ballot box stuffing, etc), rather than just iffy campaigning, that's good enough for me.
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 21 2018, 09:30 PM)
1. Well duuuuuuuhhhhhhh! What's your point? Nobody is arguing against criminals going to prison where the crime justifies a sentence. You just claimed you didn't have a problem with sentencing, necessarily. Contradicting yourself again.
2. Some people like crime as a means to get rich. Some people are forced into crime to survive. Some fall into it by stupidity. Some by accident. What's your point if you don't have a problem with British sentencing?
2. Some people like crime as a means to get rich. Some people are forced into crime to survive. Some fall into it by stupidity. Some by accident. What's your point if you don't have a problem with British sentencing?
Clearly you've forgotten what I've told you many times before - any apparent contradictions are due to you not understanding my position.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd June 2018, 07:48 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 06:56 AM)
1. Not at all, since my idea of 'more effective means of preventing recidivism' is the polar opposite of yours.
2. I regard this as nonsense - it is common sense that the harsher the punishment, the more the deterrent.
4. I don't condemn the Mail's headlines because I tend to agree with them - is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
5. The result is all that matters - as long as it was not obtained by actual vote fraud (i.e. ballot box stuffing, etc), rather than just iffy campaigning, that's good enough for me.
Clearly you've forgotten what I've told you many times before - any apparent contradictions are due to you not understanding my position.
2. I regard this as nonsense - it is common sense that the harsher the punishment, the more the deterrent.
4. I don't condemn the Mail's headlines because I tend to agree with them - is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
5. The result is all that matters - as long as it was not obtained by actual vote fraud (i.e. ballot box stuffing, etc), rather than just iffy campaigning, that's good enough for me.
Clearly you've forgotten what I've told you many times before - any apparent contradictions are due to you not understanding my position.
1. Facts. Deluded. Just your opinion. Unsubstantiated by facts you can refer to.
2. No it isn't. Facts. Prove otherwise. I have offered you evidence. You haven't.
3. As I say, hypocrite and propaganda. 3.8 million EU citizens allowed to stay todays headline. The government has agreed to it, and is swishing together hundreds of millions in charges from them to register in order to catch criminals - and yet the Daily Liar has a headline that hardened criminals will not be caught by the very act designed to catch them. I despair at your defense of pure propaganda, and the fact that you continue to defend them shows beyond doubt that you don't believe in truth and democracy, you just use it as lip service to achieve things you do actually believe in.
4. Yes, re referendum result. I repeat above. 2 years you've been trying to claim democracy matters when you have proven beyond doubt that it doesn't matter at all to you, as long as you get what you want at any cost to freedom and what is right and just.
5. No, I understand your contradictions perfectly. You repeat them so often they are ingrained into my mind, sadly. YOU just choose to ignore them because you can't justify your views with facts, logic or any other means so you choose to blame me instead of your own self-contradictory views and claims. My views on all topics are very very clear and I don't contradict myself. If I am misunderstanding (which is highly unlikely as I've never come across anything that I dont understand except human nature) then you are just rubbish at expressing what are your real thoughts, so don't try and put the blame on me.
Posted by: vidcapper 22nd June 2018, 09:11 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 22 2018, 08:48 AM)
1. Facts. Deluded. Just your opinion. Unsubstantiated by facts you can refer to.
2. No it isn't. Facts. Prove otherwise. I have offered you evidence. You haven't.
2. No it isn't. Facts. Prove otherwise. I have offered you evidence. You haven't.
I don't recall seeing any such evidence from you.
QUOTE
3. As I say, hypocrite and propaganda. 3.8 million EU citizens allowed to stay todays headline. The government has agreed to it, and is swishing together hundreds of millions in charges from them to register in order to catch criminals - and yet the Daily Liar has a headline that hardened criminals will not be caught by the very act designed to catch them. I despair at your defense of pure propaganda, and the fact that you continue to defend them shows beyond doubt that you don't believe in truth and democracy, you just use it as lip service to achieve things you do actually believe in.
4. Yes, re referendum result. I repeat above. 2 years you've been trying to claim democracy matters when you have proven beyond doubt that it doesn't matter at all to you, as long as you get what you want at any cost to freedom and what is right and just.
5. No, I understand your contradictions perfectly. You repeat them so often they are ingrained into my mind, sadly. YOU just choose to ignore them because you can't justify your views with facts, logic or any other means so you choose to blame me instead of your own self-contradictory views and claims. My views on all topics are very very clear and I don't contradict myself. If I am misunderstanding (which is highly unlikely as I've never come across anything that I dont understand except human nature) then you are just rubbish at expressing what are your real thoughts, so don't try and put the blame on me.
4. Yes, re referendum result. I repeat above. 2 years you've been trying to claim democracy matters when you have proven beyond doubt that it doesn't matter at all to you, as long as you get what you want at any cost to freedom and what is right and just.
5. No, I understand your contradictions perfectly. You repeat them so often they are ingrained into my mind, sadly. YOU just choose to ignore them because you can't justify your views with facts, logic or any other means so you choose to blame me instead of your own self-contradictory views and claims. My views on all topics are very very clear and I don't contradict myself. If I am misunderstanding (which is highly unlikely as I've never come across anything that I dont understand except human nature) then you are just rubbish at expressing what are your real thoughts, so don't try and put the blame on me.
So, if I were to say something like 'I don't give a crap about the facts, my opinions are all the matter to me' how would you react to that?
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd June 2018, 12:44 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 10:11 AM)
I don't recall seeing any such evidence from you.
So, if I were to say something like 'I don't give a crap about the facts, my opinions are all the matter to me' how would you react to that?
So, if I were to say something like 'I don't give a crap about the facts, my opinions are all the matter to me' how would you react to that?
Then you sound like the Catholic church sentencing Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life on this day in 1633.
Posted by: vidcapper 22nd June 2018, 01:48 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 22 2018, 01:44 PM)
Then you sound like the Catholic church sentencing Galileo to house arrest for the rest of his life on this day in 1633.
But Galileo was proven right in the end, so how can you be so confident we Leavers are wrong?
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd June 2018, 01:55 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 02:48 PM)
But Galileo was proven right in the end, so how can you be so confident we Leavers are wrong?
I was referring to the facts that show that non-custodial sentences have a better record at preventing reoffending and that longer sentences make no difference to the reoffending rate.
Posted by: vidcapper 22nd June 2018, 02:35 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 22 2018, 02:55 PM)
I was referring to the facts that show that non-custodial sentences have a better record at preventing reoffending and that longer sentences make no difference to the reoffending rate.
Not a very good example, as Galileo had not done anything that would be considered a crime nowadays (i.e. heresy).
If anything, the boot is on the other foot, as in the UK today PC tends to overrule Christian belief...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row
Incidentally, this is a counter-example to the claim made on this forum that the hard-right is ruling the roost.
The more religious US does things slightly different
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44361162
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd June 2018, 02:53 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 03:35 PM)
Not a very good example, as Galileo had not done anything that would be considered a crime nowadays (i.e. heresy).
If anything, the boot is on the other foot, as in the UK today PC tends to overrule Christian belief...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row
Incidentally, this is a counter-example to the claim made on this forum that the hard-right is ruling the roost.
The more religious US does things slightly different
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44361162
If anything, the boot is on the other foot, as in the UK today PC tends to overrule Christian belief...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row
Incidentally, this is a counter-example to the claim made on this forum that the hard-right is ruling the roost.
The more religious US does things slightly different
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44361162
What are you babbling on about? The Catholic church took the attitude that their opinion was more important than Galileo's facts. You really must not allow your Daily Mail-inspired paranoia to cloud your view of the world so much. It can't be good for your blood pressure.
Posted by: vidcapper 22nd June 2018, 03:00 PM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jun 22 2018, 03:53 PM)
What are you babbling on about? The Catholic church took the attitude that their opinion was more important than Galileo's facts. You really must not allow your Daily Mail-inspired paranoia to cloud your view of the world so much. It can't be good for your blood pressure.
Examples of what I consider intrusive political correctness are what raise my blood pressure.
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd June 2018, 04:58 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 04:00 PM)
Examples of what I consider intrusive political correctness are what raise my blood pressure.
Then don't read the Daily Mail. Most of their stories on that subject are either outright lies or grossly exaggerated, so why bother rating them?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd June 2018, 09:45 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 22 2018, 10:11 AM)
I don't recall seeing any such evidence from you.
So, if I were to say something like 'I don't give a crap about the facts, my opinions are all the matter to me' how would you react to that?
So, if I were to say something like 'I don't give a crap about the facts, my opinions are all the matter to me' how would you react to that?
1.Then your memory is really crap. If you want to flick back a few pages you will find links to evidence, and previous comments from me have illustrated many examples many times. No wonder trying to discuss issues with you is so frustrating - you have the memory of a goldfish. Everything must be such a constantly new pleasant/unpleasant surprise to you as you swim round your bowl....
2. I would say that's one of the first honest quotes from you and if you'd only said that 2 years ago we could have all gone and done something more useful and enjoyable - in my case finishing off all those charts I started rather than getting diverted into pointing out annoying facts and logic.
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd June 2018, 05:54 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 22 2018, 10:45 PM)
1.Then your memory is really crap. If you want to flick back a few pages you will find links to evidence, and previous comments from me have illustrated many examples many times. No wonder trying to discuss issues with you is so frustrating - you have the memory of a goldfish. Everything must be such a constantly new pleasant/unpleasant surprise to you as you swim round your bowl....
You think discussing issues with *me* is frustrating? It's no picnic for me, having my opinions constantly dismissed as contradictory/propaganda. I'm constantly facing the challenge of having my ideas dismissed as worthless, simply because I am not the most eloquent at expressing them.
QUOTE
2. I would say that's one of the first honest quotes from you and if you'd only said that 2 years ago we could have all gone and done something more useful and enjoyable - in my case finishing off all those charts I started rather than getting diverted into pointing out annoying facts and logic.
In which case it is just as well I merely asked the question, rather than expressed it as a statement.
As for 'finding something more useful & enjoyable' - that's why I estimate YTD sales figures.
However, I feel compelled to reiterate my political opinions here, in order to remind people that not everyone is of the same mind on the dominant issues here.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd June 2018, 09:31 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 23 2018, 06:54 AM)
You think discussing issues with *me* is frustrating? It's no picnic for me, having my opinions constantly dismissed as contradictory/propaganda. I'm constantly facing the challenge of having my ideas dismissed as worthless, simply because I am not the most eloquent at expressing them.
In which case it is just as well I merely asked the question, rather than expressed it as a statement.
As for 'finding something more useful & enjoyable' - that's why I estimate YTD sales figures.
However, I feel compelled to reiterate my political opinions here, in order to remind people that not everyone is of the same mind on the dominant issues here.
In which case it is just as well I merely asked the question, rather than expressed it as a statement.
As for 'finding something more useful & enjoyable' - that's why I estimate YTD sales figures.
However, I feel compelled to reiterate my political opinions here, in order to remind people that not everyone is of the same mind on the dominant issues here.
Try re-reading old posts from yourself then, and having expressed an opinion put a full stop under it. This is not people ganging up on you because you have opinions we don't agree with, it's because you refuse to accept reality and keep trying to justify things that can't be justified with facts. Everything in the world is on google a few minutes away and it's not hard to do searches. If you can't find anything to back up your views then the logical response is that your views are merely that - views. And why should the rest of us change our minds based on nothing but your sayso?
Then post some music stuff and I guarantee I will never say you are wrong, because there are no wrongs and rights in music, there is only viewpoints, it's not an absolute thing.
I think we long ago got the message what your viewpoints on any given issue and could probably write a post from you as if we were you. Eloquence has nothing to do with it, it's to do with being observant and remembering stuff. I never go back and check your old posts, or my old posts, or anyone else's old posts. I just remember stuff and fortunately for me I'm pretty good at short-term memory and long-term memory - it's the middle-term memory in between that fizzles out....
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd June 2018, 10:02 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 23 2018, 10:31 AM)
Try re-reading old posts from yourself then, and having expressed an opinion put a full stop under it. This is not people ganging up on you because you have opinions we don't agree with, it's because you refuse to accept reality and keep trying to justify things that can't be justified with facts. Everything in the world is on google a few minutes away and it's not hard to do searches. If you can't find anything to back up your views then the logical response is that your views are merely that - views. And why should the rest of us change our minds based on nothing but your sayso?
Are you suggesting that I've tried to persuade you do so? If so, is that any different from you trying to persuade me that Brexit is a mistake?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd June 2018, 12:56 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 23 2018, 11:02 AM)
Are you suggesting that I've tried to persuade you do so? If so, is that any different from you trying to persuade me that Brexit is a mistake?
So stop posting. I'm not trying to persuade you that Brexit is a mistake. That's futile. I'm trying to stop you posting lies about Brexit to stop other people being taken in by fatuous unsupported statements. There's a big difference and the reason we are in the sorry state we are in are because powerful liars have been doing exactly that. They havent got the result by telling the truth in the slightest. So the rest of us will spend the rest of our lives pointing out how the liars made a mess of our country lying to gullible fools. Get used to it, I would suggest because the "I Told You So"s is going to go on until the Uk is back in the EU down the line, assuming it still exists and Europe hasnt been taken over by far-right fascists in uniforms doing away with democracy.
If you don't like democratic arguments with reason and evidence, there are plenty of websites catering for that viewpoint, though intolerant racist homophobic misogynistic bullying is a bit of an unfortunate side-effect of those sorts of places, rather than caring, decent human beings that force their appalling liberal views onto others by not accepting other people having a right to take away their rights.
Posted by: vidcapper 23rd June 2018, 01:47 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 23 2018, 01:56 PM)
So stop posting. I'm not trying to persuade you that Brexit is a mistake. That's futile. I'm trying to stop you posting lies about Brexit to stop other people being taken in by fatuous unsupported statements.
Since the issue was decided 2 years ago, what I or anyone else says on either side of the argument now, is irrelevant.
QUOTE
There's a big difference and the reason we are in the sorry state we are in are because powerful liars have been doing exactly that. They havent got the result by telling the truth in the slightest. So the rest of us will spend the rest of our lives pointing out how the liars made a mess of our country lying to gullible fools. Get used to it, I would suggest because the "I Told You So"s is going to go on until the Uk is back in the EU down the line, assuming it still exists and Europe hasnt been taken over by far-right fascists in uniforms doing away with democracy.
More hyperbole.QUOTE
If you don't like democratic arguments with reason and evidence, there are plenty of websites catering for that viewpoint, though intolerant racist homophobic misogynistic bullying is a bit of an unfortunate side-effect of those sorts of places, rather than caring, decent human beings that force their appalling liberal views onto others by not accepting other people having a right to take away their rights.
So what proportion of Leavers do you consider to be naive dupes, and what proportion 'intolerant bigots' * ?
* I reject the term 'racist' in the EU contest, as virtually all EU countries are Caucasian, and therefore the *same* race as Britons.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd June 2018, 07:25 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 23 2018, 02:47 PM)
Since the issue was decided 2 years ago, what I or anyone else says on either side of the argument now, is irrelevant.
More hyperbole.
So what proportion of Leavers do you consider to be naive dupes, and what proportion 'intolerant bigots' * ?
* I reject the term 'racist' in the EU contest, as virtually all EU countries are Caucasian, and therefore the *same* race as Britons.
More hyperbole.
So what proportion of Leavers do you consider to be naive dupes, and what proportion 'intolerant bigots' * ?
* I reject the term 'racist' in the EU contest, as virtually all EU countries are Caucasian, and therefore the *same* race as Britons.
Oh, what was that march by 100,000 people today all about then? It ain't over till the fatheaded lady sings. Or Mrs May as she is better known.
"I told you so". Get used to it....
naive dupes: 23.457234% I never mentioned intolerant bigots so you can provide your own estimate. My naive dupes calculation is beyond reproach because it's something I believe in therefore you are obliged to accept it as fact.
Why are you relating the "racist" reference to the EU when this is not an EU thread? I didn't mention the EU, and I specifically said there were racist WEBSITES. I suppose you are going to say that is a lie despite it being provably factual (I have posted links before to loathesome hateful racist websites so they exist). Or else you are just twisting my statement to make it appear as though I said something I didn't in the hope that I'll go off on one and you scream "injustice"?
Posted by: vidcapper 24th June 2018, 05:53 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 23 2018, 08:25 PM)
Oh, what was that march by 100,000 people today all about then? It ain't over till the fatheaded lady sings. Or Mrs May as she is better known.
There was nothing about that in the Mail?
[OK, there was - but I bet some of you believe the Mail might ignore it.
]All I will say is : People don't march in protest when they already have what they want.
QUOTE
Or else you are just twisting my statement to make it appear as though I said something I didn't in the hope that I'll go off on one and you scream "injustice"?
So you don't enjoy being on the receiving end - then perhaps you'll think about that before you do that to me again...
Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th June 2018, 08:01 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 24 2018, 06:53 AM)
There was nothing about that in the Mail?
[OK, there was - but I bet some of you believe the Mail might ignore it. ]
All I will say is : People don't march in protest when they already have what they want.
So you don't enjoy being on the receiving end - then perhaps you'll think about that before you do that to me again...
[OK, there was - but I bet some of you believe the Mail might ignore it.
]All I will say is : People don't march in protest when they already have what they want.
So you don't enjoy being on the receiving end - then perhaps you'll think about that before you do that to me again...
Brexiters were marching after the result beating people up and murdering.
Just saying.....
No. I don't twist your words, I repeat them back to you, bit of a difference. That you say them badly (your claim) can be easily corrected with a follow-up statement clarifying what you are saying - just like I did with your "misunderstanding" of my very clear statement. Then is no further discussion required. But by all means feel free to blame me for picking on you unfairly and explain clearly why and how I am doing that and I will reflect on your statements.
Posted by: vidcapper 24th June 2018, 08:41 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jun 24 2018, 09:01 AM)
Brexiters were marching after the result beating people up and murdering.
Just saying.....
Just saying.....
That is a blatant example of stereotyping - just because someone voted Leave (*) doesn't mean they are necessarily violent - after all, you wouldn't dream of saying 'all Muslims are terrorists' just because a very tiny minority of them are brainwashed dupes.
(*) And how would you even know how they voted, anyway?
QUOTE
No. I don't twist your words, I repeat them back to you, bit of a difference.
Then I must ask that you retain the context too.QUOTE
That you say them badly (your claim) can be easily corrected with a follow-up statement clarifying what you are saying
Lately I seem to be asked that all the time.
Posted by: vidcapper 5th July 2018, 02:04 PM
Going off at a tangent : concurrent vs consecutive sentences?
Say someone is convicted of one burglary and gets sent down for a year
Someone else is convicted of 10 burglaries and gets a one year sentence for each, but to be served concurrently - surely they are getting a 10 times light sentence than the first person?
Posted by: Suedehead2 5th July 2018, 04:35 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 5 2018, 03:04 PM)
Going off at a tangent : concurrent vs consecutive sentences?
Say someone is convicted of one burglary and gets sent down for a year
Someone else is convicted of 10 burglaries and gets a one year sentence for each, but to be served concurrently - surely they are getting a 10 times light sentence than the first person?
Say someone is convicted of one burglary and gets sent down for a year
Someone else is convicted of 10 burglaries and gets a one year sentence for each, but to be served concurrently - surely they are getting a 10 times light sentence than the first person?
OTOH, consecutive sentencing would mean aa longer sentence for a sting of burglaries than for a single, but far more serious crime.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th July 2018, 08:09 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jun 24 2018, 09:41 AM)
That is a blatant example of stereotyping - just because someone voted Leave (*) doesn't mean they are necessarily violent - after all, you wouldn't dream of saying 'all Muslims are terrorists' just because a very tiny minority of them are brainwashed dupes.
(*) And how would you even know how they voted, anyway?
Then I must ask that you retain the context too.
Lately I seem to be asked that all the time.
(*) And how would you even know how they voted, anyway?
Then I must ask that you retain the context too.
Lately I seem to be asked that all the time.
Violence went up against non-whites after the referendum result and during it. They weren't Remainers. Remainers believe in tolerance and inclusion. If you choose to ignore that hate speech incites hate actions that's your choice. In the real world there is 100% a link. Old argument feel free to refer to previous discussions rather than me repeat myself.
No I'm not going into context. If you feel; I have misrepresented your own words, that's up to you to correct it and clarify what you mean. You can't blame someone else for repeating what you say. Don't say it if you don't want it repeating, or phrase it better. Or accept that you do actually agree with what is being repeated. Your choice. Feel free to repeat my own words back to me. I almost always stand by them, and if I have reviewed what I say, then I say so and retract it. I don't blame others for commenting on what I have said.
Posted by: vidcapper 6th July 2018, 05:52 AM
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jul 5 2018, 05:35 PM)
OTOH, consecutive sentencing would mean aa longer sentence for a sting of burglaries than for a single, but far more serious crime.
Your point being?
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jul 5 2018, 09:09 PM)
Violence went up against non-whites after the referendum result and during it. They weren't Remainers. Remainers believe in tolerance and inclusion. If you choose to ignore that hate speech incites hate actions that's your choice. In the real world there is 100% a link. Old argument feel free to refer to previous discussions rather than me repeat myself.
I concede that violent racists were extremely unlikely to be Remainers - however, I strongly resist any suggestion that they are in any way representative of typical Leavers, such as myself, or most of the rest of the 17.4m.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th July 2018, 07:00 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 6 2018, 06:52 AM)
Your point being?
I concede that violent racists were extremely unlikely to be Remainers - however, I strongly resist any suggestion that they are in any way representative of typical Leavers, such as myself, or most of the rest of the 17.4m.
I concede that violent racists were extremely unlikely to be Remainers - however, I strongly resist any suggestion that they are in any way representative of typical Leavers, such as myself, or most of the rest of the 17.4m.
Nobody is claiming that extremist followers are typical of anything, just that they are attracted to the movement and fired-up by hate speech. As long as you condemn them as the criminals they are and make quite plain that there is no place in UK society, now or after Brexit, for Hate-fuelled actions, then you can continue to make unsubstantiated claims about the numbers of people that they don't represent. If you try to use the threat of violence as some reason for not doing something you don't want to happen then you have no moral high ground. Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour and their future hypothetical behaviour has no part in any discussions on democracy.
Posted by: vidcapper 6th July 2018, 07:33 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jul 6 2018, 08:00 AM)
Nobody is claiming that extremist followers are typical of anything, just that they are attracted to the movement and fired-up by hate speech. As long as you condemn them as the criminals they are and make quite plain that there is no place in UK society, now or after Brexit, for Hate-fuelled actions, then you can continue to make unsubstantiated claims about the numbers of people that they don't represent.
Surely you are not claiming that I have ever supported racist violence in any way?
QUOTE
If you try to use the threat of violence as some reason for not doing something you don't want to happen then you have no moral high ground. Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour and their future hypothetical behaviour has no part in any discussions on democracy.
I have not advocated the threat of violence - the most I have done is made a pragmatic prediction of what might happen if democracy (in the form of the referendum vote) is denied.
Posted by: T Boy 6th July 2018, 04:42 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 6 2018, 06:52 AM)
Your point being?
I concede that violent racists were extremely unlikely to be Remainers - however, I strongly resist any suggestion that they are in any way representative of typical Leavers, such as myself, or most of the rest of the 17.4m.
I concede that violent racists were extremely unlikely to be Remainers - however, I strongly resist any suggestion that they are in any way representative of typical Leavers, such as myself, or most of the rest of the 17.4m.
What leads you to thinking that you represent ‘typical’ leavers?
Soz, just being devil’s advocate
Posted by: vidcapper 7th July 2018, 06:01 AM
QUOTE(T Boy @ Jul 6 2018, 05:42 PM)
What leads you to thinking that you represent ‘typical’ leavers?
Soz, just being devil’s advocate
Soz, just being devil’s advocate
Well, because I'm not a violent racist seems a good place to start.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th July 2018, 07:18 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 6 2018, 08:33 AM)
Surely you are not claiming that I have ever supported racist violence in any way?
I have not advocated the threat of violence - the most I have done is made a pragmatic prediction of what might happen if democracy (in the form of the referendum vote) is denied.
I have not advocated the threat of violence - the most I have done is made a pragmatic prediction of what might happen if democracy (in the form of the referendum vote) is denied.
NO I have been very clear that not condemning violence says as much as supporting it. If it were a Remain pacifist who shot Nigel Farage then there would be a sudden condemnation of Remainers being anti-democratic from Brexiters. Not condemning it is the same as supporting it, as Farage was incapable of expressing sympathy for the murdered MP, only worried how it might affect Brexit, and refusing to condemn the act or anyone who supports it. Still doesn't but is very capable of expressing criticism on anyone or anything. So it's purely a choice and that says everything you need to know about him.
A pragmatic prediction of violence if a political choice that everyone is free to express a point of view on isn't quite what a small minority thought they were voting for (there was nothing written down and it continues to mean all things to everyone who voted Leave) sounds like a warning. Another pragmatic prediction of violence is if the Northern Ireland border isn't properly sorted out as per the signed agreement between Ireland, The UK, and Northern Ireland then we could end up with terrorism for decades to come.
The main difference is on your pragmatic prediction there is no evidence to point to that it would happen, while with mine we had 40 years of bloody experience. My pragmatic prediction therefore holds a bit more weight than yours (and it is based on an existing agreement that we signed up to).
Posted by: vidcapper 7th July 2018, 08:54 AM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jul 7 2018, 08:18 AM)
NO I have been very clear that not condemning violence says as much as supporting it.
I'm sorry, but that is flawed logic - it's like insinuating that anyone who doesn't take part in a 'Unite Against Fascism' march, might well be a secret nazi.
The point is - you don't have to actively condemn something, to be against it. I don't engage in virtue signalling, but that doesn't mean I support violence & injustice!
QUOTE
The main difference is on your pragmatic prediction there is no evidence to point to that it would happen, while with mine we had 40 years of bloody experience. My pragmatic prediction therefore holds a bit more weight than yours (and it is based on an existing agreement that we signed up to).
But I wasn't talking of NI (partly because I have no interest in it - either now, or well before Brexit). I was referring to potential civil unrest caused by a government ignoring the result of a referendum.
Posted by: Queef of Skreech 7th July 2018, 10:18 AM
You mean like the civil unrest of ignoring a 2/3s majority in Scotland in the same referendum ignoring Northern Ireland plus the REAL UNREST THAT COULD HAPPEN THERE IN CASE OF BREXIT, plus ignoring 50% of the electorate who voted remain, plus ignoring rhe 63% who didn't vote leave, plus the millions in Europe who didn't get a say? You know, THAT ignoring of the result? It was a split ADVISORY referendum split down the middle in numbers and countries. It can be ignored. Ther ehas been no consequence ignoring the remain voters and repeating right wing fascist memes from the 1930s, werrl errer therree perplereee, perplwree herrr sperkwrwnnn, when neither is true oops. Or are you saying leavers are more likely to be violent and spurred on/ incited to violence by the bile spewing press?
Posted by: Queef of Skreech 7th July 2018, 10:22 AM
Also it is insane anyone would support a US-style justice system. Two crimes and then arrested for mistakenly taking a 25bottle of lemonade from somewhere without realising? Oops. 3 strikes!
Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th July 2018, 01:07 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 7 2018, 09:54 AM)
I'm sorry, but that is flawed logic - it's like insinuating that anyone who doesn't take part in a 'Unite Against Fascism' march, might well be a secret nazi.
The point is - you don't have to actively condemn something, to be against it. I don't engage in virtue signalling, but that doesn't mean I support violence & injustice!
But I wasn't talking of NI (partly because I have no interest in it - either now, or well before Brexit). I was referring to potential civil unrest caused by a government ignoring the result of a referendum.
The point is - you don't have to actively condemn something, to be against it. I don't engage in virtue signalling, but that doesn't mean I support violence & injustice!
But I wasn't talking of NI (partly because I have no interest in it - either now, or well before Brexit). I was referring to potential civil unrest caused by a government ignoring the result of a referendum.
What Queefy said. In the case of Farage he doesn't speak out against fascism because he is very much in favour of it. Simple rights and wrongs. You could choose not speak out in support of anyone not murdering burglars, yet you choose to do so. Why is that somehow more important than speaking out against the end of democracy and justice, and criticising those that do it? There is nothing wrong with my logic. If you don't speak out against injustice (which you are more than capable of doing, as seen from your point of view) than the inference is you either aren't bothered or are in support of it. I can't see any other reason when you (and farage) can go one endlessly about trivial issues and choose not to speak out on vital ones.
Just say it. One sentence. Much quicker than these tedious ongoing assertions that you or Fred Bloggs/ Whoever isn';t in favour of fascism unless they actually come out and say they are. FASCISTS DON'T GET ELECTED SAYING WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO DEMOCRACY. They do it sneakily bit by bit and lie all the way. I take them very very seriously, and only a blinkered fool wouldn't do so.
re: NI: you gave a hypothetical dystopian example of what might happen in the UK following a non-Hard-Brexit result and I gave a realistic comment on a possible future dystopian result on what would happen in the UK if there was a Hard-Brexit result. What part of that means you can casually ignore reality in favour of fantasy? Oh that's right - BREXITEERING! Not based on reality.......Silly me.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th July 2018, 01:34 PM
QUOTE(Queef of Skreech @ Jul 7 2018, 11:18 AM)
You mean like the civil unrest of ignoring a 2/3s majority in Scotland in the same referendum ignoring Northern Ireland plus the REAL UNREST THAT COULD HAPPEN THERE IN CASE OF BREXIT, plus ignoring 50% of the electorate who voted remain, plus ignoring rhe 63% who didn't vote leave, plus the millions in Europe who didn't get a say? You know, THAT ignoring of the result? It was a split ADVISORY referendum split down the middle in numbers and countries. It can be ignored. Ther ehas been no consequence ignoring the remain voters and repeating right wing fascist memes from the 1930s, werrl errer therree perplereee, perplwree herrr sperkwrwnnn, when neither is true oops. Or are you saying leavers are more likely to be violent and spurred on/ incited to violence by the bile spewing press?
Yawn.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th July 2018, 01:43 PM
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jul 7 2018, 02:07 PM)
What Queefy said. In the case of Farage he doesn't speak out against fascism because he is very much in favour of it. Simple rights and wrongs. You could choose not speak out in support of anyone not murdering burglars, yet you choose to do so. Why is that somehow more important than speaking out against the end of democracy and justice, and criticising those that do it? There is nothing wrong with my logic. If you don't speak out against injustice (which you are more than capable of doing, as seen from your point of view) than the inference is you either aren't bothered or are in support of it. I can't see any other reason when you (and farage) can go one endlessly about trivial issues and choose not to speak out on vital ones.
Well, one reason is that this forum is hardly a representative sample - if it were, then there would be as many Leavers posting here as Remainers. Also there would be as many Mail readers as Guardian ones.
QUOTE
Just say it. One sentence. Much quicker than these tedious ongoing assertions that you or Fred Bloggs/ Whoever isn';t in favour of fascism unless they actually come out and say they are. FASCISTS DON'T GET ELECTED SAYING WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO DEMOCRACY. They do it sneakily bit by bit and lie all the way. I take them very very seriously, and only a blinkered fool wouldn't do so.
What would be the point in saying it when I don't believe that anyone here would think me sincere?
However, if I will make you feel better : I condemn anyone on the violent political extremes, whether extreme Right wing or Left.
Posted by: Queef of Skreech 7th July 2018, 01:51 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 7 2018, 02:43 PM)
Well, one reason is that this forum is hardly a representative sample - if it were, then there would be as many Leavers posting here as Remainers. Also there would be as many Mail readers as Guardian ones.
What would be the point in saying it when I don't believe that anyone here would think me sincere?
However, if I will make you feel better : I condemn anyone on the violent political extremes, whether extreme Right wing or Left.
What would be the point in saying it when I don't believe that anyone here would think me sincere?
However, if I will make you feel better : I condemn anyone on the violent political extremes, whether extreme Right wing or Left.
So you admit it was 50/50. Then what makes you so sure ignoring only the leave side would result in violence? What you are implicitly saying is that the right are more prone to violence.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th July 2018, 01:55 PM
QUOTE(Queef of Skreech @ Jul 7 2018, 02:51 PM)
So you admit it was 50/50. Then what makes you so sure ignoring only the leave side would result in violence? What you are implicitly saying is that the right are more prone to violence.
well, 13 to 12 would be the closest ratio that reflects the actual result, but as I pointed out, members of this forum, and Buzzjack as a whole, are not a representative sample of the population as a whole.
Posted by: T Boy 7th July 2018, 04:11 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 7 2018, 07:01 AM)
Well, because I'm not a violent racist seems a good place to start.
But you’re assuming typical brexiters aren’t either. What if you’re stance is the atypical one for a leaver?
Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th July 2018, 07:03 PM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 7 2018, 02:43 PM)
Well, one reason is that this forum is hardly a representative sample - if it were, then there would be as many Leavers posting here as Remainers. Also there would be as many Mail readers as Guardian ones.
What would be the point in saying it when I don't believe that anyone here would think me sincere?
However, if I will make you feel better : I condemn anyone on the violent political extremes, whether extreme Right wing or Left.
What would be the point in saying it when I don't believe that anyone here would think me sincere?
However, if I will make you feel better : I condemn anyone on the violent political extremes, whether extreme Right wing or Left.
1. Eh? Tangent, much....
2. Hooray! We can all go to bed happy now!!
Posted by: vidcapper 8th July 2018, 05:55 AM
QUOTE(T Boy @ Jul 7 2018, 05:11 PM)
But you’re assuming typical brexiters aren’t either. What if you’re stance is the atypical one for a leaver?
But voters do not vote for extreme-right parties like the BNP, NF, etc in significant numbers - which they surely would if they were as racist as is claimed by a few of the more ardent Remainers.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th July 2018, 07:08 AM
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 8 2018, 06:55 AM)
But voters do not vote for extreme-right parties like the BNP, NF, etc in significant numbers - which they surely would if they were as racist as is claimed by a few of the more ardent Remainers.
Err, no. Simplistic. One can be left-wing and racist. One can be racist and still hold political views that aren't one-policy blatant racist. One can be selectively racist. One can be in denial about's one racism.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services