|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:12:07 GMT
I'm probably going to have overlooked various scenarios ( steve might have a few he could think of) but seems to me to be OK if 12 people come to a verdict that may not be entirely based on the law of the land but is representative of what your actual population thinks should be the law of the land. I suppose it might become a problem in a redneck state with race issues (and probably has been) but I suspect a jury has more common sense for any particular scenario then the lawmakers who either didn't consider that scenario or weren't in tune with what the country wants when they made the law. Yes 12 isn't a representative sample but seems unlikely that in Bristol (or anywhere for that matter) there wouldn't have been any ROC people on the jury. It's not like there is a majority in the country for pulling down statues so maybe the jury, including rule of law types, just accepted the specific arguments of this case. I served on a jury at Birkenhead Crown Court c1974. Elderly woman accused of nicking a tin of mince value 68p from the Co-op. No previous. Unappealing store detective. Had opted for Crown Court despite potential longer sentence to prove her innocence. In th jury it was like 12 angry men. Most of us (maybe all) thought 'she done it' but one guy thought we should acquit because a) it was 68p b) she was old and humble c) store detective was horrible d) ruining an old woman's life for that... After a couple of hours debate we found her not guilty. I was 21 or 22 and had never been engaged in anything like that. I tried to get the prosecution to disbar me by dressing in a bright red T shirt, denim wrangler jacket and jeans, lomh hair, beard etc. But I came out thinking juries are fantastic. This is a perfect example of a case that should not even have come to a court. Utterly ridiculous. The woman should have been given a police warning and told not to do it again. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 11:14:25 GMT
Robert
Maybe and I'm just putting it as a possibility wading into an otherwise peaceful if boisterous crowd of thousands who had injured no one and had caused no other damage to rescue a frickin statue might have been thought inappropriate and unnecessarily aggressive.
When you had perfectly sufficient evidence from video recording to detain those who were directly involved peacefully after the event.
But I am sure it really had something to do with the size of the officers posteriors instead!
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 11:17:37 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. I have looked online in the past, and found two definitions of woke. One is something along the lines of it being the the noble pursuit of injustice. Another, is that it is an insult levelled at the noble pursuers of injustice. (it might have originally simply been “aware” of injustice. “Awake” to it). It is possible that the pro-woke people wrote both definitions. Andcwhile there may indeed be numerous examples fitting both definitions, it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. (Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much). A potential, oft cited example of the toxic hijacking of wokery, might be that Gillette ad, where it might seem like an attempt to frame behaviour exhibited by both some men and some women (and indeed rejected by many men and women) - e.g. bullying, patronising others etc. - as being masculine. or maybe it was an innocent error. Or they just thought they were selling too many razors. - "it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much" - It's possible, all sorts of things are possible. This sounds very much like an emotional response to some people rather than anything even vaguely evidence based. Where-ever there are human beings there are some double standards and hypocrisy regardless of ideology, creed, nationality etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 7, 2022 11:19:51 GMT
I have looked online in the past, and found two definitions of woke. One is something along the lines of it being the the noble pursuit of injustice. Another, is that it is an insult levelled at the noble pursuers of injustice. (it might have originally simply been “aware” of injustice. “Awake” to it). It is possible that the pro-woke people wrote both definitions. Andcwhile there may indeed be numerous examples fitting both definitions, it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. (Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much). A potential, oft cited example of the toxic hijacking of wokery, might be that Gillette ad, where it might seem like an attempt to frame behaviour exhibited by both some men and some women (and indeed rejected by many men and women) - e.g. bullying, patronising others etc. - as being masculine. or maybe it was an innocent error. Or they just thought they were selling too many razors. - "it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much" - It's possible, all sorts of things are possible, it's 'possible' I could win the lottery this week as well. This sounds very much like an expression of one person's emotional response to some people rather than anything even vaguely evidence based. Where-ever there are human beings there are some double standards and hypocrisy regardless of ideology, creed, nationality etc etc. Lol, this is what I mean. It wasn’t an emotional response. (As it happens, it’s been something I’ve been calmly pondering for quite a while. Even if it was an emotional response, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was wrong). There are actual examples of what I was on about, and I gave one. In fact, in politics the framing of things as injustices when they might not be, or pretending they are not injustices when they are, goes on quite a lot! |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:24:07 GMT
Re-the statue. I'm not sure that comparing those toppling a single statue can be compared with those storming the Capitol building last year. The statue-topplers were not violent. When they downed a single statue, they did not go round the streets smashing windows or looting, the merely cheered and carried on with a peaceful protest, thn went to the legal system and said "we did it and here's why". Nobody got hurt, nothing else got damaged. As to the toppling itself, a genuine question for those who disagreed with the verdict. What are your thoughts on the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Ieaq? Ok, slightly different as he was alive and had been that country's dictator up until then, but, more like for like, toppling of statues of Lenin in former Soviet republics? I would say that the toppling of statues of Saddam and Lenin is a completely different context. These were murderous dictators and they had mass power over the entire population. Once their regimes ended, it was natural for people to want to remove the statues. Colston, on the other hand, was a slave trader at a time when this was considered normal and acceptable |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:25:56 GMT
Not a great fan of Jacob Rees-mogg, but he makes good points here "one of our greatest monuments is the jury system which is the great sublime protector of our liberties". "Juries must be free to come to decisions that they choose to come to on the facts that are in front of them in relation to a specific case and what they hear from the prosecuting counsel, from the defence counsel and from the judge," Anything that comes out of this idiot's mouth is nothing but excrement. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:28:06 GMT
Britain Elects @britainelects Cavendish (Gedling) council by-election result: LDEM: 35.5% (+15.8) LAB: 30.8% (-24.8) CON: 25.4% (+0.6) IND: 5.7% (+5.7) GRN: 2.6% (+2.6) Votes cast: 985 Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour. Interesting. I wonder if there is a local issue at play here. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 11:32:46 GMT
If you want an example of egregious jury decisions I recall a period where a specific jury at Southwark crown court failed to convict any of the dozen or so cases of property theft related cases they heard during their two week secondment.
The catchment area for a Southwark at the time meant the average jury would have contained at least three jurors with convictions for property theft crime. Sufficiently distanced in time not to exclude them from jury service.
There wasn't any element of reasonable doubt on display here it was blindingly obvious that no evidence was going to be sufficient.
The judge who heard the last three cases proceeded to ban all the jurors from any future jury service but the acquittals stood.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:33:17 GMT
Perhaps we should scrap Jury trials and just let Priti Patel decide on guilt or innocence or maybe make it even easier and just let the Police decide? What a silly and facetious comment! Countries like France, Germany and Italy don't have jury trials, as far as I'm aware, certainly not for the majority of trials. Most of Europe follows this custom, only Britain and other Common Law countries use juries for nearly ever crime. Are you now saying that these countries don't have proper justice systems? |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 7, 2022 11:34:41 GMT
Redfield and Wilton (Jan 3rd)
Which Party do Britons trust most to manage the economy?
Cons 35% (+4)
Lab 28 (+1)
DK 18%
Changes from Dec 20
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 11:36:49 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - "it is possible that there is a third definition: occasions where people might clothe themselves in righteousness to condemn others, when in fact they might not really be all that woke in the positive sense. Thus the woke might at times be subject to an examination to see if there might be some double standards or hypocrisy involved, since that can betray any less positive agenda behind the wokery. Which they might not like very much" - It's possible, all sorts of things are possible, it's 'possible' I could win the lottery this week as well. This sounds very much like an expression of one person's emotional response to some people rather than anything even vaguely evidence based. Where-ever there are human beings there are some double standards and hypocrisy regardless of ideology, creed, nationality etc etc. Lol, this is what I mean. It wasn’t an emotional response. (As it happens, it’s been something I’ve been calmly pondering for quite a while. Even if it was an emotional response, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was wrong). There are actual examples of what I was on about, and I gave one. In fact, in politics the framing of things as injustices when they might not be, or pretending they are not injustices when they are, goes on quite a lot! @carfew - "Lol, this is what I mean" - Sorry "what" is what you mean? If you're bothered by an advert (that I'm not aware of incidentally) that from your description condemns toxic masculinity than I don't know what that says. Oh and don't 'lol' me thanks very much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 11:38:24 GMT
Re-the statue. I'm not sure that comparing those toppling a single statue can be compared with those storming the Capitol building last year. The statue-topplers were not violent. When they downed a single statue, they did not go round the streets smashing windows or looting, the merely cheered and carried on with a peaceful protest, thn went to the legal system and said "we did it and here's why". Nobody got hurt, nothing else got damaged. As to the toppling itself, a genuine question for those who disagreed with the verdict. What are your thoughts on the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Ieaq? Ok, slightly different as he was alive and had been that country's dictator up until then, but, more like for like, toppling of statues of Lenin in former Soviet republics? I would say that the toppling of statues of Saddam and Lenin is a completely different context. These were murderous dictators and they had mass power over the entire population. Once their regimes ended, it was natural for people to want to remove the statues. Colston, on the other hand, was a slave trader at a time when this was considered normal and acceptable The removal of the Lenin statues were mainly about demarcation between past and present (there is a socialist statue museum in Budapest, also cf. the German film, Goodbye Lenin, and the destruction of Stalin's statue in 1956 in Hungary was a planned action (although with popular support) as all the equipment were organised. However, tancred Stalin is very popular in the Russian Federation. A 2019 poll shows that 51% of 18 years plus people have positive or highly positive view of Stalin, so it contradicts your argument. www.levada.ru/2019/04/16/dinamika-otnosheniya-k-stalinu/Added: There is an SS monument in Latvia, and there was one in Belgium until recently... |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 11:41:54 GMT
Tancred
Actually France does have jury trials for serious crimes Germany and Italy dont.
The systems among those nations that are based on common law also varies substantially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 11:44:42 GMT
Tancred Actually France does have jury trials for serious crimes Germany and Italy dont. The systems among those nations that are based on common law also varies substantially. In some of the German states they have "people's representatives" (normally two) in the panel of judges with voting right on the case. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:46:12 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. The word 'woke' is an adjective that means someone who is 'awake', 'aware' and 'alert' to all issues that become bones of contention for all minority pressure groups in modern society. This normally includes: LGBTQ issues, racial minority issues, feminist issues, disability issues, 'green' issues, etc. The problem that many people have with woke attitudes and behaviours is that these issues have little or scant importance and/or relevance to the vast majority of the population who then feel ignored and alienated by the woke politicians and media personalities who pander to these pressure groups at the expense of more genuine problems that affect the majority of people in the country. For example, high immigration and anti-social behaviour are serious concerns for many people, but are generally ignored by the media because they are not woke issues. If you go back to the 1970s and even 1980s there was no woke behaviour in the media, and only very few politicians, mainly from the far-left, took up these causes. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jan 7, 2022 11:48:55 GMT
Lol, this is what I mean. It wasn’t an emotional response. (As it happens, it’s been something I’ve been calmly pondering for quite a while. Even if it was an emotional response, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was wrong). There are actual examples of what I was on about, and I gave one. In fact, in politics the framing of things as injustices when they might not be, or pretending they are not injustices when they are, goes on quite a lot! @carfew - "Lol, this is what I mean" - Sorry "what" is what you mean? If you're bothered by an advert (that I'm not aware of incidentally) that from your description condemns toxic masculinity than I don't know what that says. Oh and don't 'lol' me thanks very much. Wow, there’s an unhelpful response right there. Obliging me to repeat my argument just highlights that you don’t have a response. it is very straightforward. You asked for a definition of woke. You cited how it can be used as an insult. I agreed. I gave two further uses. As the genuine concern with injustice. And as a challenge when someone suspects there might be an agenda. And some of the time, there might be an agenda. Do you have anything to prove that these things never occur? Probably not. So you are just having a go at me instead. Because as you are ignoring, they happen quite a bit in politics. And good luck showing that bullying and being patronising are masculine behaviours. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:53:23 GMT
I think it's the equivalent of left wing people calling people on the right 'gammon' Gammon simply means red-faced, flushed with anger. 'Woke' means awake to injustice and inequality. The left call Brexiters and Tories 'gammon' to deride their constant anger about any changes in society (used to be 'disgusted of Tonbridge Wells'.) The right call the left 'woke' to deride the left's support for societal change. Both are meaningless stereotypical generalisations that allow people to avoid having to explain calmly and justify why they dislike what the other side is doing (and possibly to get upticks on the Daily Mail comment pages.) (For balance you sometimes see 'gammon' used on the Guardian comment pages.) Pointless. The problem with woke people is that they are using outrage on minority issues as instruments through which to force through social change that most people do not want or actively reject. This is the main problem with the entire woke agenda. An example can be seen in the current high frequency of black actors on BBC dramas (even historical dramas where black people were not even present at the time), the regularity of interracial and gay/lesbian relationships being depicted on screen and in TV advertisements, etc. This is a creeping way to enforce a social engineering agenda through undemocratic means. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 7, 2022 11:53:35 GMT
@danny - "However, covid may turn out to be more akin to other circulating corona cold viruses where we do not bother with vaccinations. Probably these cold viruse kill vulnerable people too, but we never even bother testing for it. its just not cost effective to do so." You lack of knowledge is painful to watch, but not as painful as watching your habit of parading such a lack of knowledge in public. Most other people would be deeply embarrassed to repeatedly get facts so systematically wrong. - coronaviruses known as 'common colds' very rarely have any serious side effects. - we regularly test and monitor all ILIs, including common colds. - it is highly cost effective to do so, because this is done as part of the general respiratory illness monitoring program. This is done through a combination of the Flu Survey, sentinel swabbing in hospitals, the GP surveillance system (random sampling in a network of GP surgeries) and through swabbing and testing in institutions where there are identified ILI outbreaks - schools, universities, hospitals, prisons, care homes etc etc. All of this was happening long before covid. Please - if you are going to make claims and statements about something on a repeated basis, take some time out to learn about the issues your are pretending to now about and get the facts right. "However we do now know vaccination is only a real benefit to the high risk." That's complete bollocks too. The CDC have published some excellent evidence on the reduction in harms to the millions of children that have been vaccinated in the US. It's just that you haven't read it, so you keep spouting such rubbish. "Repeat vaccination has two big problems. The first is it aims to slow the spread of new strains through the community (currentlly omicron). Given protection only lasts three months, the result of this may well be to ensure an outbreak just continues endlessly, as people become susceptible again before the slower burning outbreak has used up all the available hosts and died out naturally. Which extends the economic harm without in the end reducing the final total of cases. Indeed, its looking like the result is to end up with more not less cases and multiple repeat cases. Which doesnt matter to the always safe, but extends the period of risk of those who never were safe." Again, this is also rubbish. There is a grain of truth here, in that repeat vaccinations on a 3 or 6 monthly basis is not sustainable, and we desperately need a vaccine plus strategy (where the 'plus' is determined efforts to reduce transmission). That's precisely how we have tackled infectious disease through history - reduce transmission and where we can,vaccinate on top of that. The massive, gaping hole in your logic is in the implied assumption that infection produces long term immunity. Omicron, and Delta before that, proves this to be wrong, and there is now abundant evidence that previous infection doesn't protect you from future disease. "The second is that infection immunity lasts twice as long against reinfection as double dose vaccine immunity ( according to zoe), and its very likely anyone who has had covid as a symptomatic infection has nothing to fear from a further infection, at least unless their health starts to deteriorate in any relevant way or by old age. All previously infected people should have been considered good to go and set free a long time since." Garbage, again. Zoe is a 'phone app, it isn't a serology study, and for a long time now we have known that second infections can be more serious than the first. Variants make this more likely also. protection from re-infection from naturally acquired immunity The ICL Covid Response Report 49 directly contradicts your statement above. They found very little protection against Omicron from reinfection from naturally acquired immunity, with lower protection after 6 months than from mRNA vaccines. "Especially as the virus changes, but also because the vaccine is only a best guess of how to create effective immnity, there is a steadily diminishing return from keep giving the same vaccine again and again. It might protect you against an imaginary virus which never really existed and connot even replicate, but it is not tailored response to the real thing." You are clearly unaware of the stunning developments in vaccines that have occurred over the last 2 years that steamdrivenandy was implying. Three days ago in the Netherlands saw the start of clinical trials of Nanovac, a new nasal spray pan-coronavirus vaccination which targets the spike protein on Sars2 but has also proved to eliminate Sars1, Mers and many other beta-coronaviruses in pre clinical trials, because it targets multiple protein sub units on the coronavirus, not just the critical spike protein. Nasal sprays are known to be capable of providing neutralizing immunity at far lower doses with vastly reduced side effects. Nanovac may be the pan coronavirus vaccination that gives us lasting protection against all covid variants and a whole host of other common cold viruses along the way, but if it isn't, one of the other 7 (I think) currently under development will probably do. In the meantime, the SaNOtize nasal spray, trialed in Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Surrey and found to eliminate 95% of covid virus in 25hrs with 99% clearance in 72hrs is probably going to become the kind of go to method for transmission suppression in the medium term. It's already being approved for use in Israel. Medical science will beat this in the end. The one thing you don't do, ever, is allow a novel virus with uncertain pathology to circulate in vast numbers within a naive population. If you allow that, thinking bizarrely that natural infection provides immunity, even as we have a new variant infecting the same people infected last year, you'll end up with lots of adverse health impacts, a million people with persistent symptoms, and bags of opportunity for a worse variant to emerge. (You probably don't understand that while Omicron is less severe than Delta, it's still more severe than the wild type original covid.) @davewell - @danny's reply wasn't considered. It was a mishmash of falsehoods, misinformation and gaping knowledge gaps. He knows nothing. You shouldn't indulge him. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 11:56:16 GMT
The removal of the Lenin statues were mainly about demarcation between past and present (there is a socialist statue museum in Budapest, also cf. the German film, Goodbye Lenin, and the destruction of Stalin's statue in 1956 in Hungary was a planned action (although with popular support) as all the equipment were organised. However, tancred Stalin is very popular in the Russian Federation. A 2019 poll shows that 51% of 18 years plus people have positive or highly positive view of Stalin, so it contradicts your argument. www.levada.ru/2019/04/16/dinamika-otnosheniya-k-stalinu/Added: There is an SS monument in Latvia, and there was one in Belgium until recently... The Russians are the only other people in Europe, other than the British, who deify their wartime leaders. I find this extremely strange. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 7, 2022 12:01:20 GMT
alecA solid riposte there to the purveyor of very wacky alternative (wilfully wrong) facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 12:08:34 GMT
What I find disturbing about the verdict is that despite obvious evidence of guilt the jury chose to ignore it and, in effect, embark upon the same campaign as the offenders. Surely the sensible outcome was to find them guilty and for the judge to apply a sentence that acknowledged the other issues surrounding the case. Rather like the Duchess of Sussex's damages. And to avoid doubt I do realise one was a criminal and the other a civil case. This was a political verdict. The crime was manifestly committed, therefore no defence was possible other than insanity. All these legal arguments from the 'secret barrister' are just mitigations, but they don't deny the fact that a crime was committed. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 7, 2022 12:09:42 GMT
Laszlo "there is a socialist statue museum in Budapest"I've visited, it - though it is well away from populated areas, so the monuments are preserved (good) but also not regularly visible to the populace (also good). I like the proposal to use the A listed sugar sheds in Greenock to house a National Museum of Human Rights in the buildings that were at the heart of Scotland's profiting from slavery. www.sundaypost.com/fp/sugar-sheds-museum-to-chart-scots-slavery-links/One of the suggestions is to house the statues of imperialists that dominate our city centres there, with explanations of what they actually did, as opposed to the present inscriptions extolling their "virtues". The then vacant plinths could then be used to mount statues of folk (especially women) who are more appropriate role models for today's society. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,138
|
Post by domjg on Jan 7, 2022 12:09:47 GMT
robert I'm sick of people (including some of my own wider family members) bandying the term 'woke' around as an insult with absolutely no attempt to define what it means or even less why the current Labour party is apparently so awash with it. Please give a definition of what you think it means or don't use it. I'm beginning to get the impression from some that their definition of it is simply anyone/anything that isn't a red faced Tory Brexiter. Is it that being anti 'woke' is just handy emotionless shorthand for being against racial awareness/equality, being homophobic etc.. etc.. The word 'woke' is an adjective that means someone who is 'awake', 'aware' and 'alert' to all issues that become bones of contention for all minority pressure groups in modern society. This normally includes: LGBTQ issues, racial minority issues, feminist issues, disability issues, 'green' issues, etc. The problem that many people have with woke attitudes and behaviours is that these issues have little or scant importance and/or relevance to the vast majority of the population who then feel ignored and alienated by the woke politicians and media personalities who pander to these pressure groups at the expense of more genuine problems that affect the majority of people in the country. For example, high immigration and anti-social behaviour are serious concerns for many people, but are generally ignored by the media because they are not woke issues. If you go back to the 1970s and even 1980s there was no woke behaviour in the media, and only very few politicians, mainly from the far-left, took up these causes. - "high immigration and anti-social behaviour are serious concerns for many people, but are generally ignored by the media because they are not woke issues" What media are you reading, watching?! There are most definitely plenty of media outlets for people with these concerns. I guess back in the 70's there was no real need for racial equality legislation as it didn't affect the majority eh? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,529
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Jan 7, 2022 12:30:06 GMT
The problem with woke people is that they are using outrage on minority issues as instruments through which to force through social change that most people do not want or actively reject. This is the main problem with the entire woke agenda. An example can be seen in the current high frequency of black actors on BBC dramas (even historical dramas where black people were not even present at the time), the regularity of interracial and gay/lesbian relationships being depicted on screen and in TV advertisements, etc. This is a creeping way to enforce a social engineering agenda through undemocratic means. Wasnt there a recent documentary showing (from memory) 3 out of about 20 skeletons of crew raised with the Mary Rose tudor warship had mediterranean or african ancestry? I think at least one of them had mineralogical evidence of being born and raised in Britain? Similarly Roman burials have revealed people ethnically from all over the then known world.
As to gay, didnt this take a turn for the wose in Victorian times with the sexual offences act which Oscar Wild fell foul of? Plainly before that such activity had been much more open, and indeed the legislation was a reaction to it based upon then current morality. Although I seem to recall it mostly passed by MPs being absent and dodging the issue of stating an opinion. Something of a brexit vote, expected to fall but didnt.
A while back on UKPR we discussed people being slipped drugs and then taking part in sex, and some people seemed quite disturbed when I did a tally and said i had probably been drugged unawares maybe by five different people (though only three for their own sexual entertainment). Obviously its quite common and goes unremarked for people to do this by simply plying others with alcohol. Anyway, my point is that none of these did me any harm. Whereas I would judge the general atmosphere of homophobia as I was growing up did me a great deal of harm. And it still does to others.
It may be that ethnic characters or non normative sexual behaviour do get over represented in dramas. But the problem there has to be the need to cover all options with a limited total cast, so you cannot allocate on a statistically representative basis. When did you last see inspector Barnaby in the quiet rural Midsummer spend an hour without a murder or three taking place? However....i have met an awful lot of people who started out having heterosexual relationships because of peer pressure, switching to stable homosexual ones later in life as perceptions changed. You need to take responsibility for the harm done to them.
The point about this sort of woke issue is that this sort of discrimination has become endemic and many imposing it simply do not realise the harm they are causing. You comments seem a case in point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2022 12:38:07 GMT
Attachment DeletedAs statue removal was mentioned. This is from Kazakhstan now (the statue of the previous president of the country (and also previously the chairman of the Soviet of the country)).. Wasn't a nice man,
|
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jan 7, 2022 12:46:44 GMT
robert - "...why I am unlikely to ever vote Labour, no matter how bad the Tories get. Soft on crime, soft on punishment." Um....the Bristol Four were acquitted after the Conservatives have been in power for 12 years. Soft on crime, soft on punishment..... You make me smile sometimes.  Perhaps if you read the barrister, Stephen Barrett's article in the Spectator you might understand more. I quote: "I keep politics out of my articles. I defend the rule of law and our rules-based system because it is the one we have. But it is under heavy and sustained assault. There are clearly people who instead want a values-based system — one where what matters is not following the rules, but holding the right opinion. Moving from a rules-based system to the supremacy of values is a political act — it isn’t for the legal system to enact policy. If you all decide you want a values-based system, then it is for the political sphere to do that — by elections, and referenda, and through politics. But the oddest thing of all is that I cannot see anyone in the political arena publicly calling for this shift." In other words, yes, this has happened after a decade of Conservative government but it is not the Government pushing the change but they most certainly look seriously at the problem. The one failing in our system is that jurors don't have to explain their action as do in the US. I read reports that the Maxwell trial maybe have to be reheard as at least one juror, maybe two, lied on their assessment forms and so arrived with pre-conceived ideas of her guilt. As for the Bristol jury we will never know but if they were local people in a particular age band, then the suspicion has to be, that they were sympathetic to their cause. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 7, 2022 12:59:13 GMT
What I find disturbing about the verdict is that despite obvious evidence of guilt the jury chose to ignore it and, in effect, embark upon the same campaign as the offenders. Surely the sensible outcome was to find them guilty and for the judge to apply a sentence that acknowledged the other issues surrounding the case. Rather like the Duchess of Sussex's damages. And to avoid doubt I do realise one was a criminal and the other a civil case. This was a political verdict. The crime was manifestly committed, therefore no defence was possible other than insanity. All these legal arguments from the 'secret barrister' are just mitigations, but they don't deny the fact that a crime was committed. If you believe that the "crime was manifestly committed" then you have not understood the legal position outlined by the Secret Barrister. Most crimes, save those of strict liability (such as driving without insurance) have to have two elements so called actus reus and mens rea or the guilty act and the guilty mind. You have, no doubt, considered that the causing of the damage being admitted by the defendant's is sufficient to establish guilt, it is not, and has not been for at least a thousand years of common law jurisprudence. The mental element in criminal damage is met up of a number of elements and in particular the state of mind of the Defendant's as to the lawfulness, given that such damage must, as required by the statute, be e.g. unlawful (amongst the other things mentioned in the article) and the Defendant's state of mind must be that they know or believe it's unlawful or, alternatively are reckless as to whether it is unlawful or not. If the prosecution fail to prove to the jury, so that they are sure, that the Defendant's state of mind was such that they either knew or believed or were reckless as to whether their action was unlawful then the jury would enter a not guilty verdict. However, if you were to remove the mental element of the crime then you make damage a strict liability offence so that simply causing damage is sufficient to prove the crime. The consequences of such a change would be, e.g. that if you jointly own a home and come home and forget your key so that you break a window to get in, the fact that it is joint property would mean that you would be guilty of the strict liability offence of criminal damage. However, whether you, or anyone else, believe this verdict is correct, or not, is simply a matter of opinion. It does not, on that basis, seem to me me to be an occasion to rush to change a thousand years of an approach to criminal liability. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 7, 2022 13:02:08 GMT
jib - thankyou. You can perhaps feel my frustration that such misinformation is still being credited with some veracity by posters on hre who really should know better. For anyone still labouring under the false impression that new viruses always mutate to be less severe, this thread shows the situation so far with covid - Covid has so far got progressively worse (as measured by hospitalisation) with Alpha then Delta, with Omicron partly reversing that but still representing a c 50% increased risk of hospitalisation than the original. Thanks heavens for vaccines!
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Jan 7, 2022 13:07:25 GMT
"high immigration and anti-social behaviour are serious concerns for many people, but are generally ignored by the media because they are not woke issues" What media are you reading, watching?! There are most definitely plenty of media outlets for people with these concerns. I guess back in the 70's there was no real need for racial equality legislation as it didn't affect the majority eh? I am primarily referring to mainstream TV. I don't include tribalistic right wing papers like the Express, Mail or Telegraph because they are sectarian media, not for the mainstream. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,722
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2022 13:09:15 GMT
alec Would agree with your last post other than to say that the coronavirus that cause some elements of the common cold can lead to severe consequences, pneumonia and associated respiratory problems particularly concerning in the very old and immuno compromised, i.e. the same cohort that is at most risk from covid 19, in addition unlike covid 19 the very young can also be at significant risk. There's never been any significant benefit for big pharma in looking at a cold vaccine , when billions are to be made from treating the symptoms. Maybe that will now change.
|
|
