Matt Bawden Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Do you have any opinions or thoughts which are your own, or do you just think what other people tell you to think? Certainly I have opinions (as anyone on here will agree I'm sure). Often I get overzealous about them. The point though is that by reading widely around a topic and considering what other people (especially great thinkers and philosophers) have concluded in the past is often helpful in marshaling ones thoughts. It's entirely up to you, but I think a wellinformed opinion beats a less informed one or indeed an uniformed one. And since they are opinions there is no way of measuring right or wrong anyway. You must be an absolute barrel of laughs to live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 As the great 18th century thinker Paul de Rosseur said: 'What a fucking dickhead.' Amusing. But I still fail to see any relevance to the topic in hand. It's quite fun to be insulting in a way you think is clever, but less interesting than actually discussing the topic of the thread.... On an aside, I think it's fairly true to say that typographical errors are endemic in this communication medium. Also I'm not writing in my first language and my replies are prompt and so may be in haste - what's your excuse for poor communication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 As the great 18th century thinker Paul de Rosseur said: 'What a fucking dickhead.' Amusing. But I still fail to see any relevance to the topic in hand. It's quite fun to be insulting in a way you think is clever, but less interesting than actually discussing the topic of the thread.... On an aside, I think it's fairly true to say that typographical errors are endemic in this communication medium. Also I'm not writing in my first language and my replies are prompt and so may be in haste - what's your excuse for poor communication? I don't need an excuse, I enjoy freedom of speech. Also 'everyone else does it' is a 'cop out'. Why don't you just take your time and get it right? Or write in your first language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manin42 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here we go again, another thread , just banging on about the poster rather than the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Here we go again, another thread , just banging on about the poster rather than the issue Absolutely. Personally I find it particularly disappointing as "censorship" recently set themselves up as MY internet stalker. Some folks are just soooo fickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm glad someone else said it, I was thinking it, I love me and my posts.......I liked this thread and then along came the egokidz - go on bugger off. Now where was we? Oh yes...the possible outcome of introduction of such legislation as described on page one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share Posted October 13, 2009 It's not just free speech they are having a go at: Consulation Criminal Justice Bill 1.2 Clauses 42 and 44 to 46 (pages 130 to 136). Crime and technology have moved on substantially since the introduction of the 1998 Act. Evidence and the proceeds of crime can be moved and spread quickly amongst different premises owned or controlled by an individual in order to thwart police investigations. Applying repeatedly for search warrants for different premises can cause delay which enables an individual to ensure evidence is not uncovered by the police. This provision will remove the need for individual warrants where this can be justified. Great. So the police want to be a able to turn up at anyones house and search it without a warrant. Clause 53 (pages 179 to 184) empowers the police to impose conditions (for example attendance on an anger management course, reparation etc) on the administration of a caution by an officer. Supposing the police were wrong in the first place? If someone is going to be punished surely the courts should impose the punishment - not the police? Clauses 62 to 66 (pages 195 to 198) enable police officers to take DNA samples, fingerprints and photographs at a location other than a police station on a voluntary basis and also provide for fingerprints and DNA samples to be taken after a caution has been given. What kind of 'voluntary' is that? The worry with all of this is that if you give the police the powers to act without the oversight of the courts then they will use those powers - whether it's right or not. What are the politicians going to do with these 'proposals'? Nod them through or throw them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Ah well, I better not tell the joke about the one legged, blind black, French, Islamic lesbian transvestite then. Good thinking, but before we are all banned lets not forget to clog the male nob nuzzlers either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sorry domino, but, what do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Supposing the police were wrong in the first place? If someone is going to be punished surely the courts should impose the punishment - not the police? There's great danger there. The Police will become judge, jury and executioner. That undermines the basic nature of the justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 There's great danger there. The Police will become judge, jury and executioner. That undermines the basic nature of the justice system. Precisely. They will be able to enter you home, caution you, fingerprint you and then send you off on some kind of restorative justice without any recourse to the judiciary. All 'voluntary' of course but if you refuse you will have to face other consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 There's great danger there. The Police will become judge, jury and executioner. That undermines the basic nature of the justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The fact that it is a consultation means that any or all of us can write in and object, the issue is that in the Government has said that they can take no notice of any submission, this was the consultation on consultation......... It needs to be fought, people power does work, if you get enough people involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Question : If you had a 'locked-down' Facebook profile that only 3 friends can see, and you publish something that would offend people other than them 3 friends (i.e. name-calling), if published, is that an offence? The police can see all Facebook profiles, and I suspect this is how they would prove most infringements but does it have to be proven that someone has taken offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The police can see all Facebook profiles Please tell me you don't really believe that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.