Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

Thebish. I'm now utterly convinced that you just like hearing yourself talk. You go ahead and preach all you like. I expressed a view, not a topic for another of your pompous lectures. Believe what you will, I'll do the same. It'll save us both a lot of time and probably a lot of boredom for others. If it leaves you feeling you've won something, great for you.

Amen.

[Il Pirate]

Most of this makes interesting reading, people for and against what maybe described as intrusive laws against the person to prevent terrorism. Profiling is one weapon being used to combat the terrorist threat. Now one place that has seen it's fair share of terrorism over the years is Israel, but at Tel Aviv airport, there are no scanners for the public. Reliance is placed on profile/body language spotters, who mingle with joe public in and around the airport. There has been no terrorist attack there for over twenty three years.

[thebish]

no - you asked a question.

you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"

if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

[Bruce Rioja]

no - you asked a question.

you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"

if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

Yeah. Or the water board's coming out!

[thebish]

today I am mostly being angry about people who hold you up for 10mins as you are waiting to park in the Aldi car park because their car is too big for them to handle and they have to inch in and out of a parking space no less then 11 times - forwards and backwards - forwards and backwards in order to get (what they think) is the right angle to pull away - but then get it spectacularly wrong despite all the in-and-outing and then add a 19 point turn and end up trying to exit the carpark via the single-lane entrance that now has a backed-up queue of 9 cars in it....


(can I add a congratulations to Pru - the inventor of this thread - which has now reached 200 pages of angriness!!)

also - (because this is the angry thread) I downloaded several BBC comedy programmes onto a disk to listen to as I drove across Europe this weekend. one of them was Rhod Gilbert's "Barrel of laughs" (or summat like that) - bit of a mixed bag - but, evert show had a rant spot - and he is good at it! (I think the welsh accent helps)

can't find any from the show on the net - he has a particularly good rant about toothbrushes with "onboard computers"..

but I believe this is one of his older, more famous efforts for those who have not heard it...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxmdHvEhZ30?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bxmdHvEhZ30?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[thebish]

no - you asked a question.

you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"

if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

Yeah. Or the water board's coming out!

too bloody right it is... (not the plumbing type, right?)

[Worthy4England]

no - you asked a question.

you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"

if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

Yeah. Or the water board's coming out!

I would probably support this approach.

[BWFC_Insane]

today I am mostly being angry about people who hold you up for 10mins as you are waiting to park in the Aldi car park because their car is too big for them to handle and they have to inch in and out of a parking space no less then 11 times - forwards and backwards - forwards and backwards in order to get (what they think) is the right angle to pull away - but then get it spectacularly wrong despite all the in-and-outing and then add a 19 point turn and end up trying to exit the carpark via the single-lane entrance that now has a backed-up queue of 9 cars in it....

Which is not nearly as annoying as when they park in the first place, across two spaces. And then if you challenge them say "well its a big car innit"....

Yes its a big car you fooking clod but why do you need it for the 5 minute drive to Sainsburys and back. And then considering you have such a big car why do you insist on going at the busiest time. And why do you also not bother to take time to learn how to drive the fecking thing. And whilst we're at it, why the fook do you drive around on your own in a people carrier? Whats all that about?

[William the White]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

[Little Green Man]

one of them was Rhod Gilbert's "Barrel of laughs" (or summat like that) - bit of a mixed bag - but, evert show had a rant spot - and he is good at it!

Saw Rhod Gilbert in Sheffield the other day. He was venting his not inconsiderable spleen on vacuum cleaners, washing machines, panic buying and Cafe Rouge. He was very funny - unlike his new TV show.

[Worthy4England]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

We don't care, because we have plans to abolish it.

Now get all indignant about that Mr Do-gooder!

[thebish]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

maybe I got it wrong, but I thought big Dave was gonna stick it to the Man on these kind of issues and not put up with anymore namby-pamby wishy-washy euro-bonkers-madness.... wasn't he?

[BWFC_Insane]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

maybe I got it wrong, but I thought big Dave was gonna stick it to the Man on these kind of issues and not put up with anymore namby-pamby wishy-washy euro-bonkers-madness.... wasn't he?

But he's backed down once he realised it might cost some money.

[TANGODANCER]

no - you asked a question.
you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"
if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

[Gary the Enfield]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

maybe I got it wrong, but I thought big Dave was gonna stick it to the Man on these kind of issues and not put up with anymore namby-pamby wishy-washy euro-bonkers-madness.... wasn't he?

I don't think it applies to murderers, unless they are distinct from those serving a life sentence.

I was, however, shocked to see this has gone through with apparently little opposition.

Will it contravene convicted and incarcerated criminal's human rights to deprive them of thieir freedom soon?

[William the White]

Is there really no one indandescent at the thought of criminals, rapists and murderers getting the vote on the instruction of the European Court of Human Rights???

All day long I've been looking forward to the usual suspects having foaming apoplexy - come on, get on with it!

maybe I got it wrong, but I thought big Dave was gonna stick it to the Man on these kind of issues and not put up with anymore namby-pamby wishy-washy euro-bonkers-madness.... wasn't he?

I don't think it applies to murderers, unless they are distinct from those serving a life sentence.

I was, however, shocked to see this has gone through with apparently little opposition.

Will it contravene convicted and incarcerated criminal's human rights to deprive them of thieir freedom soon?

It does...

[thebish]

no - you asked a question.
you asked: "Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?"
if you don't want answers - or discussion of the questions you pose - then don't ask. simple.

ahhh - thought you went quiet - scurried off to photoshop! well done! you must be proud.

[TANGODANCER]

Here's a nice angry thread emotion.

[Prufrock]

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.

The bit emboldened is the part I find most interesting. I was about to post almost the opposite 'accusation' back. You think it acceptable to take any action including killing in order to protect your property from intruders, but it is OK for the state to violate that right without a warrant, in the name of 'national security'? I don't think all anti-terror legislation is 'oppressive' (I thought, wished even, TD had turned into an anarchist back there ). I have no problem with airport security, in fact I saw an idea that instead of that x-ray vision scan they should just have a re-enforced booth which detonates any bomb device a person may be carrying. Simples.

There seems to be a perception that those who argue for liberties, and human rights somehow 'side' with the terrorists. I do not at all. I do side very strongly with those accused of being terrorists who aren't, and I believe we should afford basic human rights, ie a non-abusive jail environment, for captured terrorists, not because they deserve it, but because it lowers the rest of humanity to even sink the slightest bit to their level. I also argue for liberties because if in 'defending Britain' against the terror threat, we resort to oppressive laws used even more oppressively, we lose the very thing we were defending. I really don't like the idea of any stop and search without a court order (the judiciary are, for the most part, independent, the police are not, and are very much a tool of the state), however I can see why they are felt neccessary when quick decisions must be made. In such cases 'reasonable suspicion' must be required, surely, or we are stopping people, then violating their property, on the whim of a police officer. Similarly I just straight up refuse to believe that if the police know enough to catch a terrorist, that they need 42 days to bring charges. I refuse to believe that if they need more than the usual 48 hours, they can't just keep the suspect under surveillance. Hell, they might catch co-conspirators. If all that matters is the utalitarian end product, let's have mandatory cameras in cars and houses, screen all phone calls and texts. After all, "if you have nothing to hide".

As for your first sentence, I spent three years studying a stone's throw from where two of the 7/7 bombs happened, living in that city, you know the risks. I'm not for taking rash risks purely on idealistic grounds, but for not allowing fear and extreme caution to rob us of the very thing we are supposed to be protecting.

I like this quotes game though

Here, have two! First one is Abe Lincoln on America, though I feel it applies to us too, " America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Second is Camus, "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants."

I don't think these laws were brought in with oppression in mind, but it is not that government, or the next we necessarily need worry about. Anybody who thinks such a 'police state' could never happen in Britain is naive in the extreme IMO. Not in the near future, but not never either. Liberties are easily thrown away, and very difficult to get back.

[Prufrock]

today I am mostly being angry about people who hold you up for 10mins as you are waiting to park in the Aldi car park because their car is too big for them to handle and they have to inch in and out of a parking space no less then 11 times - forwards and backwards - forwards and backwards in order to get (what they think) is the right angle to pull away - but then get it spectacularly wrong despite all the in-and-outing and then add a 19 point turn and end up trying to exit the carpark via the single-lane entrance that now has a backed-up queue of 9 cars in it....


(can I add a congratulations to Pru - the inventor of this thread - which has now reached 200 pages of angriness!!)

also - (because this is the angry thread) I downloaded several BBC comedy programmes onto a disk to listen to as I drove across Europe this weekend. one of them was Rhod Gilbert's "Barrel of laughs" (or summat like that) - bit of a mixed bag - but, evert show had a rant spot - and he is good at it! (I think the welsh accent helps)

can't find any from the show on the net - he has a particularly good rant about toothbrushes with "onboard computers"..

but I believe this is one of his older, more famous efforts for those who have not heard it...

Yay. Today I'm angry this didn't win thread of the year then! Bastards.

As for Rhod, brilliant 'rant-ist', up there with Mitchell, another good one for those who haven't seen it (where have you been?!) is the 'million candles' one.

<object><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vt8aAy_8Ub4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vt8aAy_8Ub4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>