League against cruel scams

[Tom]

I had a big post lined up, but I can't be arsed debating point for point. You are actually making Monbiots point for him Tom, with your hatred of the unemployed, your belief in summary execution of criminals, your fundamentally different view of what government is for, and the kind of society you should be living in. Most of your posts do, but this one takes the biscuit tbh.

Your vision of the future is pretty fucking bleak if you follow it through to its obvious conclusion. But you won't, because you don't care as long as you can do anything you want.

I don't hate the unemployed - at least not the ones who genuinely can't find work

I believe if someone enters my house to rob it, I should have the right to basically do whatever I like to stop them - including shooting them

IMO Government is there to run the country - not the people


My view of the future is that those who can't be arsed to work should get their just desserts. Those who try and make something of themselves should be rewarded. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[mank!]

tom you're a boring **** fuck off and come up with some new opinions.

 

[Tom]

 

[throdgrain]

tom you're a boring **** fuck off and come up with some new opinions.

FS Mank , quality post :/

 

[ECA]

omg this forums the daily mail



^
|
|
|
|

Apparently NOT boring and old.

 

[mank!]

i only said that twice.

 

[rynnor]

The Countryside Alliance
FREEPOST LON 15884
PO Box 313
Marlborough
SN8 2BR

Seems a silly thing for an organisation with numerous freepost addresses to do - is it any funnier If I send them 200KG of dogshit?

Edit: And in fact digging around I find that it actually started as an attack on the countryside alliance and that they grabbed the idea and added it onto a spam mail but really they are every bit as vulnerable to its abuse.

 

[Moo]

And the scam was backed by TV host Jeremy Clarkson who said in his newspaper column he was going to send a "paving stone or a horse".

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahaha

 

[Will]

I don't hate the unemployed - at least not the ones who genuinely can't find work

I believe if someone enters my house to rob it, I should have the right to basically do whatever I like to stop them - including shooting them

IMO Government is there to run the country - not the people


My view of the future is that those who can't be arsed to work should get their just desserts. Those who try and make something of themselves should be rewarded. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

And how do you tell the difference? The current system tries to balance it out. Better a few people cheat the system than people get left to starve to death. And without any social safety net, crime would be a lot worse. Stealing for smack is one thing, stealing for food is quite another.

At the moment, you can use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property. This seems like a sensible idea to me. You should use the same force as an average member of society would deem reasonable in the same situation. If you use more than the police think is reasonable, then a jury of your peers is asked if they think the force you have used is reasonable. If you escalate the amount of force a householder is allowed to use up to killed any intruders, then you escalate the force an intruder is likely to use. He isn't going to bring a knife to a gunfight.

How can a government run society without running the people? Sure, there are some stupid laws out there, but your statement doesn't actually mean anything. I think you mean "little government". A world with the US ideal of little government is a world where every single service needs to be provided by the lowest bidding private companies, and that isn't a nice idea.

Greater division between haves and have nots? Thats just what our society needs. More crime, more resentment by the have nots, greater social problems.

 

[Trem]

KILL ALL HIPPIES(not Will though, hes cuddly)!!

In Toms defence, he is old school, he is saying things my dad would say, my dad was generally right. I am not sure my dad would agree with Clarkson on this though.

*posts 12 Yellow Pages to Tom*

 

[rynnor]

How can a government run society without running the people? Sure, there are some stupid laws out there, but your statement doesn't actually mean anything. I think you mean "little government". A world with the US ideal of little government is a world where every single service needs to be provided by the lowest bidding private companies, and that isn't a nice idea.

I think what Tom meant is that some laws prevent him from doing whatever he likes and therefore Governments should not pass laws that restrict the freedom of Tom...

Its a load of rhetorical crap - you cannot wash your hands of the bits of society you dont like without societies eventual destruction.

Tom's ideas (although there not really Toms as they are spawned by the idiot press) would lead to a logical conclusion of people putting barbed wire around their houses - shooting people who call at the door or stop to ask directions (as happens in the US) - and living in fear of their fellow citizens.

 

[throdgrain]

Tom is right, you control freaks are wrong.
End of.
Now stfu about it, before I get the government to send the unwash-hair police round your house to arrest you fs !

And I agree with Clarkson on this one to, the League Against Cruel sports are a collection of wankers, send them a tank or something !!!

 

[Calaen]

Clarkson is a tosspot. happy christmas.

 

[throdgrain]

Dont get all stroppy just because its christmas cal!!!

 

[Xtro]

Load of Tory *****.

Lo btw.

 

[DaGaffer]

How can a government run society without running the people? Sure, there are some stupid laws out there, but your statement doesn't actually mean anything. I think you mean "little government". A world with the US ideal of little government is a world where every single service needs to be provided by the lowest bidding private companies, and that isn't a nice idea.

Like everything in life, its about balance; I don't advocate a "winner takes all, survival of the fittest" society, but you can't deny there has been an increased interference in people's daily lives under Labour (I read somewhere that between 2000 and 2003 Labour put more than 270 new offences on the statute books, that's a huge number, more than the Tories did in nearly 20 years), and its only going to get worse. Do we really need our cars to be monitored wherever they go? (as is planned), Do we really a biometric ID card database? Do we really need inspectors with the right to come into our homes to value them? All governments have authoritarian instincts, but this lot are a whole new ball game, with access to technology that Stalin could only have dreamed of (when he wasn't dreaming of half-ape superwarriors that is )

 

[Tom]

At the moment, you can use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property. This seems like a sensible idea to me. You should use the same force as an average member of society would deem reasonable in the same situation. If you use more than the police think is reasonable, then a jury of your peers is asked if they think the force you have used is reasonable. If you escalate the amount of force a householder is allowed to use up to killed any intruders, then you escalate the force an intruder is likely to use. He isn't going to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Well, as a reasonable person, I don't think its reasonable that people think they can invade my home and steal my property. I don't think thats at all reasonable. The courts obviously do, since most offenders get paltry sentences and are soon back out on the streets up to no good. Tell you what, ask a policeman off the record what he thinks about the average low-life scum who go around mugging old ladies and robbing people's houses. They're the ones who deal with them, they know what its all about.

As for government running the people - I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick. The government (who are elected to represent us, not to rule us) enact laws with the permission of the electorate. If those laws aren't liked, they're ignored completely, or protested against. When the government suddenly enacts laws that attempt to restrict our freedom (protests outside parliament, movement tracking, ID cards, religious hatred(!) laws, hunting, guns, RFID tags, forcing ISPs to store info about internet activity, etc), thats what I don't like.

Government should be there to run things for the people - it should not be actively interfering with their lives for no good reason.

Mark my words, if they keep on the way they are, a sizeable proportion of this country will be incriminated for no fault of their own.

 

[rynnor]

Well, as a reasonable person, I don't think its reasonable that people think they can invade my home and steal my property. I don't think thats at all reasonable. The courts obviously do, since most offenders get paltry sentences and are soon back out on the streets up to no good.

The courts can only set jail terms within a restricted range and have to follow precedent for the type of offense - this hasnt changed - its been basically the same for decades its just that people have come to the conclusion that prison time is not so bad so it lost its deterrant value. It costs a shedload to keep people in prison and their is already overcrowding so you cant just lock everyone up. At some point they are going to get out.

Tell you what, ask a policeman off the record what he thinks about the average low-life scum who go around mugging old ladies and robbing people's houses. They're the ones who deal with them, they know what its all about.

If the police have the solution to crime they havent exactly been forthcoming about it eh? Policemen are administrators of crime after it happens they are as much in the dark as the rest of us as to what can be done to prevent people committing crimes in the first place.

When the government suddenly enacts laws that attempt to restrict our freedom (protests outside parliament, movement tracking, ID cards, religious hatred(!) laws, hunting, guns, RFID tags, forcing ISPs to store info about internet activity, etc), thats what I don't like..

I agree with em on the protests thing - its a law to prevent lone nutters and interest groups from trying to pressure the government - theres no way it could prevent a real demonstration by the general population.

Hunting I agree with em on as previously stated and who can really object to gun controls? I also dont see how the storing of info by ISP's is hurting you either - the data volumes are far too big for them to do some kinda 'big brother' analysis on everyone - its just a tool to try and trace after a crime or terrorist act has taken place and surely you dont object to that?

ID cards is a silly idea mainly because the technology cannot support what they want it to do (in another decade or 2 maybe) but the general idea is not terrible and is no more an affront to your personal freedoms than a passport or drivers license?

 

[Chilly]

I think Tom just answered all the points pretty fucking well tbh. I know this is the internet, which means that a discussion, or indeed even a conversation , should be carried out by the means of lots of random statements irrelevant to each other, but even then , on this particular occasion, you should acknowledge his reply

im sorry I wasnt in front of my computer waiting I was out drinking with friends (made of meat, not electrons).

Fair points tom, I didnt read it very closely and im not aware of a lot of the background to what that guy was talking about. On balance I think he is a bit of a cock, but he does say a few sensible things. And clarkson certainly does say many stupid things.

 

[rynnor]

Lo btw.

Hey welcome back - flying visit or you back for a while?

 

[DaGaffer]

ID cards is a silly idea mainly because the technology cannot support what they want it to do (in another decade or 2 maybe) but the general idea is not terrible and is no more an affront to your personal freedoms than a passport or drivers license?

This is getting off topic, but yes, ID cards, in the format the government want; are WAY more of an affront to our personal freedoms than a passport or drivers licence. Apart from anything else, you have a choice about owning a passport or driving. Then you get into the database side and the potential for abuse and extension and it gets pretty scary. Just because the damn things probably won't work and will cost us a fortune is neither here nor there; the real debate is should we give government (not just this one, ANY government) that level of information about its citizens?

 

[throdgrain]

Break into my house and Ill blow your bloody head off, then Ill get done for it by you wanky PC looneys . GG WP etc

 

[ECA]

Break into my house and Ill blow your bloody head off, then Ill get done for it by you wanky PC looneys . GG WP etc

No you won't.

Only if they try running off down the street when they see you staring at them down the wrong end of a shotgun barrel, and you shoot them in the back and they accidentally survive, and then you tell them they deserved it when it comes to court.

 

[Tom]

is no more an affront to your personal freedoms than a passport or drivers license?

I'm not required by law to possess either of those documents.

 

[rynnor]

I'm not required by law to possess either of those documents.

Only if you never drive or leave the country tho - how many people do you know who do neither (except a few old people who will get it free incidentally).

 

[DaGaffer]

Only if you never drive or leave the country tho - how many people do you know who do neither (except a few old people who will get it free incidentally).

You're missing the point. Again.

 

[rynnor]

You're missing the point. Again.

Not really - he was saying we all have a choice not to have a passport/drivers licence but this choice is pretty much illusory.

As to your other points they are merely speculation based on the great 'fear of big brother' theme - I've never understood that where the beurocracy are so obviously crap at administrating pretty much everything people still believe they would be super effecient at analysing the staggering amounts of personal data they would get.

Hell they cant even run a competent screening to see if a person has any prior convictions...

My main gripe about it is that its going to cost far more than they originally state and will not fulfill its touted purpose of protecting us from terrorism - plus the fingerprint/iris recognition systems are ridiculously unreliable.

 

[DaGaffer]

Not really - he was saying we all have a choice not to have a passport/drivers licence but this choice is pretty much illusory.

As to your other points they are merely speculation based on the great 'fear of big brother' theme - I've never understood that where the beurocracy are so obviously crap at administrating pretty much everything people still believe they would be super effecient at analysing the staggering amounts of personal data they would get.

Hell they cant even run a competent screening to see if a person has any prior convictions...

My main gripe about it is that its going to cost far more than they originally state and will not fulfill its touted purpose of protecting us from terrorism - plus the fingerprint/iris recognition systems are ridiculously unreliable.

Oh ffs! It doesn't matter whether they are competent, whether the technology works, whatever. That's all practical stuff, which can be overcome if someone really wants to. Its easy to dismiss concerns as "fear of Big Brother" but that's the whole point; the fear is justified because the natural instinct of government is to exercise control. It doesn't matter that the tools may not work properly straight away, once the law is there, that's it, no going back, only going forward to more control.

 

[Moo]

say hi to police state

he's a friendly fellow and he'll be your friend as long as you don't do anything wrong, but then you don't do you so you've got nothing to worry about.

what was that about point missing?

 

[nath]

Who here would refuse an ID card and actually risk criminal proceedings then?

I think I might - though if/when it comes to it I'll probably wuss out.