Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Kellfire

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
6,867
Location
Leeds
I think we need to rethink the law a bit.
Anyone committing a criminal act should have their rights suspended until they stop that criminal act.
Far to many people think they can just do what they want.
Forget the dog argument, that’s been exhausted but surely we need to discuss this!

You think people should lose their human rights the moment they break the law? Who decides they’re breaking the law? The police? An impartial observer?

Methinks your suggestion is made in good faith but would purely be the act of a tyrannical nation. It’s the sort of thing you hear about in despicable countries like Saudi Arabia!
 

DRW

Tour Rookie
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
4,399
Location
UK
Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine | University of Oxford

Whilst disappointing at 70%(or the slightly weird reading 90% result), one of the most important factors is the number of severe cases with vaccine, who cares if the 30% all end up with say like a cold or perhaps worse(just trying to be positive) and it says :-
  • There were no hospitalised or severe cases in anyone who received the vaccine

So a great result and great news in the main, quicker to hit our shores . Feeling upbeat :):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
Liverpool
Forget the dog argument, that’s been exhausted but surely we need to discuss this!

You think people should lose their human rights the moment they break the law? Who decides they’re breaking the law? The police? An impartial observer?

Methinks your suggestion is made in good faith but would purely be the act of a tyrannical nation. It’s the sort of thing you hear about in despicable countries like Saudi Arabia!
I never mentioned HUMAN RIGHTS. You have made that up!
I said suspended while in the act of a crime.
Far to many criminals end up better off than their victims once our soft courts have “ dealt with them”
 

Kellfire

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
6,867
Location
Leeds
I never mentioned HUMAN RIGHTS. You have made that up!
I said suspended while in the act of a crime.
Far to many criminals end up better off than their victims once our soft courts have “ dealt with them”
What rights were you talking about if not their human rights?

And you haven’t answered a crucial question - who decides in the heat of the moment what is a crime? There’s a reason we have a justice system and what you’re suggesting would mean suspending that justice system in favour of vigilantism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
Liverpool
What rights were you talking about if not their human rights?

And you haven’t answered a crucial question - who decides in the heat of the moment what is a crime? There’s a reason we have a justice system and what you’re suggesting would mean suspending that justice system in favour of vigilantism.
I think you are confusing some little s Croat of a burglar with a refugee or oppressed minority in a tyrannical country ,
The police decide in this country if you are committing a crime.
They tell you what law they are arresting you under when they read you your rights.

Human rights obviously mean different things to you .
Is it in your “human rights “ to be able to sue a firm because you fell through their roof while trying to break in?
The Human Rights card played again for a minor crime diminishes it.
What about the VICTIMS RIGHTS.
 

Kellfire

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
6,867
Location
Leeds
I think you are confusing some little s Croat of a burglar with a refugee or oppressed minority in a tyrannical country ,
The police decide in this country if you are committing a crime.
They tell you what law they are arresting you under when they read you your rights.

Human rights obviously mean different things to you .
Is it in your “human rights “ to be able to sue a firm because you fell through their roof while trying to break in?
The Human Rights card played again for a minor crime diminishes it.
What about the VICTIMS RIGHTS.
Actually no - the police arrest you because you are suspected of committing a crime, guilt is not a given. Your premise falls apart at the first step.

So are you advocating that the police should be given the power to determine guilt and subvert the court system?
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
Liverpool
Actually no - the police arrest you because you are suspected of committing a crime, guilt is not a given. Your premise falls apart at the first step.

So are you advocating that the police should be given the power to determine guilt and subvert the court system?
It’s hard to discuss something with you as you just make your own assumptions.
Show me where I said anyone was Guilty.
 

Kellfire

Tour Winner
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
6,867
Location
Leeds
There have been a few.
Do remember a young boy got a lot of money once for life changing injuries.
Sued the building owners he was burgling.
If a burglar successfully sued someone for their injuries then it means that a court of law has deemed that a law was broken.

I thought you were all about laws being obeyed so surely it’s right that there is a payout of a court has determined that?
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
Liverpool
Here —> “The police decide in this country if you are committing a crime.”

So I’ll ask again if you can confirm you’re advocating giving the police the power to determine guilt?
The police arrest you in the act of committing a crime.
They then have to prove that in court.
You still havnt showed me where I said anyone was GUILTY.,!
You asked “in the heat of the moment who decides what is a crime?“ who do you think decides ?
For me it’s the Police.
 

Swinglowandslow

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
1,532
Where have I said the police can do no wrong? Nowhere. I’ve been around police officers for a lifetime, and worked amongst them for thirty years. The vast majority are great. Some get it wrong, sometimes badly. Of those who get it wrong some make mistakes and some are dishonest, corrupt, and hide behind their uniforms as a way of bullying people. Nobody knows more than a police officer how wrong the police sometimes get it.

But I will always defend the organisation I work for when it comes in for narrow minded criticism from people who, in the main, do not have the foggiest idea what goes on in the world of policing. You call that being holier than thou? That’s your opinion. But I’m not going to roll over and have my tummy tickled (forgive the canine analogy), just to satisfy the likes of you.
Well said. It always mystifies me the way that the do gooders criticise those that protect them.
Takes me back to when I was a kid watching cowboy films. The town is terrorised by the baddies. No one will stand up to them.
Then along comes the good guy who is prepared to deal with them in the only way there is to stop them.
Next thing you know, he is accused of being violent and a nasty person etc etc.

The "sheep" on here who want to recruit other sheep to protect us from the wolves.
Don't want those nasty men with their dogs🙄
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
8,911
Location
Liverpool
If a burglar successfully sued someone for their injuries then it means that a court of law has deemed that a law was broken.

I thought you were all about laws being obeyed so surely it’s right that there is a payout of a court has determined that?
In the act of a CRIME he should have no right to sue anybody if he hurts himself.
The firm were deemed guilty because the building was in a poor state of repair.
But argued he should not be on it.
But as the law stands the criminal has more rights than the victims.
 
Top