TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

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
So, your wriggle to get you off the hook of the speeding driver conundrum is the form of words around "A person whose actions kill another by an act that any other law abiding citizen would not do (murder, violence, etc), is a thug." I'm not impressed; either you're breaking the law or you're not.
The way in which you disparage the two miners with pejorative language is a pretty clear indication of where your sympathies lie. You don't actually know anything about these men - it could be they were crying as they realised the enormity of their error, and their guilt. Of course, that's not convenient for your line of argument, so you have to denigrate them.
You're welcome to quote the bit where I said the Law Lords vindicated them. Until you do, you may want to stop and wonder which of us is the more confused.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777

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.
My reference was to Ken, who said

Dave__Notts wrote:
I am describing two men who were responsible for their own actions who took a block and threw it off a bridge into the path of an oncoming vehicle. This is not the actions of a law abiding citizen. The actions can rightly be described as thuggish, so thug sits pretty well to describe them IMO
Kenty wrote
I cannot understand how anyone of even the slightest intelligence, cannot or will not accept that as fact.
Thugs pure and simple

Foxy indulged in a generalization about some of the pickets being people looking for a fight. When I questioned her evidence for that all and sundry waded in with the Hancock and Shankland case as an example. We've done to death the fact that Dave thinks you can be a thug when you don't intend to harm anybody, unless you're a speeding driver, in which case you're not a thug.
And now you're wading in to claim that pejorative remarks about people's intelligence aren't potentially a breach of the new AUP. Since I still don't know what the enw policy is, i can;t really argue with that point of view.
I don't actually expect a mod to take any action, or to issue any warnings. I've just been pointing out how their new policy doesn't work, and hasn't changed people's behaviour.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
I don't actually expect a mod to take any action, or to issue any warnings. I've just been pointing out how their new policy doesn't work, and hasn't changed people's behaviour.

Obviously not I am afraid...

Quote by awayman
Whatever claptrap he may or may not be spouting it's got nothign to do with Darwin.

Seems it has not changed yours either. dunno

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i read, i see an implication, if you did not mean to imply what you did i suggest you write more clearly.
And stop the personal attacks,its boring

Sorry Kaz hun but there are a few of us who saw exactly what was written...Max wrote it very clearly and where the personnel attacks are I fail to see any to be honest only someone asking for an apology dunno

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.
i read, i see an implication, if you did not mean to imply what you did i suggest you write more clearly.
And stop the personal attacks,its boring
My writing was clear enough, FB clearly understood, enough said.
Where is the personal attack? I responded to your response to one of my posts.
I realise it is a defence mechanism to try and deflect the blame or make imaginary accusations in an attempt to wriggle out of an indefensible situation, but don't worry, I don't expect you to apologise, experience has taught me that those who are quick to demand apologies seldom offer their own.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
Foxy indulged in a generalization about some of the pickets being people looking for a fight. When I questioned her evidence for that all and sundry waded in with the Hancock and Shankland case as an example. We've done to death the fact that Dave thinks you can be a thug when you don't intend to harm anybody, unless you're a speeding driver, in which case you're not a thug.
All and sundry waded in? As it has been posted publically then every member is entitled to comment on it publically. If you do not wish people to comment on your opinions then do not post them publically.
And now you're wading in to claim that pejorative remarks about people's intelligence aren't potentially a breach of the new AUP. Since I still don't know what the enw policy is, i can;t really argue with that point of view.
The poster was making comment to a public statement and not wading in. Nobody in this thread has made a pejorative remark about inteligence. If you still do not know or understand the new policy I suggest you PM st3v3 with your questions on what you do not understand and perhaps he would be able to explain them to you.
I don't actually expect a mod to take any action, or to issue any warnings.
If you read the explanation to the new rules you would notice that st3v3 will be taking action on these issues. So a mod or member will inform him of a breach but not take action themselves.
I've just been pointing out how their new policy doesn't work, and hasn't changed people's behaviour.
Complaints will be looked at by st3v3 and, if vindicated, appropriate action taken. This will be on a case by case basis. As such, nobody has yet had any action taken against them, so the policy does work. Peoples behaviour has changed but their opinions have not. This is one thing that st3v3 or the site does not want to impose on people as that is their entitlement. How they state it is a site matter and will be moderated. If you believe the rules have been breached then report it to st3v3.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.

19 Sep 2010

Have to say Essex completely and utterly agree with you.
IF and there is a big IF a member feels there have been personnel attacks made against them, then instead of possibly whinging about it on here, then report it to admin.
But as always we all have to be aware that admin may well look at it in a way that they feel no attacks have actually happened...such as in this thread as an example.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
Agreed. No personal attack on Kaz. Plus the fact that Max was referring to a quote made by Kaz, which was the one mentioning naughty teenagers.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
So, your wriggle to get you off the hook of the speeding driver conundrum is the form of words around "A person whose actions kill another by an act that any other law abiding citizen would not do (murder, violence, etc), is a thug." I'm not impressed; either you're breaking the law or you're not.
I am not out to impress you but to qualify the question you posed. I answered it and you take it as wriggling. I tried to explain to you that we only have two types of killing offenses, either murder or manslaughter. It is a fact and not wriggling.

The way in which you disparage the two miners with pejorative language is a pretty clear indication of where your sympathies lie. You don't actually know anything about these men - it could be they were crying as they realised the enormity of their error, and their guilt. Of course, that's not convenient for your line of argument, so you have to denigrate them.
I do not have to disparage these two killers as by their own act and jailing speaks to all what they were at that time.........their guilt speaks volumes, yet you have not shown any evidence to show they are not thugs, except to quote the intent ruling. Your confusion of intent and motive shines through this whole thread, as it has already been pointed out that motive is not a factor that is used within the judicial system except at a point when guilt is established then it can be re-introduced by the defence in mitigation. I have agreed with the court in its reduction as it is a point of law.
You're welcome to quote the bit where I said the Law Lords vindicated them. Until you do, you may want to stop and wonder which of us is the more confused.
You stated "Good enough for five law lords and the court of appeal, good enough for me. Not good enough for you?". Did you mean something different to how I have read it? I read it in a way that said the Law Lords vindicated the pair. They did on murder but not on manslaughter. The only confusion I have is in what are you trying to say. If it is not fully explained then it is easy for confusion to reign.

19 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.

:doh: missed this one where you qualified your answer on what a thug is.
Have to totally disagree with you on this and so did the courts as they found them guilty.
If you do something without intending to cause harm will not result in murder. If you do something intending to cause harm will result in murder.
The legal system does not have a charge of being a thug. This descriptor depends if the accused person is found guilty or not guilty. If he is guilty then, if his charge was one of violence, then he can be correctly called a thug. If he is found innocent then he cannot be called a thug.
In this case the two men were found guilty.
Dave_Notts

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
The term 'naughty boys' in reference to this thread was first seen in a post by yourself, and here is the quote:

Quote by Kaznkev
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.
.

And again, if you felt that you have been personally attacked, I would suggest you evaulate your suitability for this type of forum.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
OK enough is enough. Could a Mod please have a look at this. Kaz is accusing me of making a personal attack upon her and I would like the situation clarified.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
It wasn't suggesting you can't read - it was an instruction for you to re-read what had been written. He didn't call them naughty boys - you were the first to quote the reference to 'naughty teenagers'. There has been no attack on you.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .

If you believe an attack on you has occured, then please put in a complaint with supporting evidence of the complaint i.e. quotes of where the member attacked you
Dave_Notts

19 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
The term 'naughty boys' in reference to this thread was first seen in a post by yourself, and here is the quote:

Quote by Kaznkev
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.
.

And again, if you felt that you have been personally attacked, I would suggest you evaulate your suitability for this type of forum.
what he said ^^^

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Max777
OK enough is enough. Could a Mod please have a look at this. Kaz is accusing me of making a personal attack upon her and I would like the situation clarified.

Until a complaint has been received from a member that a breach of the AUP has occured then it will not be acted on. If you require further clarification then please PM me.
Dave_Notts

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
It wasn't suggesting you can't read - it was an instruction for you to re-read what had been written. He didn't call them naughty boys - you were the first to quote the reference to 'naughty teenagers'. There has been no attack on you.
Thanks FB but I suspect it will fall upon deaf ears. I will leave it to the Mods to decide whether or not there has been a personal attack and who the perpetrator was.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .

If you believe an attack on you has occured, then please put in a complaint.
Dave_Notts
And what happens then?
If its proved that Kaz just lost the plot and no attack was made, will there be a public apology from her to Max in this thread. And quite honestly i have seen no such attack just someone who appears to not want to admit that they got it wrong, so come up with some excuse that she is being personally attacked by another member.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

OK enough is enough. Could a Mod please have a look at this. Kaz is accusing me of making a personal attack upon her and I would like the situation clarified.

Until a complaint has been received from a member that a breach of the AUP has occured then it will not be acted on. If you require further clarification then please PM me.
Dave_Notts
But wouldn't you know if a breach of the AUP has occured by just reading the posts in this thread? and if so wouldn't you as a moderator be able to act upon that without the need to wait for a complaint? dunno

19 Sep 2010

I think someone is digging one of these and then using the " attacking me game ".

No attack at all only somebody who has possibly read something wrong, and then has continued to dig.
I was also reminded today that there are not many shopping days left until Christmas. :twisted:

19 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I was also reminded today that there are not many shopping days left until Christmas. :twisted:

Why don't you go and....oh hang on, new AUP, please desist.

19 Sep 2010

:cheers:

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
It wasn't suggesting you can't read - it was an instruction for you to re-read what had been written. He didn't call them naughty boys - you were the first to quote the reference to 'naughty teenagers'. There has been no attack on you.
i think the comments were personal as he prefaced them with reference to my posting he had not wished to personalise the argument he could have simply said he disagreed or believed i misunderstood. i see no validity in bringing up how often someone is on the site.
If people here cannot see why describing the Churchill Club as"naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing" is insulting to the many Europeans who lost their lives fighting Fascism then i despair i really do.
At no time did i describe them as naughty boys, i was trying to raise the tone of the argument out that at different times and places and within different social groupings actions that may be thuggish to some are acceptable to others.
The Nazis described the Churchill Gang as naughty in order to remove the political element from what they were doing,but to many young Danes they were if Max had read the link he might have been able to comment on the analogy(not comparison )i was making.
i still argue that we all, i would hope have things we might break the law to protect and preserve,that does not make us of necessity thugs.
But those were the words you used, even if it was the Nazis that was describing them as that, at no time did Max say they were nothing but naughty teenagers...he was quoting you, FFS how come everyone else can see you digging a hole but yourself? dunno

I suggest you go back to Page 9 and re-read everything, and don't take that as a personal attack! rolleyes

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i still argue

I've noticed.

19 Sep 2010

You've lost the plot..Big time! banghead

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
It wasn't suggesting you can't read - it was an instruction for you to re-read what had been written. He didn't call them naughty boys - you were the first to quote the reference to 'naughty teenagers'. There has been no attack on you.
i think the comments were personal as he prefaced them with reference to my posting he had not wished to personalise the argument he could have simply said he disagreed or believed i misunderstood. i see no validity in bringing up how often someone is on the site.
If people here cannot see why describing the Churchill Club as"naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing" is insulting to the many Europeans who lost their lives fighting Fascism then i despair i really do.
At no time did i describe them as naughty boys, i was trying to raise the tone of the argument out that at different times and places and within different social groupings actions that may be thuggish to some are acceptable to others.
The Nazis described the Churchill Gang as naughty in order to remove the political element from what they were doing,but to many young Danes they were if Max had read the link he might have been able to comment on the analogy(not comparison )i was making.
i still argue that we all, i would hope have things we might break the law to protect and preserve,that does not make us of necessity thugs.
Kaz......can we please get one thing straight? YOU were the person that first made reference to naughty teenagers. YOUreferred to them as "naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing. This fact has now been pointed out to you by myself and several other members. I made no comment on the Churchill Club and still have not. My reference to your posting rate was due to the fact that you clearly could not remember that you had posted the "naughty teenagers" reference just minutes ago and I was trying to suggest a reason for this. Indeed, it would appear that you are still unwilling to admit this fact.
It's still no too late to admit you are wrong and apologise, there, that's an olive branch I have offered.

19 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
"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."

If you see that as a personal attack, then maybe you should question your ability to be involved in discussions of emotive subjects where feelings could run high.
No,max asked where he had called them naughty boys, the quote shows it,the attack was suggesting i cant read .
It wasn't suggesting you can't read - it was an instruction for you to re-read what had been written. He didn't call them naughty boys - you were the first to quote the reference to 'naughty teenagers'. There has been no attack on you.
i think the comments were personal as he prefaced them with reference to my posting he had not wished to personalise the argument he could have simply said he disagreed or believed i misunderstood. i see no validity in bringing up how often someone is on the site.
If people here cannot see why describing the Churchill Club as"naughty teenagers who didn't really know what they were doing" is insulting to the many Europeans who lost their lives fighting Fascism then i despair i really do.
At no time did i describe them as naughty boys, i was trying to raise the tone of the argument out that at different times and places and within different social groupings actions that may be thuggish to some are acceptable to others.
The Nazis described the Churchill Gang as naughty in order to remove the political element from what they were doing,but to many young Danes they were if Max had read the link he might have been able to comment on the analogy(not comparison )i was making.
i still argue that we all, i would hope have things we might break the law to protect and preserve,that does not make us of necessity thugs.

Quote by Kaznkev
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.

Kaz, you made the comparison (see your quote above),you were the one who originally said 'naughty boys' and you made the quote about naughty teenagers. Your post about the teenagers was a direct answer to the question Max posed to Awayman. Max didn't preface your comments with regard to your posting rate, he simply suggested (afterward, not as a preface) that you might not clearly remember what you posted due to you posting a lot - I definitely did not see that as derogatory or an attack of any kind. In fact, in hindsight and considering the fact that you've said he said something that, actually, you did, I'd say that it was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. As Mr Powers said, maybe you should go back and re-read from a few pages ago.

19 Sep 2010

Can I just say a big thank you to everyone that CAN see the wood, despite the trees!! :thumbup:

19 Sep 2010

Quote by flower411
:giveup:
There is an alternative !!
Everybody could just walk away shaking their heads in disbelief because they know they are right
And then the thread could carry on with the original subject ....just a thought :roll:

I think most are shaking their head in disbelief that Kaz can't even acknowledge what she's posted. And the thread went off topic many pages ago.