It was these form of understandings with the Brexit Party that helped the Conservatives do so well in 2019.
If this is correct, the opposition parties might finally be learning something from the masters of realpolitik.
As @Foxy noted, Labour and the Lib Dems being realistic about their constituency chances isn't a new thing, and the division of Red possibles and Yellow possibles is hardly a state secret.
One of the things that turned 2019 into a rout was how unrealistic the anti-BoJo politics was. Partly in calling the election in the first place, but also the degree to which Lab and Lib tore lumps out of each other, rather than the actual enemy.
Indeed, I would say the official mood music between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 2019 was catastrophic. Both Corbyn and Swinson genuinely seemed to think they could win it entirely on their own, with no collaboration. Swinson was drunk on a recent pro-European swing, and Corbyn thought it was going to be 2017 again.
And the various defections from Labour created a poisonous mood among its activists, for example Labour bussing people into Finchley on polling day to stop Berger beating the Tory.
Understandable, but also insane.
With the party structure we currently have, the way the non-Conservative vote is distributed makes a massive difference. Compare 1979 through to 1992 (roughly the same Conservative share each time) or 2015, 2107 and 2019 (ditto).
I suspect that's an argument for the "disapprove" ratings telling us something meaningful. The more disapproving the opponents of a Conservative government are, the more likely they are to vote for "best placed to beat the Tories", even if it's not their first choice of vote.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
You overlabel people as Woke, you find diverse reactions to the label. I mean, duh.
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Woke hate it.
It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "progressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. WOKE
It even sounds oddly menacing. The Woke. The Wokeness. The Wokening. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Racist
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Racists hate it. It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "regressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. RACIST It even sounds oddly menacing. The Racists. The Racism. The Racialism. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Oh dear. Oh deary me
I know what you mean. #oneofus
To be generous to you, you inadvertently make a point
For many years the Right has been looking for a decent insult to hurl at its opponents, as good as Fascist, or Trumpite or, yes, "racist"
Until now none has quite hit the mark. "Political correctness" is far too long and clumsy. "Liberal" might work for a few American Fox-watchers, but liberal has a tinge of goodness whoever you are. Liberal. Liberty, Libertarian!
"Marxist" is as extreme as Fascist but without the bite. "Commie" sounds antique. And so on
Suddenly there is a word which completely summarises all these annoying wanky people, and it is suitably venomous and monosyllabic
"Fuck off you Woke C*nt" has real bite. It just does: as an English language sentence
It is a true four letter word and insult, perhaps the first new one in English for 1500 years?
That's all very cis
lol, no. Cis doesn't cut it, no one knows what it means, no one is really sure how to pronounce it, and when you dig down, it is mad. And 3 letters
For a measure of how deep Woke cuts, here's a Woke person trying to claim its use is intrinsically..... racist. Yes.
"If you’re not black and started using “woke” pejoratively sometime post-2018 or so (or worse, don’t know anything about the earlier iteration of the term), I think it’s fair to consider it a racial slur."
I thought cis was quite nice. Three letters to your four. Brevity is the soul, etc. Good point about nobody knowing what it means. Not that it matters. That's not the point of insults. As we've seen with woke.
“cis” isn’t guttural enough to be a proper Saxon insult though. It sounds like an effete French word
I get parochially annoyed by the use of ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ as they are chemistry terms for me. Just me being an idiot, but we don’t choose what annoys us...
Cis and trans have an older pedigree in geography. Vis Cis- and Trans-Alpine Gaul. And yes, the Latin reflects exactly that though I can't tell you cisGoogle what the exact Latin terms are.
Yes, I know I’m being a dick about this, it just annoys me.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
You overlabel people as Woke, you find diverse reactions to the label. I mean, duh.
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Woke hate it.
It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "progressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. WOKE
It even sounds oddly menacing. The Woke. The Wokeness. The Wokening. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Racist
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Racists hate it. It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "regressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. RACIST It even sounds oddly menacing. The Racists. The Racism. The Racialism. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Oh dear. Oh deary me
I know what you mean. #oneofus
To be generous to you, you inadvertently make a point
For many years the Right has been looking for a decent insult to hurl at its opponents, as good as Fascist, or Trumpite or, yes, "racist"
Until now none has quite hit the mark. "Political correctness" is far too long and clumsy. "Liberal" might work for a few American Fox-watchers, but liberal has a tinge of goodness whoever you are. Liberal. Liberty, Libertarian!
"Marxist" is as extreme as Fascist but without the bite. "Commie" sounds antique. And so on
Suddenly there is a word which completely summarises all these annoying wanky people, and it is suitably venomous and monosyllabic
"Fuck off you Woke C*nt" has real bite. It just does: as an English language sentence
It is a true four letter word and insult, perhaps the first new one in English for 1500 years?
That's all very cis
lol, no. Cis doesn't cut it, no one knows what it means, no one is really sure how to pronounce it, and when you dig down, it is mad. And 3 letters
For a measure of how deep Woke cuts, here's a Woke person trying to claim its use is intrinsically..... racist. Yes.
"If you’re not black and started using “woke” pejoratively sometime post-2018 or so (or worse, don’t know anything about the earlier iteration of the term), I think it’s fair to consider it a racial slur."
I thought cis was quite nice. Three letters to your four. Brevity is the soul, etc. Good point about nobody knowing what it means. Not that it matters. That's not the point of insults. As we've seen with woke.
“cis” isn’t guttural enough to be a proper Saxon insult though. It sounds like an effete French word
Excellent point, but the different registers of insult, the Anglo-Saxon, the Brittonic, the French, and the Latin all have their place. It's about knowing your audience. "Woke" is a cudgel, and "cis" is a whisper of poison in the ear. Both effective in different arenas.
You've missed the more obvious four-letter neologism used by the woke: TERF.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
Used to get the Cottesmore hunt near where I live. Bastards were famously cavalier about what they trashed while going about their fun.
It was these form of understandings with the Brexit Party that helped the Conservatives do so well in 2019.
If this is correct, the opposition parties might finally be learning something from the masters of realpolitik.
As @Foxy noted, Labour and the Lib Dems being realistic about their constituency chances isn't a new thing, and the division of Red possibles and Yellow possibles is hardly a state secret.
One of the things that turned 2019 into a rout was how unrealistic the anti-BoJo politics was. Partly in calling the election in the first place, but also the degree to which Lab and Lib tore lumps out of each other, rather than the actual enemy.
Indeed, I would say the official mood music between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in 2019 was catastrophic. Both Corbyn and Swinson genuinely seemed to think they could win it entirely on their own, with no collaboration. Swinson was drunk on a recent pro-European swing, and Corbyn thought it was going to be 2017 again.
And the various defections from Labour created a poisonous mood among its activists, for example Labour bussing people into Finchley on polling day to stop Berger beating the Tory.
Understandable, but also insane.
With the party structure we currently have, the way the non-Conservative vote is distributed makes a massive difference. Compare 1979 through to 1992 (roughly the same Conservative share each time) or 2015, 2107 and 2019 (ditto).
I suspect that's an argument for the "disapprove" ratings telling us something meaningful. The more disapproving the opponents of a Conservative government are, the more likely they are to vote for "best placed to beat the Tories", even if it's not their first choice of vote.
But they don't tell how strongly they disapprove. I'd have irked, disapprove, blind fury as categories. That would tell us more.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
And besides @IshmaelZ you can whinge about Disney city folk but my girlfriend grew up in the Northumberland countryside and she thinks the huntspeople are a bunch of whoppers causing damage to property and scaring livestock and generally making a mess on their “wholly unpredictable route”.
Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
Used to get the Cottesmore hunt near where I live. Bastards were famously cavalier about what they trashed while going about their fun.
Yes, you always get a very sharp polarisation of views among country people about it. The Countryside Alliance always presented themselves as the country against the town, but in fact there are two countryside alliances.
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
You overlabel people as Woke, you find diverse reactions to the label. I mean, duh.
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Woke hate it.
It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "progressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. WOKE
It even sounds oddly menacing. The Woke. The Wokeness. The Wokening. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Racist
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Racists hate it. It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "regressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. RACIST It even sounds oddly menacing. The Racists. The Racism. The Racialism. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Oh dear. Oh deary me
I know what you mean. #oneofus
To be generous to you, you inadvertently make a point
For many years the Right has been looking for a decent insult to hurl at its opponents, as good as Fascist, or Trumpite or, yes, "racist"
Until now none has quite hit the mark. "Political correctness" is far too long and clumsy. "Liberal" might work for a few American Fox-watchers, but liberal has a tinge of goodness whoever you are. Liberal. Liberty, Libertarian!
"Marxist" is as extreme as Fascist but without the bite. "Commie" sounds antique. And so on
Suddenly there is a word which completely summarises all these annoying wanky people, and it is suitably venomous and monosyllabic
"Fuck off you Woke C*nt" has real bite. It just does: as an English language sentence
It is a true four letter word and insult, perhaps the first new one in English for 1500 years?
That's all very cis
lol, no. Cis doesn't cut it, no one knows what it means, no one is really sure how to pronounce it, and when you dig down, it is mad. And 3 letters
For a measure of how deep Woke cuts, here's a Woke person trying to claim its use is intrinsically..... racist. Yes.
"If you’re not black and started using “woke” pejoratively sometime post-2018 or so (or worse, don’t know anything about the earlier iteration of the term), I think it’s fair to consider it a racial slur."
I thought cis was quite nice. Three letters to your four. Brevity is the soul, etc. Good point about nobody knowing what it means. Not that it matters. That's not the point of insults. As we've seen with woke.
“cis” isn’t guttural enough to be a proper Saxon insult though. It sounds like an effete French word
Excellent point, but the different registers of insult, the Anglo-Saxon, the Brittonic, the French, and the Latin all have their place. It's about knowing your audience. "Woke" is a cudgel, and "cis" is a whisper of poison in the ear. Both effective in different arenas.
You've missed the more obvious four-letter neologism used by the woke: TERF.
Yes, you're right. TERF is a good insult. One syllable. Four letters. Consonant vowel consonant - in essence. Like the F and C and W bombs. Or Wank. Or Shit. Or Cock.
That makes a good insult
It is still very obscure to many, however, and it is weakened when it is explained. It sounds mad
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
Which is why being free to carry a weapon is a major cause of violence. Whatever the NRA may say.
Allie Hodgkins-Brown @AllieHBNews · 15m Thursday’s FINANCIAL TIMES: “US consumer prices increase at fastest pace in three decades” #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
Biden looking more one term by the day sadly.
Biden = Carter but unfortunately there's not much sign of a Reagan...
And besides @IshmaelZ you can whinge about Disney city folk but my girlfriend grew up in the Northumberland countryside and she thinks the huntspeople are a bunch of whoppers causing damage to property and scaring livestock and generally making a mess on their “wholly unpredictable route”.
Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
You know for a fact that that’s complete bollocks mate
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
Allie Hodgkins-Brown @AllieHBNews · 15m Thursday’s FINANCIAL TIMES: “US consumer prices increase at fastest pace in three decades” #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
Biden looking more one term by the day sadly.
Biden = Carter but unfortunately there's not much sign of a Reagan...
Only the looming megatron disaster of Trump second term.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
Meant to ask, that woman in full hunting fig who was filmed punching and kicking a horse at the weekend, in that world was that considered just stuff that happens or did she go beyond the pale?
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.
So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
Used to get the Cottesmore hunt near where I live. Bastards were famously cavalier about what they trashed while going about their fun.
Yes, you always get a very sharp polarisation of views among country people about it. The Countryside Alliance always presented themselves as the country against the town, but in fact there are two countryside alliances.
Indeed. I ought to be a member, as I live in the country side and strongly agree with 9 of their 10 aims. But there is that other one.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
There have been numerous occasions of the dogs going off piste and killing pets in people’s gardens etc. Pretty sure they didn’t secure permission for that...
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
Which is why being free to carry a weapon is a major cause of violence. Whatever the NRA may say.
Well indeed, he'll probably get acquitted due to self-defence.
But if one of the people he'd shot had killed him instead, they'd probably get acquitted due to self-defence too.
So if you're in a situation where you can kill or be killed, and its self-defence either way, then pull the trigger yourself.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
And besides @IshmaelZ you can whinge about Disney city folk but my girlfriend grew up in the Northumberland countryside and she thinks the huntspeople are a bunch of whoppers causing damage to property and scaring livestock and generally making a mess on their “wholly unpredictable route”.
Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
Yeah, but the hounds on the scent don't always know the boundaries.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
Used to get the Cottesmore hunt near where I live. Bastards were famously cavalier about what they trashed while going about their fun.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
Lots of Woke people on Twitter are now complaining about the use of the word Woke, which is simultaneously vague, derogatory, pointless, lazy, biased, old-fashioned, inaccurate, or only used by old people. Or Trumpites. Or idiots. Or enemies of anti-racism.
"Let me say, again, the use of the word wokeness and/or woke by journalists is lazy and biased and counts on the reader/viewer filling in with his or her own stereotypes. If you can’t state specifically what you mean, why are you writing it?"
Clearly, they really hate the word Woke. It really stings. Good
You overlabel people as Woke, you find diverse reactions to the label. I mean, duh.
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Woke hate it.
It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "progressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. WOKE
It even sounds oddly menacing. The Woke. The Wokeness. The Wokening. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Racist
It's a perfect insult. And it's very catchy. That's why the Racists hate it. It cleverly captures an entire spectrum of stupid "regressive" belief in one short, spiteful word. RACIST It even sounds oddly menacing. The Racists. The Racism. The Racialism. They Are Coming. Be Afraid
Oh dear. Oh deary me
I know what you mean. #oneofus
To be generous to you, you inadvertently make a point
For many years the Right has been looking for a decent insult to hurl at its opponents, as good as Fascist, or Trumpite or, yes, "racist"
Until now none has quite hit the mark. "Political correctness" is far too long and clumsy. "Liberal" might work for a few American Fox-watchers, but liberal has a tinge of goodness whoever you are. Liberal. Liberty, Libertarian!
"Marxist" is as extreme as Fascist but without the bite. "Commie" sounds antique. And so on
Suddenly there is a word which completely summarises all these annoying wanky people, and it is suitably venomous and monosyllabic
"Fuck off you Woke C*nt" has real bite. It just does: as an English language sentence
It is a true four letter word and insult, perhaps the first new one in English for 1500 years?
The fact that you had to accompany it with two genuine four letter words and insults suggests that it lacks something on its own. Also, it's only an insult to those who think it's a bad thing. If you called me a "woke c*nt" I wouldn't be especially insulted, as a lover of both wokeness and c*nts.
To be fair to Woke The Insult, it is just bedding in to the language, having only been around about 4 years. You are comparing it to "fuck" surely the greatest swear word ever invented by humankind, and the peak lexical achievement of English, the noblest and mightiest language on earth
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
Sort of robot camel-jockey analogue applied to trail hunting.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
Meant to ask, that woman in full hunting fig who was filmed punching and kicking a horse at the weekend, in that world was that considered just stuff that happens or did she go beyond the pale?
Kicking is unacceptable. Sometime you have to push a horse that’s in a shitty mood pretty hard though
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
They probably rang ahead don't worry
The wonders of mobile techmology. You'd think they'd fit stun collars to the hounds to stop them, though, if we are thinking along those terms.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
And besides @IshmaelZ you can whinge about Disney city folk but my girlfriend grew up in the Northumberland countryside and she thinks the huntspeople are a bunch of whoppers causing damage to property and scaring livestock and generally making a mess on their “wholly unpredictable route”.
Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
Yeah, but the hounds on the scent don't always know the boundaries.
Anyway, it is all history now, and won't be back.
I could name numerous people I know who had their land trespassesd on by hunts. Goes on all the time.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So that’s the paedos and hunters sorted, who’s next?
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Yes. Regardless of your views on BLM or gun control, this was a completely untrained, out of his depth 17 year old armed with a lethal weapon who walked into an active riot because he wanted to be a hero.
It’s entirely reasonable to simultaneously believe that he genuinely shot only in self-defense & to hold him directly responsble for the outcome: People are dead because of his personal need for self-aggrandisement & total lack of self-awareness.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
I guess the other benefit of a fox-scent drone (presumably flying just above ground level) is that it could be programmed to travel randomly but only across ground for which the landowners have given permission.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So that’s the paedos and hunters sorted, who’s next?
Nats. You could have a fake Indy Scotland, entirely in the Metaverse, where you get all the satisfaction of sticking it to England, and waggling your autonomous tartan winkles, and kicking oot the nooks, but none of the messy actuality of a nightmarish and unaffordable divorce which will condemn Scotland to penury
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
I guess the other benefit of a fox-scent drone (presumably flying just above ground level) is that it could be programmed to travel randomly but only across ground for which the landowners have given permission.
I thought employing cross country runners to lay scent trails was a pretty good approach. Usually ends in a frenzied attack on the human by the dogs - lucky tounges everywhere...
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.
That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
I guess the other benefit of a fox-scent drone (presumably flying just above ground level) is that it could be programmed to travel randomly but only across ground for which the landowners have given permission.
Also to avoid pets!
Seriously, this is a solution. Why not do it? Everyone happy apart from a few nutters at the edge of the argument (on both sides)
The hunt is told that the fox-drone is lurking somewhere in the countryside. When the hounds get near, the drone rises a few feet, and flees, shedding the intoxicating scent of fox
The hounds go mad. Random hunting ensues
You could actually programme the AI fox-drone to randomly prefer the most exciting routes. Lots of leaping over stone walls. Then it could shriek as it is attacked by the dogs, and disgorge hunks of raw ribeye steak
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Yes. Regardless of your views on BLM or gun control, this was a completely untrained, out of his depth 17 year old armed with a lethal weapon who walked into an active riot because he wanted to be a hero.
It’s entirely reasonable to simultaneously believe that he genuinely shot only in self-defense & to hold him directly responsble for the outcome: People are dead because of his personal need for self-aggrandisement & total lack of self-awareness.
And he'll end up a millionaire and celebrity off the back of it too. Which means there'll be a dozen more like him next time.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So that’s the paedos and hunters sorted, who’s next?
Nats. You could have a fake Indy Scotland, entirely in the Metaverse, where you get all the satisfaction of sticking it to England, and waggling your autonomous tartan winkles, and kicking oot the nooks, but none of the messy actuality of a nightmarish and unaffordable divorce which will condemn Scotland to penury
Or we could get a Brigadoon-esque VR Scotland for you touristy types where wee, tartanned-up serving wenches assure you that of course you're not a visitor and Scotland is your country too and fuck masks.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
The people he shot were white woke liberals protesting against violence.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
And besides @IshmaelZ you can whinge about Disney city folk but my girlfriend grew up in the Northumberland countryside and she thinks the huntspeople are a bunch of whoppers causing damage to property and scaring livestock and generally making a mess on their “wholly unpredictable route”.
Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
Yeah, but the hounds on the scent don't always know the boundaries.
Anyway, it is all history now, and won't be back.
A number of decades ago a fox ran through our garden before leaping over the garden fence. Some 45 minutes later the North Ledbury Hunt hounds arrived in our garden and lost the scent of the leaping fox. How my father laughed as a dozen or so confused hounds ran round in circles trampling his flower beds.
It was as though the fox was trolling the hunt, as the Hunt Master Lady Waechter had taken the stirrup cup in the pub car park 20 yards up the road not two hours earlier.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
I guess the other benefit of a fox-scent drone (presumably flying just above ground level) is that it could be programmed to travel randomly but only across ground for which the landowners have given permission.
Also to avoid pets!
Seriously, this is a solution. Why not do it? Everyone happy apart from a few nutters at the edge of the argument (on both sides)
The hunt is told that the fox-drone is lurking somewhere in the countryside. When the hounds get near, the drone rises a few feet, and flees, shedding the intoxicating scent of fox
The hounds go mad. Random hunting ensues
You could actually programme the AI fox-drone to randomly prefer the most exciting routes. Lots of leaping over stone walls. Then it could shriek as it is attacked by the dogs, and disgorge hunks of raw ribeye steak
It is a nice idea. The only technical issue is the reliance on airborne scent. This might scupper it as I think (but may be wrong) the hounds actually rely in significant part on ground-borne scent - from the pads of the fox on the grass. But there are tank type drones which might do, with rotors to hop over walls and streams.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So that’s the paedos and hunters sorted, who’s next?
Nats. You could have a fake Indy Scotland, entirely in the Metaverse, where you get all the satisfaction of sticking it to England, and waggling your autonomous tartan winkles, and kicking oot the nooks, but none of the messy actuality of a nightmarish and unaffordable divorce which will condemn Scotland to penury
Or we could get a Brigadoon-esque VR Scotland for you touristy types where wee, tartanned-up serving wenches assure you that of course you're not a visitor and Scotland is your country too and fuck masks.
I know this pleases you, this sad little meme, but Scotland is my country, it is part of Britain. The UK. I might as well say you aren't allowed in London. You are. You are British. It is your wonderful capital city
Naturally if you go indy that changes. But not unless and until
The random juxtapositions in these threads are always interesting. This evening culture war insults and fox hunting.
I find it hard to get that excited about either. Both debates seem to exist in a bit of a world of their own inhabited by a vanishingly small percentage of the actual population.
Isn’t the main problem with Woke both as virtue and insult that it’s just very American. Yet another slightly ill-fitting import, like “defund the police”.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
I guess the other benefit of a fox-scent drone (presumably flying just above ground level) is that it could be programmed to travel randomly but only across ground for which the landowners have given permission.
Also to avoid pets!
Seriously, this is a solution. Why not do it? Everyone happy apart from a few nutters at the edge of the argument (on both sides)
The hunt is told that the fox-drone is lurking somewhere in the countryside. When the hounds get near, the drone rises a few feet, and flees, shedding the intoxicating scent of fox
The hounds go mad. Random hunting ensues
You could actually programme the AI fox-drone to randomly prefer the most exciting routes. Lots of leaping over stone walls. Then it could shriek as it is attacked by the dogs, and disgorge hunks of raw ribeye steak
It is a nice idea. The only technical issue is the reliance on airborne scent. This might scupper it as I think (but may be wrong) the hounds actually rely in significant part on ground-borne scent - from the pads of the fox on the grass. But there are tank type drones which might do, with rotors to hop over walls and streams.
Foxes are pretty damn pungent. The drone would fly half a metre over the land, squirting this easily-followed scent down on to ground surfaces (soil, walls, foliage). I see no reason why it should not work
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.
That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
You mean concerned citizens were shot dead while trying to disarm an active shooter terrorist?
If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.
That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
You mean concerned citizens were shot dead while trying to disarm an active shooter terrorist?
If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
That has generally been a melancholy truth in the USA for many decades. However I am really not sure it applies in this case. The BLM riots were quite different to the American norm
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.
So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.
I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.
The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.
If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
It's quite spread out, but the areas with pubs and eating places are quite concentrated. You walk round in the evening...
Unless you think that rampaging along Lonsdale Road would be a laugh....
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
You haven't answered my question. If technology could produce a convincing robot fox-drone, shedding fox scent, that weaves randomly across the country like a fox, would that suffice for you? In terms of satisfying hunting of prey?
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Yes, I'd be fine with that.
Then that has to be the solution. And this technology cannot be far away, if not possible now
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So that’s the paedos and hunters sorted, who’s next?
Nats. You could have a fake Indy Scotland, entirely in the Metaverse, where you get all the satisfaction of sticking it to England, and waggling your autonomous tartan winkles, and kicking oot the nooks, but none of the messy actuality of a nightmarish and unaffordable divorce which will condemn Scotland to penury
Or we could get a Brigadoon-esque VR Scotland for you touristy types where wee, tartanned-up serving wenches assure you that of course you're not a visitor and Scotland is your country too and fuck masks.
I know this pleases you, this sad little meme, but Scotland is my country, it is part of Britain. The UK. I might as well say you aren't allowed in London. You are. You are British. It is your wonderful capital city
Naturally if you go indy that changes. But not unless and until
The Leon man o' the world made welcome wherever he goes experience, Scotch version.
'Aye maister Leon, wur one big family, you wantin' finished aff?'
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of over 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Some of his assailants were also armed
If a black man went to small town in West Virginia packing an assault rifle, and shot an armed white West Virginia, I'm fairly sure that that "self defence" argument wouldn't hold up in Court.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of over 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
“You failed to spot that only one of those is a great university...” E. Blackadder, spy hunter (sic)
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Some of his assailants were also armed
If a black man went to small town in West Virginia packing an assault rifle, and shot an armed white West Virginia, I'm fairly sure that that "self defence" argument wouldn't hold up in Court.
Probably not, though OJ was a black man who managed to be found not guilty on a very elastic defence on the evidence
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.
That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
You mean concerned citizens were shot dead while trying to disarm an active shooter terrorist?
If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
The prosecution case would say that, however their star witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked. That validated the defence case that it was an act of self defence. Though I'm not an American, were a gun pointed at me I feel as though I would respond in kind and let the consequences be what they will be.
America is such a strange place and none of us really can be 100% sure about what we'd do in the situations that occur. If you can say 100% that you wouldn't defend yourself against someone who had raised their weapon and threatened your life then fair enough. I wouldn't be able to.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Some of his assailants were also armed
If a black man went to small town in West Virginia packing an assault rifle, and shot an armed white West Virginia, I'm fairly sure that that "self defence" argument wouldn't hold up in Court.
I am certainly not going to defend the "historic anti-racist credentials" of American justice and policing
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...
Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?
If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.
My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.
Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Some of his assailants were also armed
The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence. He should never have his AR15 there, but when people
1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you 2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon & 3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground
You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.
I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
It would have to have gone underground certainly to get past the Students' Union which would have cancelled it long ago
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?
You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.
So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.
I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.
The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.
If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
I'm sure you're right that Rittenhouse was terrified. I wonder, though, if he was as terrified as the two men he killed? Because they're not around to tell us how terrified they were of Rittenhouse.
Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.
Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
It had plenty of relatively smart restaurants when we lived nearby throughout the 80s and 90s. It was always our destination for a meal a cut above the local curry house or pub grub.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
It would have to have gone underground certainly to get past the Students' Union which would have cancelled it long ago
Sounds like it has been cancelled by the Union and Uni
I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.
In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.
But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.
What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people. What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
Some of his assailants were also armed
Assailants? Are you the Rittenhouse defence lawyer? Americans armed? Surely not.
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.
Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
“Consent of the landowner” aye of course
Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
Care to answer my point?
Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000. - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other. - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
It's a lot of housing, sure.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.
Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
Comments
With the party structure we currently have, the way the non-Conservative vote is distributed makes a massive difference. Compare 1979 through to 1992 (roughly the same Conservative share each time) or 2015, 2107 and 2019 (ditto).
I suspect that's an argument for the "disapprove" ratings telling us something meaningful. The more disapproving the opponents of a Conservative government are, the more likely they are to vote for "best placed to beat the Tories", even if it's not their first choice of vote.
Un pre dict ab le.
5 syllables.
Its a complicated situation because some of the people he killed were attacking him when he shot them, but he was a gun toting 'active shooter' while they were doing so, so them doing so was self-defence too.
I'd have irked, disapprove, blind fury as categories.
That would tell us more.
Not sae woke the noo, ey, Jimmie? Good for her, but I'd trade up to a slightly brighter model as and when you can afford it. This one seems not to realise that the owners of the property and livestock involved are OK with what's going on. Hunts only go where farmers allow them to.
That makes a good insult
It is still very obscure to many, however, and it is weakened when it is explained. It sounds mad
Whatever the NRA may say.
So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
But there is that other one.
But if one of the people he'd shot had killed him instead, they'd probably get acquitted due to self-defence too.
So if you're in a situation where you can kill or be killed, and its self-defence either way, then pull the trigger yourself.
Because if it would, then the argument is over, and you can have your hunts
Anyway, it is all history now, and won't be back.
How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hunt-hounds-cat-kill-bakewell-b1780109.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-43415597
"Sorry, but cats and dogs, ho-ho, what can one do?"
What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
I suspect some anti-hunters would still be disgruntled, and some hunters would still want blood, but they are the maniacs and can be ignored
So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
It’s entirely reasonable to simultaneously believe that he genuinely shot only in self-defense & to hold him directly responsble for the outcome: People are dead because of his personal need for self-aggrandisement & total lack of self-awareness.
That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
Seriously, this is a solution. Why not do it? Everyone happy apart from a few nutters at the edge of the argument (on both sides)
The hunt is told that the fox-drone is lurking somewhere in the countryside. When the hounds get near, the drone rises a few feet, and flees, shedding the intoxicating scent of fox
The hounds go mad. Random hunting ensues
You could actually programme the AI fox-drone to randomly prefer the most exciting routes. Lots of leaping over stone walls. Then it could shriek as it is attacked by the dogs, and disgorge hunks of raw ribeye steak
Which means there'll be a dozen more like him next time.
It was as though the fox was trolling the hunt, as the Hunt Master Lady Waechter had taken the stirrup cup in the pub car park 20 yards up the road not two hours earlier.
Naturally if you go indy that changes. But not unless and until
I find it hard to get that excited about either. Both debates seem to exist in a bit of a world of their own inhabited by a vanishingly small percentage of the actual population.
Isn’t the main problem with Woke both as virtue and insult that it’s just very American. Yet another slightly ill-fitting import, like “defund the police”.
I might take it on Dragon's Den
If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
- There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
- It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
- When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.
So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.
Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.
I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.
The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.
If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
Unless you think that rampaging along Lonsdale Road would be a laugh....
'Aye maister Leon, wur one big family, you wantin' finished aff?'
(alternative language versions available soon)
A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.
Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
America is such a strange place and none of us really can be 100% sure about what we'd do in the situations that occur. If you can say 100% that you wouldn't defend yourself against someone who had raised their weapon and threatened your life then fair enough. I wouldn't be able to.
In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.
Have you ever been there?
Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?
If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.
My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.
https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
He should never have his AR15 there, but when people
1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground
You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.
I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club
So my guess is, it now exists as a secret society, which will be more pleasing to its members AND its critics. Job done
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59237741
Allie Hodgkins-Brown
@AllieHBNews
·
22m
Thursday’s Daily MAIL: “£5.5m MP With No Shame” #TomorrowsPapersToday