Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

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!

Dead men cannot get to the polling station!!!

[Prufrock]

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!

I too returned home expecting at least it's own thread, if not several other locked ones.

I imagine 99% of folk could guess what 99% of the rests views would be though

Shockingly, I think it's a good thing.

[Prufrock]

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!

What does annoy me is piss poor reporting. Firstly, as if it is some sort of 'law change'. We signed it in 2004, and it has been rumbling on ever since. I also read a report that said we could now see elections 'shaped by prisoners'. There are about 80,000 people in jail, or two and a half Chorleys. They aren't going to change the results. I wasn't ever aware prisoners had 'a party'. Surely the objection is not that they might change the result?

[Lord Kangana]

i can't pretend that this is an original thought of mine, but what about criminals who have been put away for crimes to do with vote rigging, or intimidating others at election time for example?

I think it shows a lack of balls to at least have challenged this.

[Prufrock]

i can't pretend that this is an original thought of mine, but what about criminals who have been put away for crimes to do with vote rigging, or intimidating others at election time for example?

I think it shows a lack of balls to at least have challenged this.

My initial reaction was that would be the only possible caveat. That said, if you're voting from prison I imagine they could cope with the security.

[Worthy4England]

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.

Where to start with this one...I dunno, but to get a quote in early, "procrastination is the thief...." etc. So here goes.

I think it's absolutely fine for the judiciary to lock repeat offenders up, not in a rehabilitative way, but in a "fcuk you" way, with sentencing being way out of proportion to the crime, if they refuse to get the message.

I am in favour of being able to defend your property using whatever means rather than reasonable ones - I'm not saying people have to or should, just that they can. It shouldn't be up to the homeowner to evaluate "how much risk or threat" the perpetrator is posing. Let's move away from the "kill them argument" for a minute, because most people defending their home probably wouldn't be trying to kill anyone - there's a shitload of confusion about whether you can smack then with a blunt object - whether you need to wait until they're upstairs or you can try it downstairs - I mean what a load of complete bollocks. I don't believe burglars are being reasonable when they break in to nick the stuff you work hard for and which will ultimately cost you any insurance excess and higher insurance payments, so why the should they expect "reasonable" in return? So let's have some equity when considering liberty - people refuse to abide by the rules of society we live in so bollocks to 'em.

As for your, "As for your first sentence" bit. That's exactly what I was on about. I lived in London for X years, therefore I know what it's like in a terrorist incident by association, and know the risks (and the impacts?). No, you don't. I too have lived in that city, and work and stay in that city for weeks at a time regularly. Nothing I've seen before nor since has been akin to what I saw in Paris in 1982. On the basis of what I saw, I'm happy to relinquish some personal liberty and inconvenience if I believe it helps in the fight against terrorism - wherever that might be from. If by taking some measures now, it alleviates the necessity to move to a society where we have cameras everywhere then that works for me. That said, camera's everywhere usually catch acts being committed rather than preventing them.

On the 42 day problem. I'm sure it's really easy for the police to get a watertight case against someone where evidence is likely to span multiple countries and jurisdictions. We could of course wait until such time as they had, paying for shitloads of surveillance resource or in the days of budget cuts, more than likely preferring to take the risk and not do the surveillance - 24*7 surveillance costs what? 6 people? 24 hours at a time? That's if you only have 2 people together on 8 hours shift patterns, often trying to surveil more than one potential target...Again, in this case, I'm fine with the police being given the extra time. We do not generally use terror legislation to inconvenience the entire population nor should we.

Anyhow, back to the quotes.

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment" - Willis Player.

[Bruce Rioja]

I wasn't ever aware prisoners had 'a party'.

Dave's onto it - letting them all out early, see. Vote winner!

[thebish]

Anyhow, back to the quotes.

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment" - Willis Player.

I quite like this quote battle - but that one is pretty bollox!

and - who is Willis Player?

I'll raise you Niemoeller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out.

or to paraphrase your Player quote..

"A (insert right label is for the opposite of a "liberal"!) is a person who they haven't come for yet."

[thebish]

I wasn't ever aware prisoners had 'a party'.

Dave's onto it - letting them all out early, see. Vote winner!

can't be - surely it's labour who let prisoners out early because they want murderers and paedophiles to stalk our streets and prey on our women and children? or did I dream the tories saying that? I'm confused.

[Bruce Rioja]

and - who is Willis Player?

Didn't they make Capstan Full Strength?

[Bruce Rioja]

I wasn't ever aware prisoners had 'a party'.

Dave's onto it - letting them all out early, see. Vote winner!

can't be - surely it's labour who let prisoners out early because they want murderers and paedophiles to stalk our streets and prey on our women and children? or did I dream the tories saying that? I'm confused.

You and the rest of the nation I'd say, bish.

[thebish]

i can't pretend that this is an original thought of mine, but what about criminals who have been put away for crimes to do with vote rigging, or intimidating others at election time for example?

I think it shows a lack of balls to at least have challenged this.

I may be wrong - but i believe the legislation allows for a court to include "not being able to vote" as part of a sentence - which might cover murder or election fraud - or anything you care to add - but not retrospectively.

in other words, the not being able to vote is not assumed - but must (and can) be part of the actual sentence.

[Bruce Rioja]

Sorry to be the one to have to re-introduce incandescent apoplexy back to the thread but this just gets me absolutely blazing (like this )

I mentioned the other week, the wankers that cart a pot of paint up Rivington Pike to daub 'Kyle was ere' or somesuch on the tower, but this is beyond the fecking giddy limit. Why do these 4uckwits target one of the most beautiful areas of the region?

Hoboh doesn't have it all wrong, you know? And neither did Hitler!!!

A POPULAR beauty spot has been closed to the public after vandals went on a wrecking spree.

Yobs scaled the walls of Liverpool Castle at Rivington at the weekend, shoving 12 huge stones off the top.

Two stones were left hanging dangerously from the top of the walls and the castle’s owner, United Utilities, has now sealed it off until repairs can be carried out.

“It was very sad to see the damage that has been done to the castle,” said United Utilities ranger Hazel Gannaway.

“Not only does this spoil the area for everyone else, the people that did this could have caused serious injury to themselves or anyone walking beneath. We are sorry to have to close off the castle, but we have to consider public safety first and foremost.”

It is not clear when the vandalism was carried out, United Utilities said.

Liverpool Castle stands on the eastern shore of Lower Rivington Reservoir in Lever Park.

It was built in 1912 by Lord Leverhulme and is modelled on the original Liverpool Castle in its ruined state just before it was demolished in 1725, having been wrecked during the Civil War 75 years earlier.

Lord Leverhulme wanted to add the replica to the Rivington landscape to highlight the connections between the area and the city of Liverpool.

It was built using locally quarried stone, but progress was slow and when Lord Leverhulme died in 1925, work on the project stopped.

Although it was never completed, the remains of the castle have become a much-loved landmark and a popular destination for walkers.

Last year, the castle was the centre of attention for party-goers when 400 people gathered at the site for an illegal rave.

United Utilities said it hoped to be able to reopen the castle to the public later this week and has appealed to people not to climb on the walls.

“We urge people to enjoy the castle from the safety of the ground and not risk damaging it or themselves by climbing the walls,” said Ms Gannaway

[Gary the Enfield]

Liverpool Castle is a recently discovered (last few years) delight for me and part of a run I like to do when I come up to Bolton.

It upsets me that people think they can vandalise with impunity but without security it will undoubtedly suffer further damage. However, security will spoil the area too.

I shake my head.

[William the White]

I used to love that castle in the 1960s - was great for drug taking and skinny dipping and plotting the overthrow of capitalism worldwide and its replacement by a system of autonomous communes... you could just feel the love...

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Somehow, LSD and Marajoowana softened the impact of seeing hairy pasty white bottoms in those days.

[bobo the clown]

United Utilities said it hoped to be able to reopen the castle to the public later this week and has appealed to people not to climb on the walls.

“We urge people to enjoy the castle from the safety of the ground and not risk damaging it or themselves by climbing the walls,” said Ms Gannaway

Bugger ... only 44 years late to prevent my pal Martin from fraacturing his skull in a game of Robin Hood !!

Being brought up on the north end of Horwich was a delight. We had the Railway Works to trespass on, football picthes both formal and informal, a small river to fall into while fishing for sticklebacks with our nets, along with a waterfall to fall off while walking along it's edge. The M61 was bult nearby and the workmen used to leave keys in their dumper trucks and FLT's overnight ... oddly the trucks were often not where they were when the men returned the next day.

Rows of houses for playing 'knock-a-door-run' on and spare fields where we built our private bonfires from mid September on, with small fires each night and dens inside the main ones.

The marshes by the sewage works were great fun too, providing the source for bullrushes which were soaked in parafin for a few days and fired from bow's whilst aflame. We even ventured onto the Sewage Works itself. It's amazing how light, fast kids can run along the settling ash beds !!!

Then there was the delight of Rivington on our doorsteps, the "Old Castle" aswe called it, the 2 barns, the Blue Lagoon, the Chinese Garden, plus the pigeon tower and, finally the Pike itself. A buch of 10 year olds running almost horizontally down the top slope at breakneck speed is why I am never impressed at the annual Cooper's Hill Cheese chase in Gloucester.

ASBO's ? .... bllx ... just great fun. God, I bet we wre annoying.

But why vandalise ? Why grafitti ? ... fecking morons, the lot of them.

[Randy Watson]

Cut my knuckle open at work. Could see the tendon moving! The pain is setting in!

[Il Pirate]

Cut my knuckle open at work. Could see the tendon moving! The pain is setting in!

If you put a used tea bag on the cut it helps stop bleeding and helps heal the wound. Or you could be a pussy and go to hospital for stitches. Or even better, pour some dettol into it. That'll take yer mind off the pain.

[Prufrock]

Where to start with this one...I dunno, but to get a quote in early, "procrastination is the thief...." etc. So here goes.

I think it's absolutely fine for the judiciary to lock repeat offenders up, not in a rehabilitative way, but in a "fcuk you" way, with sentencing being way out of proportion to the crime, if they refuse to get the message.

I am in favour of being able to defend your property using whatever means rather than reasonable ones - I'm not saying people have to or should, just that they can. It shouldn't be up to the homeowner to evaluate "how much risk or threat" the perpetrator is posing. Let's move away from the "kill them argument" for a minute, because most people defending their home probably wouldn't be trying to kill anyone - there's a shitload of confusion about whether you can smack then with a blunt object - whether you need to wait until they're upstairs or you can try it downstairs - I mean what a load of complete bollocks. I don't believe burglars are being reasonable when they break in to nick the stuff you work hard for and which will ultimately cost you any insurance excess and higher insurance payments, so why the should they expect "reasonable" in return? So let's have some equity when considering liberty - people refuse to abide by the rules of society we live in so bollocks to 'em.

As for your, "As for your first sentence" bit. That's exactly what I was on about. I lived in London for X years, therefore I know what it's like in a terrorist incident by association, and know the risks (and the impacts?). No, you don't. I too have lived in that city, and work and stay in that city for weeks at a time regularly. Nothing I've seen before nor since has been akin to what I saw in Paris in 1982. On the basis of what I saw, I'm happy to relinquish some personal liberty and inconvenience if I believe it helps in the fight against terrorism - wherever that might be from. If by taking some measures now, it alleviates the necessity to move to a society where we have cameras everywhere then that works for me. That said, camera's everywhere usually catch acts being committed rather than preventing them.

On the 42 day problem. I'm sure it's really easy for the police to get a watertight case against someone where evidence is likely to span multiple countries and jurisdictions. We could of course wait until such time as they had, paying for shitloads of surveillance resource or in the days of budget cuts, more than likely preferring to take the risk and not do the surveillance - 24*7 surveillance costs what? 6 people? 24 hours at a time? That's if you only have 2 people together on 8 hours shift patterns, often trying to surveil more than one potential target...Again, in this case, I'm fine with the police being given the extra time. We do not generally use terror legislation to inconvenience the entire population nor should we.

Anyhow, back to the quotes.

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment" - Willis Player.

There is a lot in there. Some I agree with, some not. I'm not sure what this confusion is, or if it actually exists regarding 'reasonable force'. People go on about this, normally after somebody has been locked up for killing or seriously wounding an intruder, but people are very rarely prosecuted for defending their homes. 11 times in 15 years in fact. Courts, or even more frequently the police and CPS recognise instinctive reactions of self-defence on the spur of the moment as reasonable. I think people should be allowed to defend their property, not only from private intrusion, but also unwarranted state intruision.

I didn't claim to know what it is like to live through a terrorist attack, I did claim to know what it is like to live in a climate of fear concerning a terrorist attack. It seems a bit daft to suggest that isn't the case, otherwise 'terrorism' is a pretty shit word for it if only survivors of attacks are affected. I walked past the site of the bus bombing twice a week every week. That horrific picture came out every time 'terror' was in the news. I don't think there is anyone who isn't bothered by terrorism. Of course I imagine your own experiences make you feel that even more keenly. That said, there are things worth fighting for. Your final paragraph seems to suggest that cost is a factor. That is not a good enough argument. Even the little battles are worth fighting for freedom,

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end"- Lord Acton

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people."- John Adams.

As for the emboldened bit, one day you need to read 'Democracy in America', especially the Tyranny of the Majority bit !