TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Stevie J
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?

Ever been there? No. Really know what goes on there? No. Ever seen a debate there? No. Ever met anyone who's a member? No. But ever willing to comment on something you know nothing about? Yes.
You are the epitomy of 'man in the pub' politics. The local bore who has a scant knowledge of most things yet still spouts their ill informed views to anyone in the vicinity.
You've done this nearly 8,000 times on this forum and moan you have no spare time! Is it any wonder?
A big chunk of point missing here.
Until recently the House of Lords was, in name, the supreme court of appeal, where a panel of Law Lords would sit to hear final appeals. That's where the case of R vs Hancock and Shankland ended up, before five Law Lords empanelled to hear an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which was itself an appeal against the decision of the Crown Court.
I know I shouldn't be disappointed, but I am amazed at how little constitutional knowledge many people in the UK have. Especially when they hold forth on political topics as if they have some particular knowledge or status.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.

The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Ok, I'll be as patient as I can since you probably haven't read all the case details - they aren't that hard to find since it's a case you'd probably encounter if you studied criminal law more than superficially.
In order to be found guilty of murder you have to intend to cause serious injury. That's what the law says. That means you have to form the guilty intent. Now, in Hancock and Shankland the case revolved around the defendant's understanding of the likelihood of their actions causing serious harm. Originally the judge at trial ruled that the likelihood of causing serious harm was not a consideration, and they were found guilty of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that, and so the case went to the House of Lords. The Law Lords ruled that the likelihood of harm being caused was a consideration; it was a matter of fact that H&S did not intend to cause serious harm, and set out to block the road or deter the striking miner form going to work. So their degree of culpability was no greater than a man who sets out in his car to do something illegal (like driving too fast) but doesn't intend to harm anyone. If my memory serves me correctly, and a lawyer may know more about this, it was issues around this sort of area that led to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving being created.
BTW, your reference to them being in Wales and not the Midlands is a bit too obscure for me. I stood alongside my uncles and cousins in South Wales, and alongside my friends and neighbours in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Durham and Northumberland coalfields.
I'm not sure how it fits with the new policy on three strikes, but I would say I'm not persuaded that the definition of low motives in your book is an in-depth study. Certainly not in this case, where you appear to be arguing that an unintended consequence changes the motive after the event.

15 Sep 2010

i`m interested to know if public sector workers think they have the backing of the public
for any strike to work effectively then the support of the public is needed when taking on government cuts
the other thing i`m struggling with is under Labour most of these cuts where all ready proposed so why is it different under the coalition dunno

15 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
You know better than the House of Lords then. Interesting...

Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
I am rather attached to the House of Lords, I do take the point you are making but if It had not been for the house of lords during the rule of president Bliar he would have walked all over us. They did perform some form of balance. in my view

15 Sep 2010

That is the whole reason they are there Blue.
I just do not like the way some of them are appointment, through backhanded handshakes behind close doors..
Jobs for ya mates I call it.
Ask yourself what the hell did big boy Prezzie ever do to become a lord? Oh yes he lorded it up when deputy PM, and he created a bus lane on the M4, but other than that can you actually think of anything?
Actually a lot of them in there are just the same.
But yes something is better than nothing....just.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman

The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.

The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Ok, I'll be as patient as I can since you probably haven't read all the case details - they aren't that hard to find since it's a case you'd probably encounter if you studied criminal law more than superficially.
In order to be found guilty of murder you have to intend to cause serious injury. That's what the law says. That means you have to form the guilty intent. Now, in Hancock and Shankland the case revolved around the defendant's understanding of the likelihood of their actions causing serious harm. Originally the judge at trial ruled that the likelihood of causing serious harm was not a consideration, and they were found guilty of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that, and so the case went to the House of Lords. The Law Lords ruled that the likelihood of harm being caused was a consideration; it was a matter of fact that H&S did not intend to cause serious harm, and set out to block the road or deter the striking miner form going to work. So their degree of culpability was no greater than a man who sets out in his car to do something illegal (like driving too fast) but doesn't intend to harm anyone. If my memory serves me correctly, and a lawyer may know more about this, it was issues around this sort of area that led to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving being created.
BTW, your reference to them being in Wales and not the Midlands is a bit too obscure for me. I stood alongside my uncles and cousins in South Wales, and alongside my friends and neighbours in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Durham and Northumberland coalfields.
I'm not sure how it fits with the new policy on three strikes, but I would say I'm not persuaded that the definition of low motives in your book is an in-depth study. Certainly not in this case, where you appear to be arguing that an unintended consequence changes the motive after the event.
We are not a jury, and your playing with words. We all know that their intention was not to make the people in the taxi laugh. It was a violent act however you wish to dress that up, and some thing I would never attempt to defend.

15 Sep 2010

They were nothing short of thugs........animals even.
They should have been done for murder and served a minimum fifteen years.
Or maybe they listened to Scargill bleating on and on, and I am sure they were at least a bit influenced by that.
They got off lightly and so did the country when Thatcher did not give in....it was those very same thuggish miners and their ilk who lost, and in most cases lost everything.
:thumbup:

15 Sep 2010

let me say clear....I do not condone violence in any form. What these people did was an act of stupidity and were rightly brought to justice for it.
But don't ever tar every miner that fought for his livihood in that dispute, with the same brush. They were not on strike for better pay, but to stop the closure plan of british pits. They were fighting for their very livihood and the the livihood of their children. I have stated before, the utter dispair, of losing the battle and then his job, as the pit was closed, drove my brother to take his own life. Thats how much it meant to many. Maybe I should start a manslaughter charge against Mrs Thatcher, as it was her actions that lead to his death.
Once again..I state I do condone violence for whatever reason.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
They were nothing short of thugs........animals even.
They should have been done for murder and served a minimum fifteen years.
Or maybe they listened to Scargill bleating on and on, and I am sure they were at least a bit influenced by that.
They got off lightly and so did the country when Thatcher did not give in....it was those very same thuggish miners and their ilk who lost, and in most cases lost everything.
:thumbup:

As you hint at above, I feel Scargill deliberatley incited violent behavour. He dicided back in the 70s that was the method he would use, which is why I quoted this earlyer;
*Quote*
Arthur Scargill described what happened next:
"Some of the lads… were a bit dispirited… And then over the hill came a banner and I’ve never seen in my life as many people following a banner. As far as the eye could see it was just a mass of people marching towards Saltley… Our lads were jumping in the air with emotion – fantastic situation… I started to chant… ‘Close the Gates! Close the Gates! And it was taken up, just like a football crowd."
The game was up. The Chief Constable ordered the gates to be closed. Within days fuel supplies were so low that many companies were forced onto a 3 day week. The Tories were forced to back down. To escalate the situation, through the use of troops for example, would have been disastrous. As the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling admitted to the cabinet:
"Its enforced closure represents a victory for violence against the lawful activities of the gas board and the coal merchants.This provides disturbing evidence of the ease with which, by assembling large crowds, militants could flout the law with impunity because of the risk that attempts to enforce it would provoke disorder on a large scale."
From here

15 Sep 2010

Quote by deancannock
let me say clear....I do not condone violence in any form. What these people did was an act of stupidity and were rightly brought to justice for it.
But don't ever tar every miner that fought for his livihood in that dispute, with the same brush. They were not on strike for better pay, but to stop the closure plan of british pits. They were fighting for their very livihood and the the livihood of their children. I have stated before, the utter dispair, of losing the battle and then his job, as the pit was closed, drove my brother to take his own life. Thats how much it meant to many. Maybe I should start a manslaughter charge against Mrs Thatcher, as it was her actions that lead to his death.
Once again..I state I do condone violence for whatever reason.

Would not imagine that for one moment, just like any other section of our community, only a few spoil things for the rest.
This is the second time you have mentioned your brother,I would like to say I am sorry for your loss, as I don't think I said that the first time you mentioned it.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
You should have googled the case report, or the subsequent ones that cite it. You'd be better informed then.

Its past, and the best place for it now is in the history books. It won't bring the taxi driver back nor will it stop it happening again.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by deancannock
let me say clear....I do not condone violence in any form. What these people did was an act of stupidity and were rightly brought to justice for it.
But don't ever tar every miner that fought for his livihood in that dispute, with the same brush. They were not on strike for better pay, but to stop the closure plan of british pits. They were fighting for their very livihood and the the livihood of their children. I have stated before, the utter dispair, of losing the battle and then his job, as the pit was closed, drove my brother to take his own life. Thats how much it meant to many. Maybe I should start a manslaughter charge against Mrs Thatcher, as it was her actions that lead to his death.
Once again..I state I do condone violence for whatever reason.

I am sorry for your loss Dean, I am sure that many people suffered dreadfully.
But were the miners just as bad in the 70's too? Long before Thatcher came to power.
1972 and 1974 I think it was.
Unions and their leaders stoke up the flames for their members, and then the members do the rest.
Of course not all miners were involved in violence, just as the Wapping dispute the people on strike were not all hell bent on violence but....there were certainly a lot in both disputes that resorted to violence and huge intimidation. Not only to the Police but also anyone who dared to break the picket lines.
I remember seeing it on tv on a daily basis....it was ugly and in my view in many cases deliberatly sanctioned by union leaders and shop stewards.
It reminded me of the football hooligans of the 70,s. It only took a few to incite huge aggro on the terraces, the same kind of aggro we saw outside pits.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman

The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.

The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Ok, I'll be as patient as I can since you probably haven't read all the case details - they aren't that hard to find since it's a case you'd probably encounter if you studied criminal law more than superficially.
In order to be found guilty of murder you have to intend to cause serious injury. That's what the law says. That means you have to form the guilty intent. Now, in Hancock and Shankland the case revolved around the defendant's understanding of the likelihood of their actions causing serious harm. Originally the judge at trial ruled that the likelihood of causing serious harm was not a consideration, and they were found guilty of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that, and so the case went to the House of Lords. The Law Lords ruled that the likelihood of harm being caused was a consideration; it was a matter of fact that H&S did not intend to cause serious harm, and set out to block the road or deter the striking miner form going to work. So their degree of culpability was no greater than a man who sets out in his car to do something illegal (like driving too fast) but doesn't intend to harm anyone. If my memory serves me correctly, and a lawyer may know more about this, it was issues around this sort of area that led to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving being created.
BTW, your reference to them being in Wales and not the Midlands is a bit too obscure for me. I stood alongside my uncles and cousins in South Wales, and alongside my friends and neighbours in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Durham and Northumberland coalfields.
I'm not sure how it fits with the new policy on three strikes, but I would say I'm not persuaded that the definition of low motives in your book is an in-depth study. Certainly not in this case, where you appear to be arguing that an unintended consequence changes the motive after the event.
Thank you for your patience and explaining that manslaughter and murder hinges on intent.
So they were guilty of killing a man and punished? Their actions caused the death of a man, father, brother, husband, etc that stopped him from seeing his family or they seeing him again because he went to work.
I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the miners strike but the motives of some of those involved on both sides.
Do you believe what they done was right? Were their motives or ideals right to do what they did?
Dave_Notts

15 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411
Anyway .... back to the original question
No... I don`t think the public will support the TUC in it`s campaign to bring down the government.
Now ...what if the TUC started a campaign against the real villains, the bankers, then they`d have armies taking to the streets :thumbup:

I do not and will not support the TUC in a campaign to stop the cuts or to attack the Government. I do not believe they will have the public support they require either for such a campaign.
I do however support their right for peaceful protest

15 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
They were nothing short of thugs........animals even.
They should have been done for murder and served a minimum fifteen years.
Or maybe they listened to Scargill bleating on and on, and I am sure they were at least a bit influenced by that.
They got off lightly and so did the country when Thatcher did not give in....it was those very same thuggish miners and their ilk who lost, and in most cases lost everything.
:thumbup:

Given that you showed your ignorance of the law by not knowing that the House of Lords was also the highest court of appeal at the time, I suppose we know what weight to give your opinion.
They were tried for murder, and the legal system decided that what they'd done wasn't murder.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.

The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Ok, I'll be as patient as I can since you probably haven't read all the case details - they aren't that hard to find since it's a case you'd probably encounter if you studied criminal law more than superficially.
In order to be found guilty of murder you have to intend to cause serious injury. That's what the law says. That means you have to form the guilty intent. Now, in Hancock and Shankland the case revolved around the defendant's understanding of the likelihood of their actions causing serious harm. Originally the judge at trial ruled that the likelihood of causing serious harm was not a consideration, and they were found guilty of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that, and so the case went to the House of Lords. The Law Lords ruled that the likelihood of harm being caused was a consideration; it was a matter of fact that H&S did not intend to cause serious harm, and set out to block the road or deter the striking miner form going to work. So their degree of culpability was no greater than a man who sets out in his car to do something illegal (like driving too fast) but doesn't intend to harm anyone. If my memory serves me correctly, and a lawyer may know more about this, it was issues around this sort of area that led to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving being created.
BTW, your reference to them being in Wales and not the Midlands is a bit too obscure for me. I stood alongside my uncles and cousins in South Wales, and alongside my friends and neighbours in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Durham and Northumberland coalfields.
I'm not sure how it fits with the new policy on three strikes, but I would say I'm not persuaded that the definition of low motives in your book is an in-depth study. Certainly not in this case, where you appear to be arguing that an unintended consequence changes the motive after the event.
We are not a jury, and your playing with words. We all know that their intention was not to make the people in the taxi laugh. It was a violent act however you wish to dress that up, and some thing I would never attempt to defend.
In what way am I playing with words by reporting the case as it was decided?

15 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV
You should have googled the case report, or the subsequent ones that cite it. You'd be better informed then.

Its past, and the best place for it now is in the history books. It won't bring the taxi driver back nor will it stop it happening again.
It's in the law books as well. You should try reading them...

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.

The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Ok, I'll be as patient as I can since you probably haven't read all the case details - they aren't that hard to find since it's a case you'd probably encounter if you studied criminal law more than superficially.
In order to be found guilty of murder you have to intend to cause serious injury. That's what the law says. That means you have to form the guilty intent. Now, in Hancock and Shankland the case revolved around the defendant's understanding of the likelihood of their actions causing serious harm. Originally the judge at trial ruled that the likelihood of causing serious harm was not a consideration, and they were found guilty of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that, and so the case went to the House of Lords. The Law Lords ruled that the likelihood of harm being caused was a consideration; it was a matter of fact that H&S did not intend to cause serious harm, and set out to block the road or deter the striking miner form going to work. So their degree of culpability was no greater than a man who sets out in his car to do something illegal (like driving too fast) but doesn't intend to harm anyone. If my memory serves me correctly, and a lawyer may know more about this, it was issues around this sort of area that led to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving being created.
BTW, your reference to them being in Wales and not the Midlands is a bit too obscure for me. I stood alongside my uncles and cousins in South Wales, and alongside my friends and neighbours in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Durham and Northumberland coalfields.
I'm not sure how it fits with the new policy on three strikes, but I would say I'm not persuaded that the definition of low motives in your book is an in-depth study. Certainly not in this case, where you appear to be arguing that an unintended consequence changes the motive after the event.
Thank you for your patience and explaining that manslaughter and murder hinges on intent.
So they were guilty of killing a man and punished? Their actions caused the death of a man, father, brother, husband, etc that stopped him from seeing his family or they seeing him again because he went to work.
I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the miners strike but the motives of some of those involved on both sides.
Do you believe what they done was right? Were their motives or ideals right to do what they did?
Dave_Notts
I think what they did was wrong, but at the time they did what they did I do not believe they had formed the intent to cause serious harm. In that respect I agree with the courts. As a way of making a protest it was a mistake, and, since I am blessed with hind sight, I can clearly see that it was foolish in the extreme. However, I don't think that amounts to thuggish behaviour as described by some on here. It's particularly funny when someone who's bragged on here about his mates at Chelsea starts denouncing other people as animals or thugs.
If I thought they'd set out to kill someone I'd denounce them. But they didn't, and it was a foolish mistake, not murder. That's what the courts said, and that's what I think. If you think all fools have low motives then it's a very broad brush you're painting with.

15 Sep 2010

I believe anyone who takes a concrete block up onto a bridge and throws it off is committing a violent act. I would not expect that behaviour from children let alone grown men. It is disgraceful and disgusting. I have no sympathy for them or their ilk, only for the family of the poor deceased man and his family.
The only saving grace here is the two miners served a prison sentence, but that does not bring back the Innocent taxi driver.
That's my view
Awayman, you believe otherwise, I do not. never the twain shall meet

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
I think what they did was wrong, but at the time they did what they did I do not believe they had formed the intent to cause serious harm. In that respect I agree with the courts.
I agree with you that it was not their intent to murder but their actions took an innocents life. Whether it is murder or manslaughter does not detract from that fact.
As a way of making a protest it was a mistake, and, since I am blessed with hind sight, I can clearly see that it was foolish in the extreme. However, I don't think that amounts to thuggish behaviour as described by some on here.
To throw a block of concrete, stone, or a block of ice off a motorway bridge when a vehicle is coming is not an action of a law abiding member of society and can be quite correctly described as a thuggish behaviour.
It's particularly funny when someone who's bragged on here about his mates at Chelsea starts denouncing other people as animals or thugs.
Irrelevant to our discussion about the thuggish behavior of some miners and police
If I thought they'd set out to kill someone I'd denounce them. But they didn't, and it was a foolish mistake, not murder. That's what the courts said, and that's what I think.
So to take an innocents life is ok because they did not intend to do it? It was their unlawful actions that caused this innocent mans death. So because they did not intend to kill him they do not deserve to be denounced? IMO any unlawful act that ends in an innocents life being taken should be denounced.
That's what the courts said, and that's what I think. If you think all fools have low motives then it's a very broad brush you're painting with.
Only those that undertake actions that impinge on innocents

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
I think what they did was wrong, but at the time they did what they did I do not believe they had formed the intent to cause serious harm. In that respect I agree with the courts.
I agree with you that it was not their intent to murder but their actions took an innocents life. Whether it is murder or manslaughter does not detract from that fact.
As a way of making a protest it was a mistake, and, since I am blessed with hind sight, I can clearly see that it was foolish in the extreme. However, I don't think that amounts to thuggish behaviour as described by some on here.
To throw a block of concrete, stone, or a block of ice off a motorway bridge when a vehicle is coming is not an action of a law abiding member of society and can be quite correctly described as a thuggish behaviour.
It's particularly funny when someone who's bragged on here about his mates at Chelsea starts denouncing other people as animals or thugs.
Irrelevant to our discussion about the thuggish behavior of some miners and police
If I thought they'd set out to kill someone I'd denounce them. But they didn't, and it was a foolish mistake, not murder. That's what the courts said, and that's what I think.
So to take an innocents life is ok because they did not intend to do it? It was their unlawful actions that caused this innocent mans death. So because they did not intend to kill him they do not deserve to be denounced? IMO any unlawful act that ends in an innocents life being taken should be denounced.
That's what the courts said, and that's what I think. If you think all fools have low motives then it's a very broad brush you're painting with.
Only those that undertake actions that impinge on innocents

OK, I'll say just this.
If you kill someone while speeding does that make you just as morally culpable as Hancock and Shankland? I think it probably does.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
OK, I'll say just this.
If you kill someone while speeding does that make you just as morally culpable as Hancock and Shankland? I think it probably does.

I would say it was as morally culpable as R v Nedrick. In each case an innocent was killed by thuggish behaviour.
In each case justice was seen to be done as the perptrators were found guilty and jailed for their crime.
Dave_Notts

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
OK, I'll say just this.
If you kill someone while speeding does that make you just as morally culpable as Hancock and Shankland? I think it probably does.

Not in my view, but it is a close call. Equally as legally culpable perhaps.
It is the premeditation and planing that bothers me. These two had chosen their weapon of choice and taken it to a location to target a pre-chosen car and its contents. That in my view is less of an accident.
Most speeders, I would suggest do not plan an attack or target a specific vehicle and its contents. I would not condone speeding and would expect the full force of the law, but the sentence would for me reflect my perceived difference.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
However, I don't think that amounts to thuggish behaviour as described by some on here. It's particularly funny when someone who's bragged on here about his mates at Chelsea starts denouncing other people as animals or thugs.

That coming from someone who admits being in the " thick " of it?
You do not think that this was thuggish behaviour,yet I bet you are the first one to condemn the slightest heavy handiness of the police...........won't you?
Someone on here? Surely you cannot be that frightened of a strike to name me....are you?
I have lots of mates in the army, does that insinuate they are thugs as well? All because I have mates at a football club, are you labeling them all thugs?
You have admitted openly in this forum of your participation during the miners strike, and now you say you do not think the throwing of a concrete block, into the path of a motor vehicle killing someone,is thuggish behaviour.
Do you possibly buy the Morning Star as well?
I despair..............I really do.

15 Sep 2010

What was the thread about???
Can we get back on track?
The TUC are way out of line here because realy there is no place for a politicised Union in modern Britain. Unions - by default create unemployment - and for that reason it is well time for them to get back to simply representing their "Members" (sic.) in employment tribunal cases and stop causing unemployment.
As has been stated in other similar threads the Unions destroyed UK shipping, motor, coal and steel industries by forcing wage and service conditions beyond what the free market could cope with and so the industries imploded. Unions by their nature make employing people more costly and more difficult and therefore their existence in modern the British workplace actually promotes mass unemployment whilst appearing to support a minority.

15 Sep 2010

Some who support football teams are thugs.
Some in the Army are thugs.
Some of the miners in the miners strike were thugs.
To defend those that cannot be defended speaks volumes to me of those that try. This is not something that I can or want to beat someone with, but it does let me in to their inner self so I understand what they think, and how they think.
Awayman, thank you for sharing your private thoughts in public
Kenny, if you have a complaint then take it to st3v3.
Dave_Notts

15 Sep 2010

No complaint this end from me Davey.....purely debating.
But it is nice to see people airing their private thoughts in a public arena, of that I do agree with you.

15 Sep 2010

Quote by Too Hot
What was the thread about???
Can we get back on track?
The TUC are way out of line here because realy there is no place for a politicised Union in modern Britain. Unions - by default create unemployment - and for that reason it is well time for them to get back to simply representing their "Members" (sic.) in employment tribunal cases and stop causing unemployment.
As has been stated in other similar threads the Unions destroyed UK shipping, motor, coal and steel industries by forcing wage and service conditions beyond what the free market could cope with and so the industries imploded. Unions by their nature make employing people more costly and more difficult and therefore their existence in modern the British workplace actually promotes mass unemployment whilst appearing to support a minority.

Threads drift in and out Too. There can be lots of different angles people want to talk about.
The second part of your post.........hmmmmm that is some different view to the norm. Could that be the best use of a modern union? Restrict its activities by legislation?
Dave_Notts

15 Sep 2010

Why is it a different view than the norm? It is a pure cold blooded fact. Unions press for higher wage rises and better conditions than the workplace market can actualy afford (this is what they are there for - their very reason to exist). In effect this makes employing people very expensive and by default, promotes unemployment.
Unions work for their "Comrades" within the bretheren - ie supporting their "members" - looking outside of that box is not part of the plan.
I have personal experience of a Union fighting (and winning) fantastic priviliges and rights for me but unfortunately the company I worked for could not really afford those conditions, they sold up and i was left with nothing.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

OK, I'll say just this.
If you kill someone while speeding does that make you just as morally culpable as Hancock and Shankland? I think it probably does.

Not in my view, but it is a close call. Equally as legally culpable perhaps.
It is the premeditation and planing that bothers me. These two had chosen their weapon of choice and taken it to a location to target a pre-chosen car and its contents. That in my view is less of an accident.
Most speeders, I would suggest do not plan an attack or target a specific vehicle and its contents. I would not condone speeding and would expect the full force of the law, but the sentence would for me reflect my perceived difference.
It's odd how you substitute your prejudices, about there being premeditation and so on, for the court's finding that those thinsg weren't there. That speaks volumes.