Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Will Alec Baldwin go to jail for the manslaughter of that lady on the filmset under American law or is it considered an industrial accident?

Doesnt seem like he's in trouble just yet. How do you kill someone with a prop gun that fires blanks?

Edit: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/prop-gun-using-blanks-still-052227936.html

"As for the question of criminal responsibility, that’s for law enforcement to investigate. But it must be noted that in the vast majority of cases, the person who pulled the trigger wasn’t remotely at fault. They were handed a prop and assured it would function normally — and it didn’t."

Guns dont kill people, rappers do.

[JuliusHMarx]

From what I've read that isn't much of a factor on why they come over here - see my link from yesterday (might have been Weds) on this thread. Also I would imagine that would be offset by knowledge of the many deaths that occur.

If the UK were to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore, would that mean France should process them in e.g. Spain? Also, don't you actually have to be in a particular country to claim asylum there (I don't know)?

[beninho]

According to this - https://www.levinslaw.co.uk/dinghies-in-the-channel-illegal-entrants-and-immigration-offences/ - article 31 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees applies even to those who come from France. Any illegality is "because of the UK government’s failure to align our domestic law with our obligations under Article 31 of the Convention"

In any case, the good news is that no-one will be prosecuted simply for the act of coming to the UK in a dinghy and claiming asylum. Would you agree that is good news?

Yes, that's good news, as long as due process is followed. Any failed asylum seekers should be removed, as should those who try to evade the authorities.

My main concern is that by accepting many asylum applications from those who have crossed over the channel illegally and dangerously, is that it encourages further dangerous such crossings - a sort of snowball effect which leads to more deaths and misery. The U.K. should try to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore (Calais?) rather than making it into a survival-of-the-fittest (and richest).

I agree totally, we shoukd have ways to allow asylum claims be processed from abroad, and change the laws about having to be in the UK. Though my guess is it will take a lot of cooperation with the French, and a lot of money to pay to keep them in France pending the decision. Which can take 18months plus, I've seen much longer. Or we shoukd arrange safe passage and cut the need for gangs.

[beninho]

Does Raab, actually think the police don't look back and investigate something that happened a year ago?

[dynamark]

And does Marr think he is going to get the answer he would like from an experienced govt minister and lawyer?
As if the police have nothing else to do let them look at it and if a fine is appropriate then do it seems funny there are no names named and no mobile phone footage.Labour need to find something a bit more relevant and substantial to have a go with but again they are treading water

[JuliusHMarx]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

[Duty281]

From what I've read that isn't much of a factor on why they come over here - see my link from yesterday (might have been Weds) on this thread. Also I would imagine that would be offset by knowledge of the many deaths that occur.

If the UK were to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore, would that mean France should process them in e.g. Spain? Also, don't you actually have to be in a particular country to claim asylum there (I don't know)?

I'm only saying that the U.K should process applications offshore because of the death toll and risk of people crossing the channel. I'm not sure France has the same issue. You do have to be in a particular country to claim asylum, this could perhaps be changed legally, though I doubt the French would want any part of it.

[Duty281]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

[JuliusHMarx]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

[JuliusHMarx]

From what I've read that isn't much of a factor on why they come over here - see my link from yesterday (might have been Weds) on this thread. Also I would imagine that would be offset by knowledge of the many deaths that occur.

If the UK were to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore, would that mean France should process them in e.g. Spain? Also, don't you actually have to be in a particular country to claim asylum there (I don't know)?

I'm only saying that the U.K should process applications offshore because of the death toll and risk of people crossing the channel. I'm not sure France has the same issue. You do have to be in a particular country to claim asylum, this could perhaps be changed legally, though I doubt the French would want any part of it.

Or we could assist them in getting here, thus avoiding the death toll.

[Duty281]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

[Duty281]

From what I've read that isn't much of a factor on why they come over here - see my link from yesterday (might have been Weds) on this thread. Also I would imagine that would be offset by knowledge of the many deaths that occur.

If the UK were to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore, would that mean France should process them in e.g. Spain? Also, don't you actually have to be in a particular country to claim asylum there (I don't know)?

I'm only saying that the U.K should process applications offshore because of the death toll and risk of people crossing the channel. I'm not sure France has the same issue. You do have to be in a particular country to claim asylum, this could perhaps be changed legally, though I doubt the French would want any part of it.

Or we could assist them in getting here, thus avoiding the death toll.

That could be an option, but it would run into various difficulties and logistical problems.

[JuliusHMarx]

From what I've read that isn't much of a factor on why they come over here - see my link from yesterday (might have been Weds) on this thread. Also I would imagine that would be offset by knowledge of the many deaths that occur.

If the UK were to process applications for asylum to the U.K. offshore, would that mean France should process them in e.g. Spain? Also, don't you actually have to be in a particular country to claim asylum there (I don't know)?

I'm only saying that the U.K should process applications offshore because of the death toll and risk of people crossing the channel. I'm not sure France has the same issue. You do have to be in a particular country to claim asylum, this could perhaps be changed legally, though I doubt the French would want any part of it.

Or we could assist them in getting here, thus avoiding the death toll.

That could be an option, but it would run into various difficulties and logistical problems.

No doubt, but if there was a will to do it, in order to prevent unnecessary deaths, then it could be done. I don't think the will is there.

[JuliusHMarx]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

It's a shame we don't have a worldwide government where all lives would be considered equally important. I don't think humankind has evolved to that level - I doubt it ever will.
Personally, I don't consider English people any more important than anyone else, just because they are English. Why should I?

[Duty281]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

It's a shame we don't have a worldwide government where all lives would be considered equally important. I don't think humankind has evolved to that level - I doubt it ever will.
Personally, I don't consider English people any more important than anyone else, just because they are English. Why should I?

We're very diverse as a species in all manner of ways, so worldwide government would not work. It would also be an utterly terrifying idea as it would grant an unimaginable level of power over the citizens of the world. Envisage a one-world government that becomes tyrannical and despotic, or corrupt and self-serving, there would be no escape. Imagine someone like Putin or Assad or Kim-Jong being at the helm of it. Horrific.

You don't have to consider English people as more important, but the U.K government is supposed to govern the citizens of the U.K, represent them and put their interests first. That's what they're elected to do and paid to do.

[JuliusHMarx]

That's why I said humankind would have to evolve for it to work. At the moment we're not far beyond cavemen in universal terms. We're just about evolved enough to fool ourselves into thinking how wonderful and intelligent we are.

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1467625462998478849?t=tlkJeec7kAhWB4kVLF--1g&s=19

An annual interpretation bill to strike out court judgements the government disagree with. Now that's pretty shocking, I'm sure some will defend it though.

[JAS]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

It's a shame we don't have a worldwide government where all lives would be considered equally important. I don't think humankind has evolved to that level - I doubt it ever will.
Personally, I don't consider English people any more important than anyone else, just because they are English. Why should I?

We're very diverse as a species in all manner of ways, so worldwide government would not work. It would also be an utterly terrifying idea as it would grant an unimaginable level of power over the citizens of the world. Envisage a one-world government that becomes tyrannical and despotic, or corrupt and self-serving, there would be no escape. Imagine someone like Putin or Assad or Kim-Jong being at the helm of it. Horrific.

You don't have to consider English people as more important, but the U.K government is supposed to govern the citizens of the U.K, represent them and put their interests first. That's what they're elected to do and paid to do.

Cherry picking a very relevant point above "Tyrannical, despotic government with someone like Assad in charge. and there would be no escape Horrific" Yep, aided and abetted with others using it as a proxy war but either way it is Horrific. Rather than no escape though, what you have is mass migration. So surely you therefore understand why mass migration actually happens? Do you therefore think it's a morally defensible position for us to either wade in or finance wars in unstable regions of the world and not expect ANY kind of kickback as a consequence?

[dynamark]

Drugs.Surely the place to go is the supply side Im not sure we can ever stop addictions when supply is there addicts are addicted(like drink and fags) and will do almost anything to obtain.
Not much point targetting users when drugs are easily available

[beninho]

Drugs should be decriminalised.

[Duty281]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

It's a shame we don't have a worldwide government where all lives would be considered equally important. I don't think humankind has evolved to that level - I doubt it ever will.
Personally, I don't consider English people any more important than anyone else, just because they are English. Why should I?

We're very diverse as a species in all manner of ways, so worldwide government would not work. It would also be an utterly terrifying idea as it would grant an unimaginable level of power over the citizens of the world. Envisage a one-world government that becomes tyrannical and despotic, or corrupt and self-serving, there would be no escape. Imagine someone like Putin or Assad or Kim-Jong being at the helm of it. Horrific.

You don't have to consider English people as more important, but the U.K government is supposed to govern the citizens of the U.K, represent them and put their interests first. That's what they're elected to do and paid to do.

Cherry picking a very relevant point above "Tyrannical, despotic government with someone like Assad in charge. and there would be no escape Horrific"  Yep, aided and abetted with others using it as a proxy war but either way it is Horrific. Rather than no escape though, what you have is mass migration. So surely you therefore understand why mass migration actually happens? Do you therefore think it's a morally defensible position for us to either wade in or finance wars in unstable regions of the world and not expect ANY kind of kickback as a consequence?

Yes, I do understand, thanks.

When you say 'us', what do you mean? Past UK governments led by Blair and Cameron who put the U.K. through these pointless foreign incursions?

May be worth noting two other things:

1) Certain countries would have been de-stabilised, or were already de-stabilised, with or without U.K. intervention.
2) Most of those illegally crossing the channel are not coming from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Libya. Figures for people from those nations were 34% last year; a survey of the former 'jungle camp' in Calais recorded numbers at around 40%. Many are coming over from Iran or Eritrea or Sudan.

[JAS]

It's not often I agree the Pope, but on this I do -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59538413

"Let us eradicate the prevailing mentality revolving around our ego and personal and national egoisms which determine every decision we take,"

'And he criticised the building of walls to keep people out.'

Silly man who lives behind walls criticises walls.

I didn't expect you to agree with anything that criticizes national egoism.

It's a very important value - a government's first duty should always be towards its own people.

It's a shame we don't have a worldwide government where all lives would be considered equally important. I don't think humankind has evolved to that level - I doubt it ever will.
Personally, I don't consider English people any more important than anyone else, just because they are English. Why should I?

We're very diverse as a species in all manner of ways, so worldwide government would not work. It would also be an utterly terrifying idea as it would grant an unimaginable level of power over the citizens of the world. Envisage a one-world government that becomes tyrannical and despotic, or corrupt and self-serving, there would be no escape. Imagine someone like Putin or Assad or Kim-Jong being at the helm of it. Horrific.

You don't have to consider English people as more important, but the U.K government is supposed to govern the citizens of the U.K, represent them and put their interests first. That's what they're elected to do and paid to do.

Cherry picking a very relevant point above "Tyrannical, despotic government with someone like Assad in charge. and there would be no escape Horrific"  Yep, aided and abetted with others using it as a proxy war but either way it is Horrific. Rather than no escape though, what you have is mass migration. So surely you therefore understand why mass migration actually happens? Do you therefore think it's a morally defensible position for us to either wade in or finance wars in unstable regions of the world and not expect ANY kind of kickback as a consequence?

Yes, I do understand, thanks.

When you say 'us', what do you mean? Past UK governments led by Blair and Cameron who put the U.K. through these pointless foreign incursions?

May be worth noting two other things:

1) Certain countries would have been de-stabilised, or were already de-stabilised, with or without U.K. intervention.
2) Most of those illegally crossing the channel are not coming from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Libya. Figures for people from those nations were 34% last year; a survey of the former 'jungle camp' in Calais recorded numbers at around 40%. Many are coming over from Iran or Eritrea or Sudan.

Yep, 'us' meaning us as a nation and yep, Blair & Cameron guilty although I'd be tempted more toward ill-advised rather than pointless.
I get the de-stabilisation point you're making but I don't think that helps any justification either
Also accept that it's quite a melting pot of humanity in Calais from different origins and probably add Somalia to the list as well where there's also conflict, as there is in Eritrea & (South) Sudan. The other part of my point was apart from the conflicts we have waded into we have also exacerbated other conflicts by either selling arms directly to one side or indirectly via Saudi. To me that constitutes involvement and negates/discredits attempts to adopt any kind of moral authority a) over the conflicts or b) dealing with the consequences.

[beninho]

Why do the tory Party just keep lying?! The party, the prioritising of outside over people...

[incontinentia]

Wow this place is even deader than before. Has Super disappeared again?

[JuliusHMarx]

Wow this place is even deader than before. Has Super disappeared again?

Yes, he drowned whilst trying to rescue overweight migrants wearing Harry & Meghan masks.

[dynamark]

No be fair super is on a 300 mile run to westminster to deliver party hats to the labour party HQ and Ben has exploded due to cheese being eaten in a room at no 10.Blessed be the cheesmakers.

[incontinentia]

Well which is it?

[beninho]

I asked before, do we still not expect a lockdown again?

[dynamark]

no lockdown IMO just keep getting jabbed when appropriate and be sensible in what you do day to day,Of course it will be wait and see the deaths and hospital counts

[incontinentia]

Wow this place is even deader than before. Has Super disappeared again?

Yes, he drowned whilst trying to rescue overweight migrants wearing Harry & Meghan masks.

Mystery solved, super actually likes to take some orphans out at this time of year to visit various toy shops. He then bursts out laughing and promptly returns them to the orphanage empty-handed!

[Galted]

Wow this place is even deader than before. Has Super disappeared again?

Yes, he drowned whilst trying to rescue overweight migrants wearing Harry & Meghan masks.

Mystery solved, super actually likes to take some orphans out at this time of year to visit various toy shops. He then bursts out laughing and promptly returns them to the orphanage empty-handed!

To paraphrase Monty Python, he couldn't bear to see an orphan returning to the orphanage empty-handed so he cuts off both their hands.

[dynamark]

Its only a fleshwound

[Galted]

Fleshwound! We used to dream of having a fleshwound. It'd be a luxury to us.

[incontinentia]

Fleshwound!  We used to dream of having a fleshwound.  It'd be a luxury to us.

What I wouldnt give for a fleshwound!...

[pedro]

Ha! We used to dream of having flesh…

[JAS]

It does look like Super's off on his winter break again. Must admit I fancy one myself. In the absence of getting a builder to start with the repair and enhancement works to the house I'm going to be spending a lot of the xmas hols reading up and trying to find courses on things like timber preservation and lime mortar repointing.

[dynamark]

JAS sounds like an old house.I can help with the timber stuff(dont fall for the really expensive companies who'specialise' its all pretty staightforward).Yer basic treatment for common furniture beetle is very simple based on boric acid - eye drops. Dry rot is the tricky one but just remove and replace.The lime mortar thing Im not getting at all -my golf pal spent a small fortune on render as his wife read it let the wall breathe but Im pretty sure if cement had been around in those days they would have used it,The render is there to protect the brick from water after all. Hope it goes well very satisfying to renovate your own place .

[incontinentia]

I asked before, do we still not expect a lockdown again?

Looks very likely.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59621029

[beninho]

I get confused with the mps concerned about the freedom of people yet supporting a ban on people's freedom to protest, or wanted soneones nationality revoked.

An mp on radio declared it was like nazi Germany thus morning. It really isn't.

[super_realist]

MP's dont want protesting banned at all. They want sensible limits put on protesting where it impinges on the far more imprtant right for people to go about their business without hindrance.

Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Simple as that, so the cowardly protests of doomsday cults like XR and IB should not be allowed to stand at the expense of my right to move around freely.

[McLaren]

Super

If you neutere protesting to the point where people cannot cause some level of disruption then what would be the point of protesting?

[super_realist]

Super

If you neutere protesting to the point where people cannot cause some level of disruption then what would be the point of protesting?

Protesting isnt about disruption, its about putting a point across.

If you want to express your displeasure, do it without inconveniencing anyone else.

People hahe a right to peaceful protest, they do not have a right to hinder anyone else going about their business.

[McLaren]

Super

The anti war marches in 2003 probably disrupted a lot of cities road networks. Do you think that new laws should stop that sort of thing?

It isn't that protests are necessarily about disruption, but it is a necessary part.

[McLaren]

Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose

You still watching Matt Dillahunty then?

[super_realist]

Super

The anti war marches in 2003 probably disrupted a lot of cities road networks. Do you think that new laws should stop that sort of thing?

It isn't that protests are necessarily about disruption, but it is a necessary part.

They didnt deliberately block roads and stop people getting through for a week at a time.

If you inconvenience people to the point where they cant get around, you lose any support for your cause, which is why Insulate Britain are nothing bit a scourge with no public sympathy.

You can protest in public areas that aren't stopping people getting to work, hospital, funerals, job interviews, seeing a sick relative etc.

[superflyweight]

Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose

You still watching Matt Dillahunty then?

It's also not legally correct (from a Scots Law perspective anyway).

[beninho]

I sulate Britain annoyed some people, not me mind. But I was not aware if them and now I am. So it worked.

[JAS]

Super

If you neutere protesting to the point where people cannot cause some level of disruption then what would be the point of protesting?

If people have to resort to disruption to get a point across then either a) their cause isn’t really that great b) they’re Poopie at putting their point across or c) the recipients they need to convince are a special level of intransigent or d) a combination of 2 or more of the above.

[super_realist]

I sulate Britain annoyed some people, not me mind. But I was not aware if them and now I am. So it worked.

Being aware of a group doesnt mean they have put out an effective message across does it?
Im aware of Ed Sheeran, but that isnt something which engages my appreciation of his dismal music, it just means hes another turgid musocoan in a sea of cheesy nonsense.

Im aware of lots of things that I find laughable, so blocking a road to make we aware of something doesnt make it a worthwhile protest, noteworthy or something I need to sympathise with or support. Especially as Insulate Britain are almost completely reviled and seen as a nuisance rather than a worthy cause woth a worthwhile message.

Extinction Rebellion/Insulate Britain are like the spoiled brat who lies face down on the carpet banging their fists, and like the parents do, such infantile behaviour is ignored and regarded as puerile and immature.

[beninho]

Oh Owen Paterson.

What was being laughed off as a nonsense at the time, has led to a massive by election shock. Not a sign that the country has suddenly become lib dems, but a bit of a sign that the current government is more unpopular then many thought, and that tactical voting,like in Anersham could work.

[super_realist]

I really didnt think that an 80 seat majority could be overturned in one General Election but I could see it happening now. The Tories really could not dig their hole any deeper.

Starmer really isnt having to lift a finger, but imagine if they had a decent leader, they could be out of sight in the polls.

Tories need to get shot of Boris, stop letting SAGE ruin the economy with bad advice, awful predictions , stop using language which is scaring stupid Brits, start living with this mild version of Covid and crack on.

[Sponsored content]