Liverpool FC Forum

[supersub]

I gave an intruder a good hiding and it took 14 months before the police informed me that the incident had been concluded.

[Kenny Kan]

I gave an intruder a good hiding and it took 14 months before the police informed me that the incident had been concluded.

That sounds like a good way to spend tax payers money. 

[SouthCoastShankly]

I bet you and a few other pinko's on this site are foaming at the mouth with this outcome. In your view I bet justice hasn't been done, and the actual perpetrators in all this are the 'real' victims " "

come on, bam.... even you must know deep down that that's a ridiculous thing to say. we all know full well who you are referring to when you start going on about pinkos (note the lack of apostrophe, by the way. we're not talking about anything that belongs to a pinko, we are talking about more than one pinko    ) but you seem to make these incredibly general and inaccurate swipes at what you believe they (we?) actually stand for. what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

Come on Andy.... Given the peculiar social and cultural disposition of some posters on here I can't believe you're telling me to "come on".

Case in point - I open a thread and SCS avoids the topic and tries to point out some "irony" I fail to see, perhaps you can understand his comment?

In tandem with this post for the second time within a week, the source of the news has been attacked for presumably 'bias' reasons. However, in both issues raised, no matter the bias or political leaning of the sources I've still been attacked merely because the points raised in both articles aren't what people want to hear.

My 'general' swipes that have been directed at a few on here, including you have been made because of the stance certain people have made over and over again. I cannot for the life of me believe somebody to be someone/thing else when they post such ridiculous tripe; on the contrary to how they actually are in real life. I can't believe they'd mascaraed on here as some care free do-gooder then in real life abhor the s.hit they actually spout on here - I give them more credit than that andy. 

what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

I just posted a thread on the ridiculous lauding a judge gave a burglar  Now if you feel that is being "provocative" then I suggest you steer clear from this thread. However, I'm sure it would take more than kid gloves and a feather for you to feel provoked by this 'provocative' topic.

I agree though, I have fallen to SCS level and for that I apologise for 'biting,' I suppose the old saying, 'if you can't beat em join em', one over more rational thinking, like ignoring the provocative SCS in the first instance.

Let me explain.

The irony was based on the premise that you may be a Daily Mail reader (cultural Marxists at their best) based on your quote. Yet you are an opponent of cultural Marxism. Somewhat satirical humour if your mind can stretch that far.

Clear enough?

As for the story, it's a clear effort by yourself to antagonise. The judge has been ridiculed and exposed in every paper. If the country was as culturally Marxist as you make out, you'd be seeing people agree.

My stance is that there is a hit too much political correctness in the world. But what I define as too much is definitely different to your take on it.

[Kenny Kan]

Let me explain.

The irony was based on the premise that you may be a Daily Mail reader (cultural Marxists at their best) based on your quote. Yet you are an opponent of cultural Marxism. Somewhat satirical humour if your mind can stretch that far.

Clear enough?

As for the story, it's a clear effort by yourself to antagonise. The judge has been ridiculed and exposed in every paper. If the country was as culturally Marxist as you make out, you'd be seeing people agree.

My stance is that there is a hit too much political correctness in the world. But what I define as too much is definitely different to your take on it.

nope, try again, I still don't see the "irony" that you've pitifully 'tried' to explain.

Secondly, your "premise" that I'm a daily mail reader is erroneous.

Antagonise?  Sounds like a bit of 'thought policing' going on here by you. Why is it antagonizing to start a thread re irresponsible words spoken a judge? I would have thought most people would have agreed on this (that his comments were irresponsible & even inflammatory), but it 'appears' to be antagonising to you for some odd reason, perhaps you disagree and applaud the judge's comments.

Since this "story" is antagonising to you, are you also suggesting the media shouldn't publish such reports in fear it antagonises everyone. Or is it, that it can only be reported by the media but is a taboo subject on social network sites and forums? Not for the first time, you've left me perplexed with your comments.

[tonyeh]

"Cultural Marxism"

"Pinkos"

"Stalin's Troika"



Jesus fuckin Christ   

[Kenny Kan]

"Cultural Marxism"

"Pinkos"

"Stalin's Troika"



Jesus fuckin Christ   :Oo:

Don't blame me (monkey see, monkey do). I've learnt from the best. Fallacious ad-homs stifle and suppress debate, mind you, they will never be as good as racist, bigot, fascist or Nazi.

[LFC2007]

Yes, like the nonsense you posted in the gardening thread. As I said in that thread, there is no point in having a debate if the facts upon which your arguments are based are not actually true.

1) So, you're still in denial about this as you keep referring to it at as "nonsense"and ergo the arguments based are actually true. Like I said, just because an argument is bias it does not rule out the fact that it cannot be true. You appear to have a problem with this, not me, even when this has been backed up by the RHS. If you want exclusive evidence so you can be "informed" that is your prerogative but you go and search for such evidence to satisfy your own needs. In fact, the rest of your paragraph is superfluous nonsense that attempts to squirm out of, an already lost debate. 

Sometimes, however, it's not even the sources themselves that are wanting; it is your own reading of those sources that lets you down. Here, for example, you neglected to read the BBC article you posted carefully and concluded, erroneously, that the couple in question had been "charged" when in fact they had only been arrested, and were later released without charge. That makes all the difference.

2) Yes, I made a typo. However, the couple weren't far off being charged with GBH. Never mind, 'commonsense' prevailed even though I personally  see no need for an arrest in order to investigate the circumstances in which a victim of a foul crime were forced to defend themselves.

Truth is, if you were being objective about these matters you would seek to make sure that your conclusions bore a sound reflection in the facts, and not just a select few facts, either. You might just be riled by the attitude of the particular judge in question, which is fine and something most of us can agree upon, or you might use the example of the bugnutty judge to illustrate a wider point about the judicial system, but for that -- if you were being objective -- you would also seek a commensurate degree of evidence to support what is a much wider claim. It's no good just seizing on a few single instances as evidence of a widespread problem when there are well over a million people sentenced following a criminal conviction every year in England and Wales alone. As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, where is the evidence that this something or other that you're banging on about 'pervades' the system or is the 'norm'?

3) Never once here, did I say I was seeking to be objective on the matter, that's your presumptuous straw-man argument you've conjured up. As, already has been stated, if one is dispositioned  with a certain viewpoint and care to expand on that viewpoint it doesn't make their argument false. We're not in a courtroom, we're not on a University forum board, we're on a general chat discussion board on an LFC forum. If you would like to alter this discourse I suggest you have a word with admin, if one isn't allowed to speak up about their beliefs and theories because 'you' don't want to hear it, or that you demand empirical evidence on every subject that is brought up, speak to them.

1) This is not a question of the 'truth' in the sense to which you allude. It is not a value judgment to say that you will be prosecuted by the EU if you use coffee grounds as a form of pesticide. That's a question of fact. If you choose to use information you have gained about that subject to then make a particular judgment in relation to that information then those questions do arise, but they do not arise where you are simply seeking to establish whether, for example, a regulation permits or does not permit a particular course of action; whether it is the policy of one of the agencies concerned to enforce that regulation, and whether any enforcement and prosecution actually takes places. The point about bias arises in the search for these facts since, unless you commit yourself to being objective in that search, you are liable to allow your personal opinions to steer you away from the truth (in the objective sense). This was the point of contention.

Neither you, nor the blogger's post you linked to or the Telegraph article satisfactorily established the facts of the matter for the reasons I set out in my earlier post. Why does this matter? Because what is the value of your 'gardening advice' unless it is supported by the facts? Shall we just accept anything anybody says -- as you did with the eurosceptic blogger -- and proceed to dish out advice on that basis? Or should we take a critical view of what people say and seek as best we can to establish the facts before accepting their advice? You might not, but I prefer the latter approach.

Now, you might say that, being a layman it's not your 'job' to consult the law and that you are prepared to accept the advice given by the RHS, whose comments on the matter were included in the Telegraph article which you later posted. And I can well understand that stance. An ordinary member of the public might not have the time, the skill or the inclination to investigate the matter further and might therefore be prepared to accept the view of an apparently credible organisation (after all: It has a reputation to protect, a vested interest in stating correct advice and it can readily be held to account) like the RHS. Even I would ordinarily accept their advice -- it isn't ideal, but we can't all be experts on everything, so from time to time we have to place our trust in people who are regarded as such. However, that doesn't mean we should just blithely accept anything any expert says. They have opinions and biases and just as capable of making mistakes as the rest of us, and so they also need to be held to account. That brings me back to the Telegraph article.

Notwithstanding the comment it included from the RHS, it failed to include any comment from the EU or any specific details of the regulations concerned, which is absolutely necessary to establish whether there is any provision contained therein banning the use of un-tested pesticides. In order to establish this, all the journalist needed to do was to ask the RHS representative which regulation he was basing his advice on, then look it up on the internet and check, quoting the appropriate sections in their article. If they had done a thorough job, they would have checked if the regulation was being enforced so as to properly inform the reader about the risk of actually being prosecuted which the RHS representative only described as being 'remote'. And, if in any doubt, they should have contacted the EU who have a responsibility to point them in the right direction. Taking these relatively simple steps would have settled any doubt.

2) A minor point, but I don't see any basis for your assertion that the couple were "not far off being charged with GBH". That's a judgment that the CPS will have made and they certainly wouldn't say how "far off" a charge was. I don't think it's fair to say either that the arrest was unwarranted as that depends on the information available to the police before they undertook the arrest. It's quite possible that soon after their arrival on the scene it became apparent that intruders had broken into the couple's home and that shots were fired in response, but they couldn't necessarily have been sure that the force used in that shooting was reasonable and done in self-defence -- which, for legal reasons, is a question that depends on a much more detailed understanding of the facts. Police don't arrest "perpetrators" and "victims"; they arrest people whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to have committed (are committing etc..) an offence. That being the case, the facts as they would have encountered them at the time might well have provided lawful grounds to carry out the arrests. It's very easy to criticise the police after the fact but much harder to make that kind of decision when faced with it yourself, knowing one the one hand that you have a responsibility to carry out a thorough investigation that could be compromised by failing to arrest a suspect, and on the other hand that this entails temporarily depriving the liberty of a person who may later be exonerated. Aside from the inconvenience of being arrested and given that they were released without charge I'm not sure it's that big a deal anyway, although if couple really feel that the arrest was unjustified then they have every right to seek redress under the law.

3) A truly bizarre set of statements. There is no "straw-man" argument on my part; I never claimed you were trying to be objective. I implied the exact opposite (refer to answer '1', and my previous replies). That you now claim that I claimed that you were trying to be objective is actually a straw-man on your part: I merely underlined the significance of being objective in these matters. You are, of course, completely entitled to reject an objective analysis of the British justice system, to shove to one side the 1.3m+ criminal convictions handed down each year and to instead base your views on a select few cases, on the words of a crackpot judge, and the like. It doesn't mean that your impressions accurately reflect reality, but it is your right nevertheless to believe such things and I'm not trying to deny you it. On this point, we actually agree: An idiot is entitled to be an idiot. Similarly, anyone who wishes to consider these matters in a rational and objective way, like myself, also has the right to do so.

[woof woof !]

It doesn't mean that your impressions accurately reflect reality, but it is your right nevertheless to believe such things and I'm not trying to deny you it. On this point, we actually agree: An idiot is entitled to be an idiot. Similarly, anyone who wishes to consider these matters in a rational and objective way, like myself, also has the right to do so.

   

And I guess that's game over.

Thread now well off topic, further knob measuring should take place via PM.