Today I'm angry about.....

[Lord Kangana]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

[BWFC_Insane]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

I bet GPs are gonna love explaining to patients how they can't prescribe the latest speculative £20,000 a month wonder-drug when patients get the idea that the GP is now in control...

I've not heard one GP (and I've known a few) say that they want to make decisions on drugs or local healthcare provision (they are not qualified to do so and realise this. They are all very much against the government plans.

Of course there will be the odd one who would rather sit on committees than do the patient treating thing but most are not in favour. What they want to do is treat patients, not spend time examining papers on drug effectiveness, economy and need or look at the commissioning of local services. All complex things that aren't just "quick and easy business" decisions.

But hey. Its ok soon Cameron will have the GP's running the NHS, nurses running the hospital cleaning and surgeons running the bank of england whilst performing a triple heart bypass.

Multitasking its the way forwards....

[Worthy4England]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take the risk, don't believe it will ever impact them.

And they typically evalute the risk based on the likelihood of it occurring rather that balancing that, with the impact it has, should it occur.

Not sure where anyone would get the notion that the risk of terrorist attack in the UK is miniscule. a cursory glance over the last 40 years or so, would fairly clearly disprove this notion, just looking at the 40-50 IRA bombings alone.

And then when solutions are suggested that involve, for example, profiling, they spout their usual bollocks about it being unfair - generally on behalf of people that might fit the profile. As a mechanism for trying to protect the majority, it's a small price to pay on behalf of the minority.

It's really great to be able to defend our freedom, yet the same people who defend our freedom, whinge when someone gets stabbed whilst in the act of commiting a crime in another persons house - defending the freedom of the perpetrator rather than the person offended against and defend the rights of convicted killers not to die, and yes there's been miscarriages of justice over the years.

Between 1997 and 2007 convicted killers have been released who have gone on to kill again more than 30 times - in the UK alone.

To quote back at Pru - In order for evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

They should get jobs counselling victims - it might temper their outlook somewhat.

[thebish]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

I bet GPs are gonna love explaining to patients how they can't prescribe the latest speculative £20,000 a month wonder-drug when patients get the idea that the GP is now in control...

I've not heard one GP (and I've known a few) say that they want to make decisions on drugs or local healthcare provision (they are not qualified to do so and realise this.

indeed they aren't - and they won't - American medical companies are falling over themselves to set up in the UK American and run doctors consortiums that no doctor can avoid in place of the PCTs. whoopee...

[thebish]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take the risk, don't believe it will ever impact them.

hmmm... I know more than one ardent campaigner against oppressive (so-called) anti-terrorist legislation who have been directly affected - one who lost a family member in the locherbie bombing, and one who lost a child in the tavistock square bus bombing.

and, the same thing could just as easily be turned on its head.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take sanction oppressive legislation, don't believe it will ever impact them.


truth is, there is a balance point - on one side of which is do-nothing craziness - and on the other side of which is a world that isn't really worth living in because we have destroyed what we were trying to protect.

in the UK I don't believe we are at either extreme point - but that continuum is real.

(apart from Tango who has boldly stated that laws can be as oppressive as anyone likes as long as they stop terrorism) - My guess is that we all recognise that balance - and we might merely argue about where the tipping point comes. For most people, it comes when they see their own freedoms being curtailed rather than someone else's.

for example..

what if the UK govt decided that a 6pm curfew for everyone was a good anti-terror measure? My guess is that should that happen, then many people would reckon that we had damaged their freedoms more than the terrorists ever had.

[Lord Kangana]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take the risk, don't believe it will ever impact them.

And they typically evalute the risk based on the likelihood of it occurring rather that balancing that, with the impact it has, should it occur.

Not sure where anyone would get the notion that the risk of terrorist attack in the UK is miniscule. a cursory glance over the last 40 years or so, would fairly clearly disprove this notion, just looking at the 40-50 IRA bombings alone.

And then when solutions are suggested that involve, for example, profiling, they spout their usual bollocks about it being unfair - generally on behalf of people that might fit the profile. As a mechanism for trying to protect the majority, it's a small price to pay on behalf of the minority.

It's really great to be able to defend our freedom, yet the same people who defend our freedom, whinge when someone gets stabbed whilst in the act of commiting a crime in another persons house - defending the freedom of the perpetrator rather than the person offended against and defend the rights of convicted killers not to die, and yes there's been miscarriages of justice over the years.

Between 1997 and 2007 convicted killers have been released who have gone on to kill again more than 30 times - in the UK alone.

To quote back at Pru - In order for evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

They should get jobs counselling victims - it might temper their outlook somewhat.

More people are killed on our roads every year than have ever been killed by terrorists in this country. The overreaction is disproportionate to the threat.

Are you a motorist? Do you ever speed? Would you like to be profiled based on the size of your engine? Perhaps you should get a job counselling victims. It might temper your outlook somewhat.

[superjohnmcginlay]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take the risk, don't believe it will ever impact them.

And they typically evalute the risk based on the likelihood of it occurring rather that balancing that, with the impact it has, should it occur.

Not sure where anyone would get the notion that the risk of terrorist attack in the UK is miniscule. a cursory glance over the last 40 years or so, would fairly clearly disprove this notion, just looking at the 40-50 IRA bombings alone.

And then when solutions are suggested that involve, for example, profiling, they spout their usual bollocks about it being unfair - generally on behalf of people that might fit the profile. As a mechanism for trying to protect the majority, it's a small price to pay on behalf of the minority.

It's really great to be able to defend our freedom, yet the same people who defend our freedom, whinge when someone gets stabbed whilst in the act of commiting a crime in another persons house - defending the freedom of the perpetrator rather than the person offended against and defend the rights of convicted killers not to die, and yes there's been miscarriages of justice over the years.

Between 1997 and 2007 convicted killers have been released who have gone on to kill again more than 30 times - in the UK alone.

To quote back at Pru - In order for evil to flourish, all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

They should get jobs counselling victims - it might temper their outlook somewhat.

More people are killed on our roads every year than have ever been killed by terrorists in this country. The overreaction is disproportionate to the threat.

Are you a motorist? Do you ever speed? Would you like to be profiled based on the size of your engine? Perhaps you should get a job counselling victims. It might temper your outlook somewhat.

Thought coppers did that anyway? Not specifically engine more type of car - chavved up saxo anyone?

[BWFC_Insane]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

I bet GPs are gonna love explaining to patients how they can't prescribe the latest speculative £20,000 a month wonder-drug when patients get the idea that the GP is now in control...

I've not heard one GP (and I've known a few) say that they want to make decisions on drugs or local healthcare provision (they are not qualified to do so and realise this.

indeed they aren't - and they won't - American medical companies are falling over themselves to set up in the UK American and run doctors consortiums that no doctor can avoid in place of the PCTs. whoopee...

GP's will have to be on the consortia otherwise they won't be allowed to have a list of patients and therefore effectively won't be GP's!

[Il Pirate]

Tango - NOBODY has suggested terrorism doesn't exist - surely you coming out with the assertion "Terrorism does actually exist" impies that you think someone (if not Pru - though he was the obvious candidate as it was his post you were replying to) has suggested it doesn't - else why say it at all??

it would be like me ending this post by saying... errr...

Most cats DO have four legs, you know.

[Worthy4England]

This is clearly going to run for days.

Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.

I hope this helps.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take the risk, don't believe it will ever impact them.

hmmm... I know more than one ardent campaigner against oppressive (so-called) anti-terrorist legislation who have been directly affected - one who lost a family member in the locherbie bombing, and one who lost a child in the tavistock square bus bombing.

and, the same thing could just as easily be turned on its head.

What you often find, is that those prepared to take sanction oppressive legislation, don't believe it will ever impact them.


truth is, there is a balance point - on one side of which is do-nothing craziness - and on the other side of which is a world that isn't really worth living in because we have destroyed what we were trying to protect.

in the UK I don't believe we are at either extreme point - but that continuum is real.

(apart from Tango who has boldly stated that laws can be as oppressive as anyone likes as long as they stop terrorism) - My guess is that we all recognise that balance - and we might merely argue about where the tipping point comes. For most people, it comes when they see their own freedoms being curtailed rather than someone else's.

for example..

what if the UK govt decided that a 6pm curfew for everyone was a good anti-terror measure? My guess is that should that happen, then many people would reckon that we had damaged their freedoms more than the terrorists ever had.

You'll be saying "I once met a coloured person" a la Cameron, next...

[William the White]

^^

Bruce is definitely to be congratulated on the number of people he's potentially offended with that one.

Multi-tasking... it's the coming thing...

[Worthy4England]

More people are killed on our roads every year than have ever been killed by terrorists in this country. The overreaction is disproportionate to the threat.
Are you a motorist? Do you ever speed? Would you like to be profiled based on the size of your engine? Perhaps you should get a job counselling victims. It might temper your outlook somewhat.

I'm not weighing the relativities between road deaths and terrorist deaths, we should do more to prevent both. You have me mixed up with someone else if you believe I'm saying otherwise - which I didn't.

The over-reaction is not disproportionate to the threat. Historical data is no guide to future performance - terrorist death tolls can go up as well as down.

The comparison to motoring offences is suprious and irrelevant. I have no problems being profiled on the size of my engine - I'd actually be surprised it it wasn't so.

5% of road deaths are attributable to speeding according to DoT figures...

It's a bit like the aircraft business declaring "we have less crashes than rail and car travel put together" - yes - that's true, but one crash in an aircraft is more likely to be fatal than 10 in a car.

[TANGODANCER]

This is clearly going to run for days.
Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.
I hope this helps.

I'm actually very well aware of what they are saying LK, thanks. Terrorism isn't in the "heat of the moment" category that even murder sometimes can claim. Unless you are actually a terrorist suspect (for some good reason to the authorities) why the need to complain at laws that do everything to combat the threat of it? . Do the religious terrorists of the Al Quaeda martyr variety care about any laws? Do they fxxk. Prevention by any means has to be a better option than hearing that more innocent people are dead because a disaster, a la the London bombing or the World Trade Centre happening.

As for miniscule risk: Today's papers are full of the ink-bomb threat to blowing planes out of the sky; ideal world or reality? Civil rights are the mantra of the righteous but, unfortunately don't apply to terrorists who's soul mission is to destroy life. I often wonder just how strong the views of the protestors would be when it actually happens to their own families? Candle-lit demonstrations and all singing "We shall overcome", yep, that should do it. That's what I'm saying.

[thebish]

You'll be saying "I once met a coloured person" a la Cameron, next...

hmmm... except I haven't "met" them - I know them. One is a longstanding college friend, the other a distant relative. Not really sure what your quip is trying to say....

do you disagree with what I actually said?

[thebish]

Unless you are actually a terrorist suspect (for some good reason to the authorities) why the need to complain at laws that do everything to combat the threat of it?

oh the naivity....

Prevention by any means has to be a better option than hearing that more innocent people are dead because a disaster, a la the London bombing or the World Trade Centre happening.

yeah - you said that before - "by any means"?? (nobody disagrees that we should take measures - the disagreement is about whether there are some means that actually defeat the object of the exercise itself. The debate isn't about either/or, but how much.)

Civil rights are the mantra of the righteous

what on earth does that even begin to mean?

I often wonder just how strong the views of the protestors would be when it actually happens to their own families?

why not ask them? I could introduce you to a few. Do you not know any? I do. The answer is unsurprising - they differ as much as the non-victims do.

Candle-lit demonstrations and all singing "We shall overcome"

did anyone suggest that - or is that your fevered imagination again?[/quote]

[BWFC_Insane]

This is clearly going to run for days.
Tango, bolied down, what they're saying is they're prepared to take the miniscule risk of a terrorist attack if it means not surrendering some of their personal freedoms.
I hope this helps.

I'm actually very well aware of what they are saying LK, thanks. Terrorism isn't in the "heat of the moment" category that even murder sometimes can claim. Unless you are actually a terrorist suspect (for some good reason to the authorities) why the need to complain at laws that do everything to combat the threat of it? . Do the religious terrorists of the Al Quaeda martyr variety care about any laws? Do they fxxk. Prevention by any means has to be a better option than hearing that more innocent people are dead because a disaster, a la the London bombing or the World Trade Centre happening.

As for miniscule risk: Today's papers are full of the ink-bomb threat to blowing planes out of the sky; ideal world or reality? Civil rights are the mantra of the righteous but, unfortunately don't apply to terrorists who's soul mission is to destroy life. I often wonder just how strong the views of the protestors would be when it actually happens to their own families? Candle-lit demonstrations and all singing "We shall overcome", yep, that should do it. That's what I'm saying.

I think the issue being that those laws that impose on peoples freedoms for the "good of the whole" can easily be abused intentionally or unintentionally.

FWIW I'm torn on this one.

It annoys me when folk moan about searches at airports and taking shoes off etc, they'd moan a bloody lot more should anything untoward happen on their flight.

However, I think stop and search is right at the top of a very slippery slope. Unlimited detention, "camps" and torture are stops on the way down that particular slope.

[Bruce Rioja]

It annoys me when folk moan about searches at airports and taking shoes off etc, they'd moan a bloody lot more should anything untoward happen on their flight.

Absolutely bang-on. The more I'm 'inconvenienced' going through departures the better I feel about it. For some reason the people complaining always seem to be Scousers

[thebish]

Not sure where anyone would get the notion that the risk of terrorist attack in the UK is miniscule. a cursory glance over the last 40 years or so, would fairly clearly disprove this notion, just looking at the 40-50 IRA bombings alone.

you could only say it was minuscule if you were comparing it with something else - otherwise it would be a bit meaningless. Part of what led to this branched thread was the idea that we are spending a hugely massive and un-necesary proportion of the police budget on traffic offenses.

(no stats or proof of any kind have been forthcoming - presumably because we don't.)

but - going with that - my guess is that most people on this forum have some kind of connection to someone who has been killed on the roads, whereas (also a guess) - most people on this forum will not have a connection to someone who has been killed by terrorist action. Also - most people on this Forum - if not all - will have known someone who has died of cancer.

those people will - quite rationally - judge the threat from terrorism to be minuscule in comparison to the threat from road traffic or cancer.

it has been kind of hinted at that if we only listened to the "victims" - then we would get our priorities right... BUT, if we did - given the HUGELY MASSIVE number of people whose lives have been affected by road traffic crime as compared to the RELATIVELY TINY number of people whose lives have been affected by terrorist action - then in a straight victim-fight between those infavour of road-safety spending and those in favour of anti-terrorism spending on the police budget - the road safety would surely have it....

luckily - it doesn't work like that - and nor should it.

[Worthy4England]

You'll be saying "I once met a coloured person" a la Cameron, next...

hmmm... except I haven't "met" them - I know them. One is a longstanding college friend, the other a distant relative. Not really sure what your quip is trying to say....

do you disagree with what I actually said?

To some extent. But not all. In the main, I think we're trying to strike the right balance in the UK rather than the wrong one.

The point I was making is, whilst we could empathise with people we know (which incidently and pedantically I suspect you'd probably have to have met) that have been in situation X or Y, it's difficult to form a view of how you yourself would react and how it would affect your judgement moving forwards. Unless you've actually experienced it yourself.

The impact of the death of my 17 year old cousin in a car accident along with 3 of his friends (not speeding and no other driver involved), has less of an impact on me, than me seeing my friend get knocked over by a car and killed (driver wasn't at fault). I wasn't there in the first instance but was in the second.

Similarly, my view of the threat of terrorism (and actual terrorist attacks) is probably coloured by being one of the walking wounded when a bomb went off in Paris in 1982 at the Goldenberg restaurant. I wasn't in the restaurant, but was a few doors down on the same "rue" and experienced first hand, the utter, fecking carnage.

I agree that the threat of terrorist attacks happening in the UK is smaller than the chance of someone being involved in a car accident and dying. Personally, I'd be delighted if neither ever happened again. To suggest that the reaction is over-proportionate to the threat in the UK, which other posters have mentioned, when Al Quaeda managed to take out 3,000 people in one go in the US borders on the stupid. In my book.

[thebish]

You'll be saying "I once met a coloured person" a la Cameron, next...

hmmm... except I haven't "met" them - I know them. One is a longstanding college friend, the other a distant relative. Not really sure what your quip is trying to say....

do you disagree with what I actually said?

To some extent. But not all. In the main, I think we're trying to strike the right balance in the UK rather than the wrong one.

which is pretty much what I said when I wrote: "in the UK I don't believe we are at either extreme point - but that continuum is real."

where the fulcrum is though, one's view of that will differ depending on your experience. it might look very different to a British Muslim than it does to you or me.