And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
Surely the nub of the matter is that every personality is the same.
The writing style is the same, his personality changes depending on the day, as do his views.
Yesterday evening he was channeling his inner Robespierre.
He's very entertaining, I just find it annoying when he plays the ignorant card. As most know, I don't do bs, so I will call it out when I see it
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
I am a bit tired of the idiocy, masquerading as cleverness, by using words like “epicene” but which does not understand the difference between what a state does in peacetime and war and why those might be different.
Wait till he starts the 'bien-pensant' guff, that's proper second bottle SeanT.
For Trump, the positive news is that he's narrowed the gap to just five points. For Biden, the positive news is that his share in unchanged on 51%.
A 5 point Biden lead is of course right on the edge of where Nate Silver says Trump could win the EC, just takes a point or two swing more to Trump and he is well into the range where he could win the EC
Rooting for the big orange fellow again? I thought you said, given a vote it would be for Biden.
I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 too, that does not change the fact Trump won.
The fact I think Trump could still win does not mean I would vote for him if I were American
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
There may be cases, but there are no systems where you can be 100%. Once you cross the rubicon you will have some cases where even though you think you are 100% but turn out to be wrong later on.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
I don't see much moral difference between execution and allowing guilt-ridden prisoners the right to and means to take their own lives, via, say, lethal drugs.
Isn't that just execution by proxy?
No it is free choice.
If someone wants to live on to prove their innocence why should we kill them? If someone knows they'll never be released, knows they're guily and wants to die why should we keep them alive?
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
Well with any luck it turns out the wrong person was a complete c--t anyway, so 2 for the price of 1 (see under Place, Rillington).
The trouble with the Hislop statement is whilst I would agree with it totally, I am pretty sure it's a reasonable bet that plenty of voters would say it is better to execute 99 police murderers and terrorists and one innocent person, rather than put 100 people in prison and eventually let the innocent one out.
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
Better to let 100 guilty people go free than to execute an innocent.
But we don't need to let anyone go free - just incarcerate them without possibility of parole. Problem solved.
I wouldn't be dogmatic about this but what I would say is that if we are to reintroduce the death penalty we need a criminal justice system and police force that we can trust to arrive at the right result almost without fail. We are a long way from that and we'd have to spend a lot of money on both to get us anywhere near that kind of standard.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
Well with any luck it turns out the wrong person was a complete c--t anyway, so 2 for the price of 1 (see under Place, Rillington).
The trouble with the Hislop statement is whilst I would agree with it totally, I am pretty sure it's a reasonable bet that plenty of voters would say it is better to execute 99 police murderers and terrorists and one innocent person, rather than put 100 people in prison and eventually let the innocent one out.
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
Better to let 100 guilty people go free than to execute an innocent.
But we don't need to let anyone go free - just incarcerate them without possibility of parole. Problem solved.
Personally I would only consider the death penalty for serial killers, then the evidence needed to convict is much higher than just for 1 victim
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
There may be cases, but there are no systems where you can be 100%. Once you cross the rubicon you will have some cases where even though you think you are 100% but turn out to be wrong later on.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
I don't see much moral difference between execution and allowing guilt-ridden prisoners the right to and means to take their own lives, via, say, lethal drugs.
Isn't that just execution by proxy?
No it is free choice.
If someone wants to live on to prove their innocence why should we kill them? If someone knows they'll never be released, knows they're guily and wants to die why should we keep them alive?
Agree completely.
If they want to die and do it themselves, that is up to them - just as it is anyone. It's the killing that I don't agree with.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
Well with any luck it turns out the wrong person was a complete c--t anyway, so 2 for the price of 1 (see under Place, Rillington).
The trouble with the Hislop statement is whilst I would agree with it totally, I am pretty sure it's a reasonable bet that plenty of voters would say it is better to execute 99 police murderers and terrorists and one innocent person, rather than put 100 people in prison and eventually let the innocent one out.
Maybe I have too jaundiced view of my fellow Brit.
Better to let 100 guilty people go free than to execute an innocent.
But we don't need to let anyone go free - just incarcerate them without possibility of parole. Problem solved.
I wouldn't be dogmatic about this but what I would say is that if we are to reintroduce the death penalty we need a criminal justice system and police force that we can trust to arrive at the right result almost without fail. We are a long way from that and we'd have to spend a lot of money on both to get us anywhere near that kind of standard.
The way the Tories have gutted and destroyed the CPS is enough for us to run a mile.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Precisely put.
It's SHITE being a BREXITEER! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat on civilization. Some people hate the REMAINERS. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, won a referendum against wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to win a referendum against! We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a shite state of affairs to be in, Sean, and all the acceptable law-breaking in the world won't make any fucking difference!
"Effete" is not short for "effeminate" btw, it means "worn out by childbirth." The cliche started life as "effete civilisation" (i.e. one which has borne all the healthy children it is likely to have) and was misunderstood for obvious reasons.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
Lock him up forever, throw away the key.
I oppose the death penalty on principle, irrelevant who it is
Locking someone up for ever, presumably in solitary confinement, with no prospect of any release, is arguably a torment worse, and more inhumane, than execution. What's the point in this crueltyt? Why waste the money? So he can repent??
Hitler was never going to repent. Hanging him, after a trial and conviction, would have been the better resolution, if we'd had the choice.
No it wouldn't, I oppose killing people on principle.
Send him to prison and he can stay there for life. That's the humane thing to do, not killing somebody. Doesn't matter who it is.
Some people I would be OK with executing, but my problem is we could never design a system that didn't risk killing an innocent person and that is not OK.
Some people say "ah but what if you're 100% certain" - frankly I don't think its possible to design a system where the penalty would only apply with you being 100% certain, so I'm not, so I'm opposed.
There are cases where you can be a 100% certain. I'm trying to think of an example where there might be an argument about it. Perhaps the brother of the Manchester bomber?
There may be cases, but there are no systems where you can be 100%. Once you cross the rubicon you will have some cases where even though you think you are 100% but turn out to be wrong later on.
But I'd say to people like him he'll never be released and we will let him end his life if he wants to, but otherwise no. We can't be certain that we are certain.
I don't see much moral difference between execution and allowing guilt-ridden prisoners the right to and means to take their own lives, via, say, lethal drugs.
Isn't that just execution by proxy?
No it is free choice.
If someone wants to live on to prove their innocence why should we kill them? If someone knows they'll never be released, knows they're guily and wants to die why should we keep them alive?
I am dubious of the moral difference between state enabled suicide and state sanctioned killing. But I am also sober. I must to wine.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Precisely put.
It's SHITE being a BREXITEER! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat on civilization. Some people hate the REMAINERS. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, won a referendum against wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to win a referendum against! We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a shite state of affairs to be in, Sean, and all the acceptable law-breaking in the world won't make any fucking difference!
"Effete" is not short for "effeminate" btw, it means "worn out by childbirth." The cliche started life as "effete civilisation" (i.e. one which has borne all the healthy children it is likely to have) and was misunderstood for obvious reasons.
Thank you for your attention.
POSSIBLY the most interesting post of the day. Have a coconut.
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
I am a bit tired of the idiocy, masquerading as cleverness, by using words like “epicene” but which does not understand the difference between what a state does in peacetime and war and why those might be different.
We use drones during peacetime, darling.
So? Countries are entitled to defend themselves against threats. The legal basis for using drones is an interesting one. None of that addresses the issue of capital punishment.
It’s a bit like arguing that because in war a government may seize property for war purposes, it is therefore justified in peacetime in stealing your property because it just fancies it.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
I can think of punishments that would be worse than death.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
I can think of punishments that would be worse than death.
Enforced reading of a certain novelist's airport-compatible scribblings?
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
I can think of punishments that would be worse than death.
Of course. Solitary confinement in a dungeon with no natural light for the rest of your life, with no prospect of release, no books or diversions, is surely much worse than death. Does that mean we should do it? Then we are torturing people for the sake of it.
There is also the principle of retribution, and the emotional satisfaction and catharsis victims get when they see the murderer die, rather than just rotting away.
A good example is Saddam Hussein. Iraq is still a very troubled country, but would it be in a better place is he had got life imprisonment, and was still alive in some provincial jail, with people campaigning for his release, vigils of loyalists outside, and so on?
I don't think so. He was a horrifically evil man, who deserved to hang, and the Iraqis were right to hang him, and it was surely better for the nation that they did.
I'm no Dom fan but I fail to see the problem there. I can well believe that an enthusiastic Brexit supporting porter or whatever decided to bring some leaflets into work.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
I think fines should be a proportion of income, to be honest
Better not doing it in the first place to be fair
If I'm squinting at the scan correctly it seems that he invited 25 people (under the legal limit) but got gatecrashed. Hardly seems fair to punish him so harshly for that
I'm no Dom fan but I fail to see the problem there. I can well believe that an enthusiastic Brexit supporting porter or whatever decided to bring some leaflets into work.
The problem is that it was masquerading as an NHS leaflet, using their logo.
I think fines should be a proportion of income, to be honest
Better not doing it in the first place to be fair
If I'm squinting at the scan correctly it seems that he invited 25 people (under the legal limit) but got gatecrashed. Hardly seems fair to punish him so harshly for that
I think fines should be a proportion of income, to be honest
Better not doing it in the first place to be fair
If I'm squinting at the scan correctly it seems that he invited 25 people (under the legal limit) but got gatecrashed. Hardly seems fair to punish him so harshly for that
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
James Bond was of Scottish/Swiss ancestry. If that doesn't prove something or other I don't know what does.
OTOH the indisputably top rank Britons - Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Wren, Turner all, I'm afraid, English.
Didn't realise I've been here for over a year as of July
Only a year? I have been trapped here since way, way, back - Gordon Brown was just a Chancellor, Plato had not lost her marbles and the Conservatives were a proper party that I voted for.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
I'm no Dom fan but I fail to see the problem there. I can well believe that an enthusiastic Brexit supporting porter or whatever decided to bring some leaflets into work.
The problem is that it was masquerading as an NHS leaflet, using their logo.
Yeah, using or imitating the NHS brand identity is a bit naughty.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
James Bond was of Scottish/Swiss ancestry. If that doesn't prove something or other I don't know what does.
OTOH the indisputably top rank Britons - Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Wren, Turner all, I'm afraid, English.
I like to imagine that our favourite resident thriller writer actually suffers from multiple personality disorder. Sits in a dress bashing out his posts at the moment. Whereas a few months ago he wore a Killroy Silk toupee. I forget most of the others from when I was a lurker, sorrry. But I liked the one that had the barely overage corbynista wife the best.
“Who is Tyler Durden?” sort of vibe but disrupting society one subversive forum post at a time.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
I was very surprised labour in their sweeties for all manifesto didn't propose at very least medical cannabis fudge.
Drug legalisation and taxation would be a major boon for the Treasury. Can spend less on enforcement and prisons, plus raising a fortune in taxes. It will pay for sweeties for whichever party is brave enough to tackle this issue and do the right thing first.
For Trump, the positive news is that he's narrowed the gap to just five points. For Biden, the positive news is that his share in unchanged on 51%.
A 5 point Biden lead is of course right on the edge of where Nate Silver says Trump could win the EC, just takes a point or two swing more to Trump and he is well into the range where he could win the EC
Rooting for the big orange fellow again? I thought you said, given a vote it would be for Biden.
I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 too, that does not change the fact Trump won.
The fact I think Trump could still win does not mean I would vote for him if I were American
Hillary won the election, 3 million more Americans voted for her than for Trump.
The crappy, outdated, unfair Electoral Kindergarten gifted the White House to the pathetic loser Trump!
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
I like to imagine that our favourite resident thriller writer actually suffers from multiple personality disorder. Sits in a dress bashing out his posts at the moment. Whereas a few months ago he wore a Killroy Silk toupee. I forget most of the others from when I was a lurker, sorrry. But I liked the one that had the barely overage corbynista wife the best.
“Who is Tyler Durden?” sort of vibe but disrupting society one subversive forum post at a time.
Very unwoke, it's dissociative identity disorder these days.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
On death penalty, Ian Hislop got it right many years ago.
If you get it wrong, the person is dead. Then what?
It really should only ever be used in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever (yes, those cases exist). So really the arguments come down to whether or not it should be used, and in my opinion it's not worth it even if some people deserve it.
Hitler?
Imagine we'd caught him after the Fall of Berlin.
Would you see him hang? I would.
We did not hang Napoleon and he terrorised the whole of Europe for decades.
Napoleon was not a particularly nice man, but I don't think you can equate him with Hitler.
The idea of giving Hitler "life imprisonment" is just absurd. He was a man who deserved to hang, if we had captured him. Likewise several other leading Nazis (who were, rightly, executed after the Nuremberg Trials).
I can think of punishments that would be worse than death.
Of course. Solitary confinement in a dungeon with no natural light for the rest of your life, with no prospect of release, no books or diversions, is surely much worse than death. Does that mean we should do it? Then we are torturing people for the sake of it.
There is also the principle of retribution, and the emotional satisfaction and catharsis victims get when they see the murderer die, rather than just rotting away.
A good example is Saddam Hussein. Iraq is still a very troubled country, but would it be in a better place is he had got life imprisonment, and was still alive in some provincial jail, with people campaigning for his release, vigils of loyalists outside, and so on?
I don't think so. He was a horrifically evil man, who deserved to hang, and the Iraqis were right to hang him, and it was surely better for the nation that they did.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Fine, but it helps less than you'd think. Smuggling was invented not because stuff was illegal but because it was taxed.
Mind you, it would skew the economics of the illegal trade if it was competing with legal sellers of pharmaceutical grade drugs, and street heroin had to be on average a bit more than 19% heroin.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant related to drug dealing. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers, hitting one. The police then returned fire and unfortunately this woman was killed in the crossfire.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
A no knock warrant. It's the world's most stupid idea, but they didn't invent it I guess.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
I'm OK with that, are you?
I'm sorry?
Drug legislation?
There are a number of international anti-drug treaties - to properly legalise the drug supply chain (the only sane kind of legalisation) would mean abrogating them.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
James Bond was of Scottish/Swiss ancestry. If that doesn't prove something or other I don't know what does.
OTOH the indisputably top rank Britons - Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Wren, Turner all, I'm afraid, English.
Hume and Maxwell beg to differ. Also, Adam Smith.
Good for you - naming a physicist in particular. Clerk Maxwell is one of the greats, up there with Einstein and Newton. He linked the two.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
So they should be arrested.
They didn't knock on the door or identify themselves in any reasonable way. Armed intruders burst through the door, people are entitled to self-defence. If the Police don't knock on the door or identify themselves then how is anyone at home supposed to know who has burst through the door?
It is the people at the home who have the right to shoot not the Police who killed someone in her bed who burst through the door without knocking on the door.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
I'm OK with that, are you?
I'm sorry?
Drug legislation?
@Philip_Thompson is correct that the UK is a signatory to several treaties regarding illegal drugs. One of the reasons why the Netherlands only decriminalsied cannabis, was to avoid the country being in breach of its treaty obligations.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
A no knock warrant. It's the world's most stupid idea, but they didn't invent it I guess.
We can question the law, but as far as I can tell the police acted as they should and came under fire. What are they supposed to do?
And then I remembered that this is a cricket forum.
Cricket seems to unite us across politics on this forum
Pity other things more important do not
I think most agree the death penalty must never be reintroduced
I don't. If we are prepared to bomb our enemies, killing innocents, I can be persuaded that we should execute convicted child murderers.
Well your views depend on which personality you adopt that day, eh Sean
i have no idea who "Sean" is, but I am tired of this epicene liberal hypocrisy which tolerates bombing during wars (which kills babies) but shrivels in pearl-clutching horror at hanging the likes of Fred West.
You are Sean, well your last alter-ego/voice in your head was Sean.
The fact you still deny it's you when we all know it is, is the tragic thing.
lol
Presumably you'll be off soon and back with a new personality, I'll be sure to look out for it
Surely the nub of the matter is that every personality is the same.
The writing style is the same, his personality changes depending on the day, as do his views.
Yesterday evening he was channeling his inner Robespierre.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
I'm OK with that, are you?
I'm sorry?
Drug legislation?
There are a number of international anti-drug treaties - to properly legalise the drug supply chain (the only sane kind of legalisation) would mean abrogating them.
If we have to leave the treaties then we can leave them.
Of course Philip's false equivalence is not doing that, we are not proposing to leave the Treaty we signed with the EU, we are intending to undermine it instead.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
Check you facts - a minimum of 10 shots were fired not at the gunman but randomly into the flat.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
I don't think it's accurate in the slightest but, it does encapsulate how many Scottish nationalists think.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
I'm OK with that, are you?
I'm sorry?
Drug legislation?
@Philip_Thompson is correct that the UK is a signatory to several treaties regarding illegal drugs. One of the reasons why the Netherlands only decriminalsied cannabis, was to avoid the country being in breach of its treaty obligations.
If we can't leave these treaties - I think we can leave them, as I said above we are not proposing to leave our treaty with the EU, just undermine it, regardless the optics are different - then cannabis decriminalisation is all we can do and would be better than nothing.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Hamilton is an unbelievably talented racing driver.
Unfortunately he's also unbelievably irritating and the F1 sport unbelievably dull, so I just ignore him.
The law is broken all the time with regard to things like cannabis and other drugs.
Drug legislation is something Labour should back, complete waste of time policing it
Another thing I can 100% agree with you on.
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
Glad you're back to being sensible.
Don't forget though that this course of action is against international law.
I'm OK with that, are you?
I'm sorry?
Drug legislation?
@Philip_Thompson is correct that the UK is a signatory to several treaties regarding illegal drugs. One of the reasons why the Netherlands only decriminalsied cannabis, was to avoid the country being in breach of its treaty obligations.
We could and should do the same as the Canadians IMO. But if you want to respect "international law" then we can't. Personally I think screw international law this is the right thing to do, but others may disagree.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
So they should be arrested.
They didn't knock on the door or identify themselves in any reasonable way. Armed intruders burst through the door, people are entitled to self-defence. If the Police don't knock on the door or identify themselves then how is anyone at home supposed to know who has burst through the door?
It is the people at the home who have the right to shoot not the Police who killed someone in her bed who burst through the door without knocking on the door.
The law allows them to conduct no knock warrants.
You can say well that's a terrible policy / law. IMO so is the second amendment.
The underlying problem in the US is civilians are armed, so criminals are definitely armed, so the police need to be armed and have to presume they will face criminals who are armed and willing to fire on them.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Hamilton is an unbelievably talented racing driver.
Unfortunately he's also unbelievably irritating and the F1 sport unbelievably dull, so I just ignore him.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
A no knock warrant. It's the world's most stupid idea, but they didn't invent it I guess.
We can question the law, but as far as I can tell the police acted as they should and came under fire. What are they supposed to do?
This is highly irresponsible from Hamilton.
How about not burst through the door with guns out, without knocking or identifying themselves as a start?
A woman is dead and nobody has been charged for it, it isn't Hamilton that is irresponsible.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
So they should be arrested.
They didn't knock on the door or identify themselves in any reasonable way. Armed intruders burst through the door, people are entitled to self-defence. If the Police don't knock on the door or identify themselves then how is anyone at home supposed to know who has burst through the door?
It is the people at the home who have the right to shoot not the Police who killed someone in her bed who burst through the door without knocking on the door.
The law allows them to conduct no knock warrants.
The law allowed them to - it doesn't anymore and it still doesn't excuse anyone from shooting indiscriminately into a room when no shot has been fired from it.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
So they should be arrested.
They didn't knock on the door or identify themselves in any reasonable way. Armed intruders burst through the door, people are entitled to self-defence. If the Police don't knock on the door or identify themselves then how is anyone at home supposed to know who has burst through the door?
It is the people at the home who have the right to shoot not the Police who killed someone in her bed who burst through the door without knocking on the door.
The law allows them to conduct no knock warrants.
You can say well that's a terrible policy / law. IMO so is the second amendment.
The underlying problem in the US is civilians are armed, so criminals are definitely armed, so the police need to be armed and have to presume they will face criminals who are armed and willing to fire on them.
"can't even find a decent culture to be colonised by"
Ahem. Scotland was conquered and colonised by the English who also, by the by, created the modern world via the industrial revolution, saved the world during the Second World War, abolished slavery in their spare time, and created the greatest empire the world has ever seen, thereby making English the international language, allowing Scots to be (vaguely) understood all over the globe.
if Scotland hadn't been beaten up and enslaved by England, Scots would still be gargling in their weird little Gaelic tongue, and would also be eating lichen.
Irvine Welsh is simply and factually incorrect here. If you are going to be conquered and colonised, you may as well be conquered and colonised by the best: the English.
It very neatly encapsulates the visceral Scottish inferiority complex vis-a-vis the English.
Honestly I am utterly baffled by the narrative that Scotland was colonised by England; if anything, it was the other way around, with Scotland hijacking English wealth to support a colonial empire which wasn't otherwise affordable. There's a reason why Scottish merchants, industrialists, philosophers, engineers and politicians punched well above their weight (and continue to do so) in the UK as a whole.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
James Bond was of Scottish/Swiss ancestry. If that doesn't prove something or other I don't know what does.
OTOH the indisputably top rank Britons - Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Wren, Turner all, I'm afraid, English.
Hume and Maxwell beg to differ. Also, Adam Smith.
Good for you - naming a physicist in particular. Clerk Maxwell is one of the greats, up there with Einstein and Newton. He linked the two.
Maxwell is unquestionably one of the greatest Britons - and one of the greatest scientists of all time.
Darwin, Newton and Shakespeare are in a league of their own. World changing geniuses, like Einstein, Michelangelo, Freud, Mozart, Picasso, Plato, Da Vinci. These people are exceptionally rare. There have been 20 or fewer in history?
Just below them are the merely "great", and if you are going to include Wren and Turner then you must include Maxwell and Hume, who were just as estimable.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Why is it not a good look?
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
This is the case where the police were enacting a search warrant. They knocked the hinges off the door and a man inside immediately fired on officers. The police then returned fire and this woman was killed.
A no knock warrant. It's the world's most stupid idea, but they didn't invent it I guess.
We can question the law, but as far as I can tell the police acted as they should and came under fire. What are they supposed to do?
This is highly irresponsible from Hamilton.
How about not burst through the door with guns out, without knocking or identifying themselves as a start?
A woman is dead and nobody has been charged for it, it isn't Hamilton that is irresponsible.
You can't go advocating arresting people who haven't broken the law. Thats the way the rule of law works.
Not a good look just after two LA Deputies were shot in an ambush.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
Hamilton is an unbelievably talented racing driver.
Unfortunately he's also unbelievably irritating and the F1 sport unbelievably dull, so I just ignore him.
Comments
The fact I think Trump could still win does not mean I would vote for him if I were American
If someone wants to live on to prove their innocence why should we kill them?
If someone knows they'll never be released, knows they're guily and wants to die why should we keep them alive?
https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1305194929191256068
If they want to die and do it themselves, that is up to them - just as it is anyone. It's the killing that I don't agree with.
Thank you for your attention.
If you're going to fine someone, then saying "oh that's a student so they have no income, so we won't charge them" just makes the fines meaningless.
I can understand you saying its unreasonable to fine people for this, but if you're going to do it then do it.
Should be a % of income like they do in other countries
It’s a bit like arguing that because in war a government may seize property for war purposes, it is therefore justified in peacetime in stealing your property because it just fancies it.
The guy in the photo should be fined £500 with a £9,500 smugness surcharge. Satisfied?
An attachment of earnings order would work like a student loan - it would be paid off from future earnings.
There is also the principle of retribution, and the emotional satisfaction and catharsis victims get when they see the murderer die, rather than just rotting away.
A good example is Saddam Hussein. Iraq is still a very troubled country, but would it be in a better place is he had got life imprisonment, and was still alive in some provincial jail, with people campaigning for his release, vigils of loyalists outside, and so on?
I don't think so. He was a horrifically evil man, who deserved to hang, and the Iraqis were right to hang him, and it was surely better for the nation that they did.
As an English person I think this is probably a good thing, Scotland has given the world a great deal and is a fantastic country, but I find it utterly bizarre that Scottish nationalists don't embrace this proven track record of success and instead insist that Scotland is a incapable, unfortunate victim of history.
https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/1305240606839656448?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727679/Reckless-teenager-19-fined-10-000-Covid-rules-house-party-50-got-hand.html
OTOH the indisputably top rank Britons - Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare, Wren, Turner all, I'm afraid, English.
Mrs B and Fitalass were here too....
Drugs are bad mmm'kay, but we should deal with them like tobacco - heavily regulate and tax them. Let HMRC not the Home Office be tasked with dealing with them.
Might help fill some of our budget deficit.
I'm OK with that, are you?
Hume and Maxwell beg to differ. Also, Adam Smith.
“Who is Tyler Durden?” sort of vibe but disrupting society one subversive forum post at a time.
However, I doubt it will hurt Hamilton too much. F1 fans are well off middle class types who are unlikely to put their heads above the parapet by criticising someone who supports BLM.
To be fair to Hamilton, he is genuinely talented unlike Colin Kopernick who literally was going nowhere until wokedom propelled him to fame and fortune.
The crappy, outdated, unfair Electoral Kindergarten gifted the White House to the pathetic loser Trump!
https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1305232690153762822?s=21
He's not saying "F**k the Police" or "ACAB" etc - he's saying to arrest killers.
If arresting killers is controversial we've got a long way to go yet.
Drug legislation?
How will the victim see the murderer die?
U-turn incoming
Mind you, it would skew the economics of the illegal trade if it was competing with legal sellers of pharmaceutical grade drugs, and street heroin had to be on average a bit more than 19% heroin.
https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1305247484026007559?s=20
If the rest of the world is forced to follow, may God help us all.
They didn't knock on the door or identify themselves in any reasonable way. Armed intruders burst through the door, people are entitled to self-defence. If the Police don't knock on the door or identify themselves then how is anyone at home supposed to know who has burst through the door?
It is the people at the home who have the right to shoot not the Police who killed someone in her bed who burst through the door without knocking on the door.
This is highly irresponsible from Hamilton.
Of course Philip's false equivalence is not doing that, we are not proposing to leave the Treaty we signed with the EU, we are intending to undermine it instead.
Unfortunately he's also unbelievably irritating and the F1 sport unbelievably dull, so I just ignore him.
We could and should do the same as the Canadians IMO. But if you want to respect "international law" then we can't. Personally I think screw international law this is the right thing to do, but others may disagree.
https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1305222806062403584
You can say well that's a terrible policy / law. IMO so is the second amendment.
The underlying problem in the US is civilians are armed, so criminals are definitely armed, so the police need to be armed and have to presume they will face criminals who are armed and willing to fire on them.
A woman is dead and nobody has been charged for it, it isn't Hamilton that is irresponsible.
Truss has done a fantastic job yet again. She is one of our best Cabinet Ministers in a long time.
Darwin, Newton and Shakespeare are in a league of their own. World changing geniuses, like Einstein, Michelangelo, Freud, Mozart, Picasso, Plato, Da Vinci. These people are exceptionally rare. There have been 20 or fewer in history?
Just below them are the merely "great", and if you are going to include Wren and Turner then you must include Maxwell and Hume, who were just as estimable.