TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
[
But that's you moving back to your previous position of anyone who breaks the law is a thug. That's a very broad definition of a thug.

This time I qualified it to these two specifically and not a broadbrush. I can see where the broadbrush could have been seen when you pointed it out so I have now narrowed it to this specific act of throwing a block into the path of a moving vehicle without the intent to kill him but for any other reason. This is what I define as an act of thuggish behaviour, hence these two can rightly be called thugs.
Hopefully that clears up where my stance is, as the courts will not and have never given a verdict on motive as it is not their place to, but to prove intent.
Dave_Notts

18 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
How personal do you want to make this? My holding a different opinion to Dave isn't about my level of intelligence or his.

My comment was not aimed at any one particular person.
It must be obvious that they were thugs, in fact it is as clear as water.
I think your judgments have been clouded because of your own personnel feeling, with regards to this particular dispute.
Thankfully the law also decided they were thugs, and treated them accordingly.
My own opinion is that not only are they thugs, but also murderers...the law in my opinion is an arse for not treating them as murderers.
I can agree with the thug act but not murder. I think the law got it spot on with the intent.
My personal feelings are:
They were young, fiery men who tried to delay, inconvenience or stop the miner who was trying to get to work...........and their planned event went tragically wrong.
It does bring up a point of law where we have (I think) two forms of homicide where the Americans have four. If this was America they would face a harsher manslaughter than a person who killed someone while speeding (as this example has cropped up before).
In this country manslaughter by speeding or throwing a block off a bridge carries the same sentance possibilities. I believe that the sentance should depend on the type of act that took the life.
Dave_Notts

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

i have been musing on this, and it made me think of this.

One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing.
Now i know it is not a direct parralell,but it got me are things for which i would cause damage to the members of the Churchill club i would hope i would stand up and be counted when it mattered.
Perhaps,and i am not a mind reader, the miners involved in this event felt this was one of those moments,that blocking the road was worth the lines for all off us would be different.I know countryside Alliance members who have indulged in graffiti,and animal rights activists who liberate battery chickens.
i know its a product of my background that i tend to see things in shades of grey,but often that is a far more realistic position.
Worth the risk of what...........killing a completely innocent man? Indulging in graffiti and liberating chickens hardly equates to heaving a block of concrete into the path of a moving car. And to liken the miners that perpetrated this act to naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing, is an insult to the dead man's memory.
You didn't actually answer the question either.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

Good luck if one is found Max.
For me it will not come with a straightforward reply.
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?

Do you really I mean really see that as a dig? Report button thataway>>>>>

Quote by awayman
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.

As I stated alread....not a straightforward reply.
How can someone throw a brick from a bridge into a oncoming car, and not think it would do serious harm? loon

Is that really I mean really the whole basis of your arguement?
The emotion sort of sums it up.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

Good luck if one is found Max.
For me it will not come with a straightforward reply.
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.
I wonder what your take on things would have been if say the perpetrators were policemen and the people in the car miners, or if the perpetrators had been members of the EDL and the people in the car members of some ethnic minority?
My question contained no reference to not intending any harm as I can not believe that any half intelligent human being can not see the potential consequences of heaving a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving car.
To pinch one of your own very recent phrases........your view is spectacularly one eyed.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

i have been musing on this, and it made me think of this.

One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing.
Now i know it is not a direct parralell,but it got me are things for which i would cause damage to the members of the Churchill club i would hope i would stand up and be counted when it mattered.
Perhaps,and i am not a mind reader, the miners involved in this event felt this was one of those moments,that blocking the road was worth the lines for all off us would be different.I know countryside Alliance members who have indulged in graffiti,and animal rights activists who liberate battery chickens.
i know its a product of my background that i tend to see things in shades of grey,but often that is a far more realistic position.
Worth the risk of what...........killing a completely innocent man? Indulging in graffiti and liberating chickens hardly equates to heaving a block of concrete into the path of a moving car. And to liken the miners that perpetrated this act to naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing, is an insult to the dead man's memory.
You didn't actually answer the question either.
Did you read the link,the Churchill Club were not naughty teenagers,but incredibly brave teens who were the first to stand up to the Nazis,when Danish policy was to offer no knew totally what they were doing,and carried on doing it whilst in Germans described them as thugs because they did not want the idea of a Danish resistance to take hold.
The comparison i was drawing was that we all have things that will motivate us to break the miners were motivated by a belief in the strike,not by a desire to kill.
I didn't read the link as to be honest the comparisons contained within your post are, in my opinion, totally irrelevant to the subject being debated. Whatever the motives of the miners were, it was an act of barbaric thuggery.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The miners were motivated by a belief in the strike,not by a desire to kill.

What about the serious desire to cause serious harm then?
Or are there more than one here who thinks that they would not do that?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

Good luck if one is found Max.
For me it will not come with a straightforward reply.
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.
I wonder what your take on things would have been if say the perpetrators were policemen and the people in the car miners, or if the perpetrators had been members of the EDL and the people in the car members of some ethnic minority?
My question contained no reference to not intending any harm as I can not believe that any half intelligent human being can not see the potential consequences of heaving a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving car.
To pinch one of your own very recent phrases........your view is spectacularly one eyed.
:laughabove::laughabove:

18 Sep 2010

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

Is there intent to cause serious harm in that picture then Blue?
Do we know even IF there was intent, that the officer actually struck this other person?
IF no police officer faced any charges, there can be reasons for that like....they were protected by their officers or they were not the instigators of any trouble, only people brought in to keep the peace and were only protecting themselves.
Or are some people saying that the officers were protected from any charges?
Evidence of that would be interesting.

18 Sep 2010

From what I have learnt in this thread the courts are our yard stick for wrong doing, there for, if no police were ever prosecuted for anything during this strike, then we could say they were whiter than white dunno

The above would only be considered thuggish behaviour if the officer involved is convicted of murder

18 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?

Do you really I mean really see that as a dig? Report button thataway>>>>>

Quote by awayman
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.

As I stated alread....not a straightforward reply.
How can someone throw a brick from a bridge into a oncoming car, and not think it would do serious harm? loon

Is that really I mean really the whole basis of your arguement?
The emotion sort of sums it up.
Good enough for five law lords and the court of appeal, good enough for me. Not good enough for you? Each to their own...

18 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

Good luck if one is found Max.
For me it will not come with a straightforward reply.
Another personal dig Ken? Well done, you're clearly the spirit of the new AUP. Working well isn't it?
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.
I wonder what your take on things would have been if say the perpetrators were policemen and the people in the car miners, or if the perpetrators had been members of the EDL and the people in the car members of some ethnic minority?
My question contained no reference to not intending any harm as I can not believe that any half intelligent human being can not see the potential consequences of heaving a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving car.
To pinch one of your own very recent phrases........your view is spectacularly one eyed.
:laughabove::laughabove:
Glad you think it's a laughing matter; emoticons are a poor substitute for joine dup thought.
Your line of reasoning is the one taken by the original trial judge when summing up. His argument was dismantled in the higher courts.
I like to see the same laws applied to everyone. So if the EDL committed the same sort of offence, I hope they'd get the same treatment.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

As I remember it that pic was taken during the cavalry charge at Orgreave. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid nearly half a million in compensation to people injured that day. Depending on how you classify the numebr sbetween two and six pickets died during the strike - David Jones was hit by a brick thrown back by police and Joe Green was crushed b y a truck. It was a complex, bitter and hard struggle, when some coppers did wicked things that I hope keep them awake at night, and some were decent, reasonable and human guys.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

As I remember it that pic was taken during the cavalry charge at Orgreave. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid nearly half a million in compensation to people injured that day. Depending on how you classify the numebr sbetween two and six pickets died during the strike - David Jones was hit by a brick thrown back by police and Joe Green was crushed b y a truck. It was a complex, bitter and hard struggle, when some coppers did wicked things that I hope keep them awake at night, and some were decent, reasonable and human guys.
Any police convicted of murder or manslaughter?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

As I remember it that pic was taken during the cavalry charge at Orgreave. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid nearly half a million in compensation to people injured that day. Depending on how you classify the numebr sbetween two and six pickets died during the strike - David Jones was hit by a brick thrown back by police and Joe Green was crushed b y a truck. It was a complex, bitter and hard struggle, when some coppers did wicked things that I hope keep them awake at night, and some were decent, reasonable and human guys.
Any police convicted of murder or manslaughter?
No.
If you think that, after nine pages, that proves something, good luck. You seem, like some others, to want to turn this into taking sides. I haven't called the police thugs. Dave and others have turned this into a tribal battle where they're intent on proving something about me or the miners who took part in picketing. The trouble is the evidence they're deploying won't bear the weight they require it to to make their case. That's why it's all starting to get a bit personal, with people being accused of having lesser intelligence if they hold a particular point of view, and people who have no evidence resorting to sneering and stupid emoticons to demonstrate what they feel.
As I said to Ken above, it's a good example of how the new AUP is a complete failure already.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

As I remember it that pic was taken during the cavalry charge at Orgreave. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid nearly half a million in compensation to people injured that day. Depending on how you classify the numebr sbetween two and six pickets died during the strike - David Jones was hit by a brick thrown back by police and Joe Green was crushed b y a truck. It was a complex, bitter and hard struggle, when some coppers did wicked things that I hope keep them awake at night, and some were decent, reasonable and human guys.
Any police convicted of murder or manslaughter?
No.
If you think that, after nine pages, that proves something, good luck. You seem, like some others, to want to turn this into taking sides. I haven't called the police thugs. Dave and others have turned this into a tribal battle where they're intent on proving something about me or the miners who took part in picketing. The trouble is the evidence they're deploying won't bear the weight they require it to to make their case. That's why it's all starting to get a bit personal, with people being accused of having lesser intelligence if they hold a particular point of view, and people who have no evidence resorting to sneering and stupid emoticons to demonstrate what they feel.
As I said to Ken above, it's a good example of how the new AUP is a complete failure already.
My first thought was to write, I rest my case under where you wrote no.....
I am not taking any side, although, of coarse I have a view, if I did not I would not be here. I appreciate you have not accused the police in any way. I have no intention of being personal in any way, if any thing I have written implies this I would be happy to retract it. I was simply applying your logic to the police and see how that sat with you. I can see that thuggish behaviour came from both sides. I felt you did not wish to except this. As I am not as good as many here with words and the English language, I may have used tactics of emotions which you may not be used to. Is there an etiquette I should not step out side of? I have no reason to question your intellect, I do however question your defence, of the actions, of the two we have been discussing.
You feel they were foolish in the action they took, I feel what they done was thuggish, that is all I have been debating. I also understand how easily one can step outside of the law when passion run high, I have been their. When I marched (Only 3 times) I was defending a way of life, but many I marched with were defending their lively hood also, I am not blind to how the moment can run away with one. But I can not defend this incident.
I do not wish you to see me as part of a pack mentality, my view does not waver what ever others around me may be saying. It is my view and mine only I debate with.
*Added in edit*
I do feel uncomfortable when it becomes many against one. But I have my beliefs, and you have yours, I hope that you see it as debate, not anything more.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Don't worry its not thuggery
The officer does not interned to cause this person any harm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no instance of any police officers facing any prosecutions from the miners strike, I presume from this their motives were pure and never overstepped the mark :thumbup:

As I remember it that pic was taken during the cavalry charge at Orgreave. In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid nearly half a million in compensation to people injured that day. Depending on how you classify the numebr sbetween two and six pickets died during the strike - David Jones was hit by a brick thrown back by police and Joe Green was crushed b y a truck. It was a complex, bitter and hard struggle, when some coppers did wicked things that I hope keep them awake at night, and some were decent, reasonable and human guys.
Any police convicted of murder or manslaughter?
No.
If you think that, after nine pages, that proves something, good luck. You seem, like some others, to want to turn this into taking sides. I haven't called the police thugs. Dave and others have turned this into a tribal battle where they're intent on proving something about me or the miners who took part in picketing. The trouble is the evidence they're deploying won't bear the weight they require it to to make their case. That's why it's all starting to get a bit personal, with people being accused of having lesser intelligence if they hold a particular point of view, and people who have no evidence resorting to sneering and stupid emoticons to demonstrate what they feel.
As I said to Ken above, it's a good example of how the new AUP is a complete failure already.
My first thought was to write, I rest my case under where you wrote no.....
I am not taking any side, although, of coarse I have a view, if I did not I would not be here. I appreciate you have not accused the police in any way. I have no intention of being personal in any way, if any thing I have written implies this I would be happy to retract it. I was simply applying your logic to the police and see how that sat with you. I can see that thuggish behaviour came from both sides. I felt you did not wish to except this. As I am not as good as many here with words and the English language, I may have used tactics of emotions which you may not be used to. Is there an etiquette I should not step out side of? I have no reason to question your intellect, I do however question your defence, of the actions, of the two we have been discussing.
You feel they were foolish in the action they took, I feel what they done was thuggish, that is all I have been debating. I also understand how easily one can step outside of the law when passion run high, I have been their. When I marched (Only 3 times) I was defending a way of life, but many I marched with were defending their lively hood also, I am not blind to how the moment can run away with one. But I can not defend this incident.
I do not wish you to see me as part of a pack mentality, my view does not waver what ever others around me may be saying. It is my view and mine only I debate with.
*Added in edit*
I do feel uncomfortable when it becomes many against one. But I have my beliefs, and you have yours, I hope that you see it as debate, not anything more.
I have absolutely no problem with you. I'm trying to be dispassionate about this. Let me give you an example. I was in the Hatfield area when this picture happened to be taken.

He wasn't the only one came back off the picket line looking like that. I can take my lumps. Lots of the guys who got hurt were just guys peacefully picketing; when you police by cavalry charge, as the Met and other forces did during the strike, it's impossible for people not to get hurt. But it's too complicated for simple words like thug to fit the mould.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
OK Awayman, I'm going to ask you once again. Do you regard the act of deliberately throwing a concrete block from a bridge into the path of a moving car to be an act of thuggery or not?
Pretty straightforward question, let's have a straightforward answer..yes or no?

i have been musing on this, and it made me think of this.

One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing.
Now i know it is not a direct parralell,but it got me are things for which i would cause damage to the members of the Churchill club i would hope i would stand up and be counted when it mattered.
Perhaps,and i am not a mind reader, the miners involved in this event felt this was one of those moments,that blocking the road was worth the lines for all off us would be different.I know countryside Alliance members who have indulged in graffiti,and animal rights activists who liberate battery chickens.
i know its a product of my background that i tend to see things in shades of grey,but often that is a far more realistic position.
Worth the risk of what...........killing a completely innocent man? Indulging in graffiti and liberating chickens hardly equates to heaving a block of concrete into the path of a moving car. And to liken the miners that perpetrated this act to naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing, is an insult to the dead man's memory.
You didn't actually answer the question either.
Did you read the link,the Churchill Club were not naughty teenagers,but incredibly brave teens who were the first to stand up to the Nazis,when Danish policy was to offer no knew totally what they were doing,and carried on doing it whilst in Germans described them as thugs because they did not want the idea of a Danish resistance to take hold.
The comparison i was drawing was that we all have things that will motivate us to break the miners were motivated by a belief in the strike,not by a desire to kill.
I didn't read the link as to be honest the comparisons contained within your post are, in my opinion, totally irrelevant to the subject being debated. Whatever the motives of the miners were, it was an act of barbaric thuggery.
Since my post was totally about motivation i cannot see why you are attempting to argue,but i hope you will apologise to the families of those killed by the nazies who you called naughty boys.
Please tell me where I called anyone naughty boys?

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
If you do something without intending to cause harm, and it causes harm, no, you're not a thug. The law of causation is complex, difficult and doesn't lend itself to easy binary answers. The clue is in Max's question. Throw a block into the path of a car, not intending to cause serious harm, and you may be a bloody fool, but you're not a thug.

I wonder what your take on things would have been if say the perpetrators were policemen and the people in the car miners, or if the perpetrators had been members of the EDL and the people in the car members of some ethnic minority?
My question contained no reference to not intending any harm as I can not believe that any half intelligent human being can not see the potential consequences of heaving a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving car.
To pinch one of your own very recent phrases........your view is spectacularly one eyed.

Quote by awayman
Your line of reasoning is the one taken by the original trial judge when summing up. His argument was dismantled in the higher courts.
I like to see the same laws applied to everyone. So if the EDL committed the same sort of offence, I hope they'd get the same treatment.

Which line of reasoning is that? That any half intelligent person should realise the potential consequences of heaving a concrete block off a bridge into the path of a moving car? What exactly was dismantled in the higher courts? The argument that there was intent to harm? Of course we only have the perpetrators word that there was no intent, they were never going to admit otherwise.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
If you think that, after nine pages, that proves something, good luck. You seem, like some others, to want to turn this into taking sides. I haven't called the police thugs. Dave and others have turned this into a tribal battle where they're intent on proving something about me or the miners who took part in picketing. The trouble is the evidence they're deploying won't bear the weight they require it to to make their case. That's why it's all starting to get a bit personal, with people being accused of having lesser intelligence if they hold a particular point of view, and people who have no evidence resorting to sneering and stupid emoticons to demonstrate what they feel.
As I said to Ken above, it's a good example of how the new AUP is a complete failure already.

I don't think Dave, myself or any of the others involved in this thread are intent on proving anything about you or MOST of the miners who took part in the picketing. The thread took off on a tangent after YOU personalised a comment made by Foxy which she made abundantly clear had no reference to you.
This debate is now about TWO particular miners that killed an innocent man, who you have gone to great lengths to (forlornly )convince others that they were not thugs.
Also, as far as I'm aware, no one has been accused of having lesser intelligence for holding a different view. If you are referring to my comment about a "half intelligent person", that was in relation to the people heaving a block of concrete off a bridge not being aware of the potential consequences, as well you know.

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman

He wasn't the only one came back off the picket line looking like that. I can take my lumps. Lots of the guys who got hurt were just guys peacefully picketing; when you police by cavalry charge, as the Met and other forces did during the strike, it's impossible for people not to get hurt. But it's too complicated for simple words like thug to fit the mould.

Its just the way I view things, I was at the 3rd countryside march when civil disobedience was feared by the police, they then trapped peaceful protesters in an area, lucky I was on a bus home by then, can not remember what the police call this now, containment perhaps. trouble was the protesters at the rear had no idea and kept coming forward pushing the the front onto the police, police panicked and lased out at the ones in front of them, men and women, for no other reason than fear. This made me mad, I did not know them, but they were Innocent country folk like me.
I expect to maintain the upper hand, blair and Brown, lowered them selves to cheap jibes and violence, we did not.....
The best way for me to explain my view would be,..... I could very nearly fall into the category these two fell into, but, I would have been that third member saying, hold on lads, this aint right......

18 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Good enough for five law lords and the court of appeal, good enough for me. Not good enough for you? Each to their own...

Lets get back to basics as you seem to have quickly passed over all I have said and reverted to this bit on intent.
Yes, intent was not proved for murder. No, they were not found innocent of a crime that killed another human being.
A person whose actions kill another by an act that any other law abiding citizen would not do (murder, violence, etc), is a thug. So I am saying these two are thugs. Where on these pages did I call you or any other miner thugs?
These two were pathetic children who burst out crying in court because they couldn't face the consequences of their actions. There was another miner on that bridge who tried to stop/discourage them, but they took no heed of him.
Going off the links posted here the evidence showed:
a) They were at the scene, on that day and time
b) They lifted the block on their own volition
c) They threw the block on their own volition
d) The block hit the car and killed the taxi driver
verdict by the courts, guilty of murder. Appealed to a higher court on the basis of law on intent. Appeal upheld and reduced to manslaughter.
Now looking at that I cannot see how you think the law lords vindicated their actions. They only reduced murder to manslaughter and the two served time. They were never found not guilty of the crime of killing him........just the type of homicide.
I think you are confusing the two.
Dave_Notts

19 Sep 2010

Kaznkev
I realise that due to the prolific nature of your postings it must be very difficult to remember everything that you have posted, so I would ask you to please reread your postings above and you will find that the reference to naughty teenagers was actually yours....this is what you said "One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing. "
As I said, I thought your comparison to be totally irrelevant and to liken the miners who killed the taxi driver to naughty teenagers who didn't know what they were doing was an insult to the dead man's memory.
So, what was that you said about apologies?

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Kaznkev
I realise that due to the prolific nature of your postings it must be very difficult to remember everything that you have posted, so I would ask you to please reread your postings above and you will find that the reference to naughty teenagers was actually yours....this is what you said "One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing. "
As I said, I thought your comparison to be totally irrelevant and to liken the miners who killed the taxi driver to naughty teenagers who didn't know what they were doing was an insult to the dead man's memory.
So, what was that you said about apologies?

You are agreeing they were naughty teens,not me.
How is he agreeing? You made the quote, he said it was an irrelevant comparison and an insult to a dead man.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
Kaznkev
I realise that due to the prolific nature of your postings it must be very difficult to remember everything that you have posted, so I would ask you to please reread your postings above and you will find that the reference to naughty teenagers was actually yours....this is what you said "One of the reasons the Churchill Club members were not punished harshly is because the Nazis described them as thugs,naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing. "
As I said, I thought your comparison to be totally irrelevant and to liken the miners who killed the taxi driver to naughty teenagers who didn't know what they were doing was an insult to the dead man's memory.
So, what was that you said about apologies?

You are agreeing they were naughty teens,not me.
Where? For goodness sake, read what I have written.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777
Where? For goodness sake, read what I have written.

Max I really would not continue this as it is obvious that Kaz made a mistake but cannot see it.
I cannot understand for the life of me the logic in her original argument anyway.
The comparison she made has absolutely no bearing on the topic at all.
Or am I really missing something here?
Still from what I have read here I would say that yes an apology is in order.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Where? For goodness sake, read what I have written.

Max I really would not continue this as it is obvious that Kaz made a mistake but cannot see it.
I cannot understand for the life of me the logic in her original argument anyway.
The comparison she made has absolutely no bearing on the topic at all.
Or am I really missing something here?
Still from what I have read here I would say that yes an apology is in order.
I won't hold my breath waiting for one!! wink

19 Sep 2010

Sort of ermmmmmmmmmm.............bang on the money I would say.
Only the REAL die hard trade unionists would not agree with this, and I thought they were left behind in 1985 dunno

Good old Carol..........shoots from the hip as always.