The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... -acquitted

In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that "you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time".

Bloody hell, not exactly sober, judicial language is it?!

[Lord Kangana]

Depends if its commensurate to that which is being described.

I can't help but giggle at those who support law and order so vehemently. Women and children can die as long as it is legitimised by government, under the auspices of war. But damage a bit of property as a private citizen and they should throw away the key? Fubar, really.

[Hoboh]

it wouldn't be the first time a UK court has come to such a verdict - so I'm not massively amazed, no!

Right, I can't be bothered looking into it, but you're right that there appears to some precedent for this.

I don't recall this kind of 'lawful excuse' defence faring so well in these sorts of circumstances when I studied criminal law five years ago, but maybe things have changed?

As I say, I find it amazing that our legal system condones this sort of vigilante behaviour, but fair enough if you don't!

I recall the same when some feckin' eejits broke into Faslane & damaged a nuclear sub.

If you've ever been on a jury you'll realise that '12 good 'men' and true' really means ;
"a couple of anti-society lefties who won't vote 'guilty' even if shown film of the actions being performed;
a couple of right-wingers who believe the perps wouldn't be there if they hadn't done it so fck 'em, why do I need evidence;
a couple who can't understand a blind word of what's going on;
at least one who resents being there ass they're losing money/missing a holiday/have piles;
at least two who are 'going large' over the responsibility and almost arm-wrestle for the role of chairman/woman/person; one who studied law to GCSE 20 years ago and thinks they're an expert in it all;
the one who thinks the Police are all bent Actually more like incompetent and
the other who thinks the accused's eyes are too close together.

I leave you to gues which three of these I was.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone gets found guilty of anything any more.

Decisions like this may be fun at the time but will slowly eat into the nature of the Jury process.

The green MP needs to realise, as she celebrates, that she may feel differently when someone who kills a black kis simply for being black gets off it as the jury has a few racists sitting on it.

[thebish]

it doesn't does it? it's just that they were found not guilty.

On the grounds that they had a lawful excuse?

Anyway, whatever - what do you think?

OK - since you ask...

no - I don't think the law should allow indiscriminate vandalism (but then it doesn't - else they would not have been arrested and put on trial surely?) If it did then any one of us could claim a moral cause for attacking any company.

I DO think such protesters do this for publicity - and a trial gives them that. I have known several people fined for vandalism at Faslane - all of them perfectly prepared to be fined or jailed - they do NOT expect to be found innocent - indeed, for some (not all) - being locked up feeds a martys complex...

I DO think that the covert way in which UK companies provide weaponry to the Israseli govt is shameful and a slur on the reputation of the country - bulldozers for instance - sold as general maintenance and construction vehicles. yet - if you have see the specially adapted caterpillars that we supply to them - then you can see that they are in fact armoured tanks built only for the demolition of palestinian homes and olive groves and to shield Israeli soldiers who have mounted a machine gun on the top. (Look up Rachel Corrie if you think we are merely supplying construction vehicles)

SO - if I choose something to lose sleep over - then it wouldn't be a bit of damage to a UK armaments firm - it would be the consequences of continuing to equip the Israeli govt to oppress the Palestinian people.

FURTHERMORE not having been at the trial or heard any of the arguments from any of the sides - I am hardly qualified (and nor are you) to cast an authoritative judgement on the rightness or wrongness of this jury decision.


can I ask you something?

would you have supported the rampant vandalism against German property of the French resistance movement in WW2?

[CAPSLOCK]

Pity the trial couldn't have been held in a constituency where we could have got ourselves a normal jury

Not one likely to be made up of societies misfits, weirdos and ne'er do wells

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it doesn't does it? it's just that they were found not guilty.

On the grounds that they had a lawful excuse?

Anyway, whatever - what do you think?

OK - since you ask...

no - I don't think the law should allow indiscriminate vandalism (but then it doesn't - else they would not have been arrested and put on trial surely?) If it did then any one of us could claim a moral cause for attacking any company.

I DO think such protesters do this for publicity - and a trial gives them that. I have known several people fined for vandalism at Faslane - all of them perfectly prepared to be fined or jailed - they do NOT expect to be found innocent - indeed, for some (not all) - being locked up feeds a martys complex...

I DO think that the covert way in which UK companies provide weaponry to the Israseli govt is shameful and a slur on the reputation of the country - bulldozers for instance - sold as general maintenance and construction vehicles. yet - if you have see the specially adapted caterpillars that we supply to them - then you can see that they are in fact armoured tanks built only for the demolition of palestinian homes and olive groves and to shield Israeli soldiers who have mounted a machine gun on the top. (Look up Rachel Corrie if you think we are merely supplying construction vehicles)

SO - if I choose something to lose sleep over - then it wouldn't be a bit of damage to a UK armaments firm - it would be the consequences of continuing to equip the Israeli govt to oppress the Palestinian people.

FURTHERMORE not having been at the trial or heard any of the arguments from any of the sides - I am hardly qualified (and nor are you) to cast an authoritative judgement on the rightness or wrongness of this jury decision.


can I ask you something?

would you have supported the rampant vandalism against German property of the French resistance movement in WW2?

I feel perfectly happy, not having been there, to say that the outcome the judge and the jury produced between them in condoning £200k worth of damage to a factory operating within British law is a terrible one, whatever the wider political issues that are more likely to contribute to your insomnia.

And yes, I would have supported the French resisting a malign occupying power using any means possible, but hardly think that situation analogous to the one the acquitted in this case were in.

Anyway, I'll deal with my despair at this one my own now without troubling you further....

[thebish]

And yes, I would have supported the French resisting a malign occupying power using any means possible, but hardly think that situation analogous to the one the acquitted in this case were in.

perhaps you could linger a while and spell it out for me just how different the situations are? You seem to support the destruction of property and the taking of life in the face of one nation oppressing/occupying another...

the difference is really only in degree and semantics - not actual principle....

[Gravedigger]

Perhaps in wartime the laws, and meaning, of sabotage differ from those of 'Lawful excuse'. I think if you propound one argument someone can, and probably will, pop up with another opposing but equally valid argument. In military parlance ths is known as "Pissing against the wind" or "Feck you, Jack, I'm alright", depending on which side you are on. The case hasn't quite finished yet but when it does it'll be interesting to see the full case.

[bobo the clown]

And yes, I would have supported the French resisting a malign occupying power using any means possible, but hardly think that situation analogous to the one the acquitted in this case were in.

perhaps you could linger a while and spell it out for me just how different the situations are? You seem to support the destruction of property and the taking of life in the face of one nation oppressing/occupying another...

the difference is really only in degree and semantics - not actual principle....

What a load of old bollocks that reply is Bish.

Would you punch a stranger for £1 ? Would you punch a stranger for £25,000,000. You could even give the stranger some of it as a gift.

[thebish]

And yes, I would have supported the French resisting a malign occupying power using any means possible, but hardly think that situation analogous to the one the acquitted in this case were in.

perhaps you could linger a while and spell it out for me just how different the situations are? You seem to support the destruction of property and the taking of life in the face of one nation oppressing/occupying another...

the difference is really only in degree and semantics - not actual principle....

What a load of old bollocks that reply is Bish.

Would you punch a stranger for £1 ? Would you punch a stranger for £25,000,000. You could even give the stranger some of it as a gift.

I don't know why you propse a new issue (punching) - when there is already one on the table under discussion.

in what ways - specifically do the 2 situations differ? I asked Mummy because he started out by suggesting that in the face of one nation oppressing/occupying another the idea that vandalism in that cause could ever be justified was utterly ludicrous. But it turns out there are circumstances of occupation where he feels it is quite well justified.

my question stands - what is the essential - in principle - difference between the two?

[thebish]

Perhaps in wartime the laws, and meaning, of sabotage differ from those of 'Lawful excuse'. I think if you propound one argument someone can, and probably will, pop up with another opposing but equally valid argument. In military parlance ths is known as "Pissing against the wind" or "Feck you, Jack, I'm alright", depending on which side you are on. The case hasn't quite finished yet but when it does it'll be interesting to see the full case.

hmmm - but as I recall - our own govt in alliance with the americans have declared that we are in an ongoing "wartime" situation - the "war" against terrorism - no?

[Gravedigger]

Perhaps in wartime the laws, and meaning, of sabotage differ from those of 'Lawful excuse'. I think if you propound one argument someone can, and probably will, pop up with another opposing but equally valid argument. In military parlance ths is known as "Pissing against the wind" or "Feck you, Jack, I'm alright", depending on which side you are on. The case hasn't quite finished yet but when it does it'll be interesting to see the full case.

hmmm - but as I recall - our own govt in alliance with the americans have declared that we are in an ongoing "wartime" situation - the "war" against terrorism - no?

But not a "War" in the historic sense of two or more nations "Declaring war". We also have a war on drink drivers, councils have a war on litter louts and anti-social behaviour. Not all conflicts are "Wars", some a "Policing actions", "Aid to foreign powers" etc. Although I think you'll find all conflicts we are in at present are "In alliance with the UN and/or NATO, not simply "The Americans".

[thebish]

Perhaps in wartime the laws, and meaning, of sabotage differ from those of 'Lawful excuse'. I think if you propound one argument someone can, and probably will, pop up with another opposing but equally valid argument. In military parlance ths is known as "Pissing against the wind" or "Feck you, Jack, I'm alright", depending on which side you are on. The case hasn't quite finished yet but when it does it'll be interesting to see the full case.

hmmm - but as I recall - our own govt in alliance with the americans have declared that we are in an ongoing "wartime" situation - the "war" against terrorism - no?

But not a "War" in the historic sense of two or more nations "Declaring war". We also have a war on drink drivers, councils have a war on litter louts and anti-social behaviour. Not all conflicts are "Wars", some a "Policing actions", "Aid to foreign powers" etc. Although I think you'll find all conflicts we are in at present are "In alliance with the UN and/or NATO, not simply "The Americans".

but - to be fair - the "war" on litter louts does not involve british troops..... (I used the Americans as the allies - cos the Phrase "war on terrorism" was - I think - theirs - so it was a "war" we joined in with.

[Lord Kangana]

I think you'll find breaking UN resolutions and acting unilaterally puts us in alliance with America , not the UN.

Just saying.

[Gravedigger]

I think you'll find breaking UN resolutions and acting unilaterally puts us in alliance with America , not the UN.

Just saying.

Ah! So the US are also the executive within the UN. Wonder how much irony there is in that statement, LK
Yet we are serving alongside Pakistani, Canadian, French troops, navies and air forces. Even Estonian, Dutch and Danish are involved. Such is the composition of ISAF, which replaced US troops in Southern Afghanistan, working under a UN mandate. But I digress and say there is no simple interpretation or meaning of war. Which means dinner is ready and Mrs GD will declare war on me if I don't get a move on.

[Hoboh]

Tory Bint in Hospital Porn Shocker!!!
I love it!!!

[Worthy4England]

Tory Bint in Hospital Porn Shocker!!!
I love it!!!

[Hoboh]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx ... =154041232

[Puskas]

Was Ms Maudant in the film?

She looks the sort.

[thebish]

Michael Gove...

what an incompetent tossfart.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... l-projects