Politics Thread 5

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Rudolphin
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Rudolphin » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:28 am

On a lighter note: here's a clip of Boris Johnson being a complete strawberry float up for 2 minutes



EDIT: And another



(as someone with a passing knowledge now, his accent in French is atrocious)

Gemini73 wrote:Yes your are a sanctimonious twat

Bloggy blog blog blog.

Night Call: a game what I worked on
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:33 pm

‘They love it when I speak French.’

Image
User avatar
Bethlehemster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Bethlehemster » Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:29 pm


User avatar
*<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by *<]:^D » Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:53 pm

lex-man wrote:There stealing mobile phones not mooped, arn't they. Thees are the people who snatch phones and then take off on their bikes after. I'm guessing it's probably they do both.


:lol:

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by captain red dog » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:03 pm

Preezy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:I actually agree with her. It's fine to be the Daily Mail 'clobber the bad guys' crowd, until a policeman runs over a 14 year old and kills him or her, or bystanders get injured. Police should always use reasonable and appropriate force and I'd argue smashing into a thief on a mo-ped in a police cruiser is massively excessive.

If you did any research into this at all you'd know that they don't smash into mopeds at all, they nudge the rear of the moped in the same way as a car would use the PIT maneuver against another car. It simply makes the moped wobble and become unstable, so the driver (normally wearing a helmet to hide their face) falls off. Never done at high speed, always done as a last resort.

Sorry I have just seen this. I'm sorry but knocking someone off of a moped even at low speed is incredibly dangerous. This isn't the 1970s anymore with Jack Regan chasing down "slags" and beating the gooseberry fool out of them. I can guarantee under this policy you will get a police officer go too far, or hit someone innocent, cause a fatality etc.

The police should always be using the absolute minimum force necessary to apprehend criminals.

User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by lex-man » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:08 pm

<]:^D wrote:
lex-man wrote:There stealing mobile phones not mooped, arn't they. Thees are the people who snatch phones and then take off on their bikes after. I'm guessing it's probably they do both.


:lol:


This is why my literary career never took off.

User avatar
Return_of_the_STAR
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Northampton

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Return_of_the_STAR » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:13 pm

captain red dog wrote:
Preezy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:I actually agree with her. It's fine to be the Daily Mail 'clobber the bad guys' crowd, until a policeman runs over a 14 year old and kills him or her, or bystanders get injured. Police should always use reasonable and appropriate force and I'd argue smashing into a thief on a mo-ped in a police cruiser is massively excessive.

If you did any research into this at all you'd know that they don't smash into mopeds at all, they nudge the rear of the moped in the same way as a car would use the PIT maneuver against another car. It simply makes the moped wobble and become unstable, so the driver (normally wearing a helmet to hide their face) falls off. Never done at high speed, always done as a last resort.

Sorry I have just seen this. I'm sorry but knocking someone off of a moped even at low speed is incredibly dangerous. This isn't the 1970s anymore with Jack Regan chasing down "slags" and beating the gooseberry fool out of them. I can guarantee under this policy you will get a police officer go too far, or hit someone innocent, cause a fatality etc.

The police should always be using the absolute minimum force necessary to apprehend criminals.


The only other option is to let them get away.

Image

GRAPL Heavyweight Champion 2010, Runner Up 2017, tag team Champion 2011, 2015, Wrestlemania PPV Winner 2012 and your current all time highest GRAPL points scorer.
Fixture feeling champion 2013.

I'm a Paul Heyman guy!
User avatar
Bethlehemster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Bethlehemster » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:21 pm

Which isn't an Option.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Grumpy David » Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:53 pm

I'm quite comfortable with police being legally allowed to do their job.

It's only resulted in two broken bones but massively reduced the crime. Shame it's only two! :slol:




User avatar
Jenu-All I Want For Christmas
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Jenu-All I Want For Christmas » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am

I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

ImageImage
User avatar
Sleighamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Sleighamorph » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:45 am

Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
OrangeReindeer
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by OrangeReindeer » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:51 am

Jenuall wrote:I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.


If you want to evaluate the safety of it then we should look at the stats, not how dangerous it looks on a video clip.

User avatar
Jenu-All I Want For Christmas
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Jenu-All I Want For Christmas » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:04 am

OrangeRKN wrote:
Jenuall wrote:I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.


If you want to evaluate the safety of it then we should look at the stats, not how dangerous it looks on a video clip.


It's a tactic that has not been long deployed in the field, there is only limited data to go on in terms of assessing the safety so all we can do at this point is look at the current data (including video examples such as this) and extrapolate.

Everything is 100% safe until the first accident.

ImageImage
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Preezy » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:06 am

Lagamorph wrote:Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

Easier solution would be to just ban all mopeds.

Or ban all pedestrians. Either works.

User avatar
Bethlehemster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Bethlehemster » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:43 am

The stats have shown a 90 percent reduction in the crimes.
It's obviously a deterrent now that they know they could be knocked off the mopeds and possibly be injured or apprehended. Long may it continue. If it results in a few broken limbs for the little thieving gooseberry fools - I'm fine with it.

For the bastards that throw acid over people - I've got zero sympathy. It's testament to the police's professionalism that they don't sidewind the banana splits doing 50.
I'd be fine if they did.

User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Peter Crisp » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:33 pm

Preezy wrote:
Lagamorph wrote:Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

Easier solution would be to just ban all mopeds.

Or ban all pedestrians. Either works.


Just go full on Star Trek: TNG and abolish money completely then all crime is pretty much pointless.

Star Trek is always the answer :D .

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:36 pm

The candidates for the May 2020 London Mayoral elections:

Labour - Sadiq Khan

Conservative - Shaun Bailey
Image

Liberal Democrat - Siobhan Benita
Image

Green - Siân Berry
Image

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Preezy » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:40 pm

How does it work with these candidates - are they party members or MPs or what? How do you qualify as a candidate?

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:46 pm

Preezy wrote:How does it work with these candidates - are they party members or MPs or what? How do you qualify as a candidate?


To stand for a party you have to be a member of that party and then get that party to select you as their candidate. You don’t have to be an MP.

Anybody can stand as an independent.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:50 pm

KK wrote:The candidates for the May 2020 London Mayoral elections:

Labour - Sadiq Kahn

Conservative - Shaun Bailey
Image

Liberal Democrat - Siobhan Benita
Image

Green - Siân Berry
Image


What is it with the Tories and selecting racist candidates for London mayor?

In October 2018, Bailey was accused of Islamophobia and Hinduphobia after it was reported that in 2005 Bailey had written a pamphlet, entitled No Man’s Land, for the Centre for Policy Studies. In it, Bailey argued that accommodating Muslims and Hindus "[robs] Britain of its community" and risked turning the country into a "crime riddled cess pool" as a result. He claimed that South Asians "bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have, with them" and that this was not a problem within the black community "because we’ve shared a religion and in many cases a language". [56]

In the pamphlet, Bailey had confused the Hindu religion and the Hindi language: "You don’t know what to do. You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas. I speak to the people who are from Brent and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi (sic) days off."[57]

The Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, James Cleverly, defended Bailey and insisted he was misunderstood, and that he was implying black boys were drifting into crime as a result of learning more about faiths other than "their own Christian culture".[58] Andy Slaughter of the Labour Party, who defeated Bailey at the 2010 general election, responded to the report by arguing: "It is increasingly clear that he holds views that are at best divisive and at worst Islamophobic."[59] The anti-racism Hope Not Hate campaign group called Bailey's comments "grotesque".[60] The comments were condemned by the Hindu Council of the United Kingdom who expressed "disappointment at the misrepresentation of our faith" by Bailey. [61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Bailey#Controversy


This twat has history of sexism as well.

In 2005, Bailey wrote: "The boys have got this opinion that if a girl looks clean, and that generally means she’s good looking, she appeals to them, it is less likely she’ll have an infection". However, Bailey warned them: "If a girl appeals to one that way, she’ll appeal to all of them. She’ll tend to have been around".[49] Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan stated his comments constituted "appalling sexism and misogyny".[62]

At the 2008 Conservative Party conference, Bailey said: "Gals [sic] getting knocked up to get housing? It’s a cottage industry where I come from."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Bailey#Controversy


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abcd, andretmzt, Benzin, Bing [Bot], Caroller, Chocolate Selection Box, Garth of Christmas Future, Google [Bot], Harry Ola, Preezy, Rax, Return_of_the_STAR, Rhubarb, satriales, suzzopher, The Cuttcracker Suite, Tineash and 66 guests