What a bit like this Max?
Well at least everyone bar one can see the wood through the trees eh? :twisted:
As Powers so eloquently put it .....
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber
Sex God
thread degeneration =
Quote by Dave__Notts
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
The only thing I agree with in this startling admission on your part is where you say that the legal system does not have a charge of being a thug. You don't seem to have a definition of being a thug either.
Manslaughter is not a charge that requires violence for the charge to be made out. As the Hancock and Shankland case proves, you can set out not to cause serious harm, and still end up convicted of manslaughter. So, to sustain your claim that these men were thugs, you have to keep on asserting that anyone who is found guilty of manslaughter must, ipso facto, be a thug. Except when he's a speeding driver, of course...
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
The only thing I agree with in this startling admission on your part is where you say that the legal system does not have a charge of being a thug. You don't seem to have a definition of being a thug either.
Manslaughter is not a charge that requires violence for the charge to be made out. As the Hancock and Shankland case proves, you can set out not to cause serious harm, and still end up convicted of manslaughter. So, to sustain your claim that these men were thugs, you have to keep on asserting that anyone who is found guilty of manslaughter must, ipso facto, be a thug. Except when he's a speeding driver, of course...
Admission
. You have lost me sorry. Perhaps if you could clarify I could answer.Manslaughter does not have to have intent to cause serious harm or even a little harm or no harm. In fact, harm does not even come into it. That is the realms of murder. Now I see your confusion. You are mixing the two up. I am sorry you can't understand this.
Now looking at the ipso facto statement, well quite right. That is how I look at it in this case. You have given no evidence to show their actions were not thuggish. I look at each case on its own merits, and the evidence links that have been shown here or the facts of the case has shown this not to be an act of accident. What I mean by that is a drunk walks home and slips off the pavement, where a car swerves to miss him and the driver runs into and kills some other person. The drunk has caused manslaughter as their act caused the death of another. Now this case I would class as an accident if these two miners were walking along and the block of concrete found its way into their hands accidently and then they tripped and it accidently fell over the bridge. In this scenario I would agree with you, but it did not as they took a decision to pick up the block and another decision to throw it off the bridge.
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
My definition of a thug is a person who breaks the law and their actions harm a person or take their life because of their actions. If we look at the true origins of the word thug is totally different to how they are spoken of today. The term Thug is more akin to that of Assassin, a religion of certain areas of the far and near east.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
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
The only thing I agree with in this startling admission on your part is where you say that the legal system does not have a charge of being a thug. You don't seem to have a definition of being a thug either.
Manslaughter is not a charge that requires violence for the charge to be made out. As the Hancock and Shankland case proves, you can set out not to cause serious harm, and still end up convicted of manslaughter. So, to sustain your claim that these men were thugs, you have to keep on asserting that anyone who is found guilty of manslaughter must, ipso facto, be a thug. Except when he's a speeding driver, of course...
Admission
. You have lost me sorry. Perhaps if you could clarify I could answer.Dave_Notts
Go on admit it...they were just naughty teenagers who did not really know what they were doing.
Quote by Dave__Notts
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
The only thing I agree with in this startling admission on your part is where you say that the legal system does not have a charge of being a thug. You don't seem to have a definition of being a thug either.
Manslaughter is not a charge that requires violence for the charge to be made out. As the Hancock and Shankland case proves, you can set out not to cause serious harm, and still end up convicted of manslaughter. So, to sustain your claim that these men were thugs, you have to keep on asserting that anyone who is found guilty of manslaughter must, ipso facto, be a thug. Except when he's a speeding driver, of course...
Admission
. You have lost me sorry. Perhaps if you could clarify I could answer.Manslaughter does not have to have intent to cause serious harm or even a little harm or no harm. In fact, harm does not even come into it. That is the realms of murder. Now I see your confusion. You are mixing the two up. I am sorry you can't understand this.
Now looking at the ipso facto statement, well quite right. That is how I look at it in this case. You have given no evidence to show their actions were not thuggish. I look at each case on its own merits, and the evidence links that have been shown here or the facts of the case has shown this not to be an act of accident. What I mean by that is a drunk walks home and slips off the pavement, where a car swerves to miss him and the driver runs into and kills some other person. The drunk has caused manslaughter as their act caused the death of another. Now this case I would class as an accident if these two miners were walking along and the block of concrete found its way into their hands accidently and then they tripped and it accidently fell over the bridge. In this scenario I would agree with you, but it did not as they took a decision to pick up the block and another decision to throw it off the bridge.
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
My definition of a thug is a person who breaks the law and their actions harm a person or take their life because of their actions. If we look at the true origins of the word thug is totally different to how they are spoken of today. The term Thug is more akin to that of Assassin, a religion of certain areas of the far and near east.
Dave_Notts
So we're back to you deciding that speeding drivers who kill are thugs. Or better still, a copmpany director who doesn't do his duty to ensure health and safety. leading to the death of his employee - he's a thug too. We've got to a point where you've rendered the word thug meaningless. Well done.
Sex God
For me, I think I have to conclude, despite how they are described in eyes of the law, the act of heaving some thing of a bridge, into the path of a car, despite their intention not to hurt any one, is beyond foolish. I would suggest even a young child would hesitate at such actions.
It was, to me a very aggressive action that would certainly fall under the category of thug
The following is clearly an act of thuggery, but by the logic no one was charged for it then it can not have been thuggery
It was, to me a very aggressive action that would certainly fall under the category of thug
The following is clearly an act of thuggery, but by the logic no one was charged for it then it can not have been thuggery
Quote by awayman
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
Dave_Notts
So we're back to you deciding that speeding drivers who kill are thugs. Or better still, a copmpany director who doesn't do his duty to ensure health and safety. leading to the death of his employee - he's a thug too. We've got to a point where you've rendered the word thug meaningless. Well done.
Thanks for the answers to my questions.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
Dave_Notts
So we're back to you deciding that speeding drivers who kill are thugs. Or better still, a copmpany director who doesn't do his duty to ensure health and safety. leading to the death of his employee - he's a thug too. We've got to a point where you've rendered the word thug meaningless. Well done.
Thanks for the answers to my questions.
Dave_Notts
Do you think they needed answers Dave? You've already made a tediously false claim about what I have or haven't said about the difference between murder and manslaughter, why should I bother answering irrelevant questions? We're onto page thirteen and you still haven't got to grips with the issues. I have never asserted that they didn't thrown the concrete block off the bridge. So what's the point of your questions?
Quote by awayman
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
Dave_Notts
So we're back to you deciding that speeding drivers who kill are thugs. Or better still, a copmpany director who doesn't do his duty to ensure health and safety. leading to the death of his employee - he's a thug too. We've got to a point where you've rendered the word thug meaningless. Well done.
Thanks for the answers to my questions.
Dave_Notts
Do you think they needed answers Dave? You've already made a tediously false claim about what I have or haven't said about the difference between murder and manslaughter, why should I bother answering irrelevant questions? We're onto page thirteen and you still haven't got to grips with the issues. I have never asserted that they didn't thrown the concrete block off the bridge. So what's the point of your questions?
Thanks for the answer to my question.
So forget this is about miners, police, strikers, etc.
A person throws a block of concrete off a bridge onto a road where traffic travel along. This can be any bridge, in any country. This act is described as what?
From this thread you assert it is an act of someone who is foolish.
I assert it is an act of a thug.
Why is my descriptor less valid than yours?
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Not sure now, if we have discussed this or not?
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.
Is here correct? I don't think so, I believe the cuts are not only required but urgent.
Or is he another union leader wishing to take on the Torys?
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.
Is here correct? I don't think so, I believe the cuts are not only required but urgent.
Or is he another union leader wishing to take on the Torys?
Quote by Dave__Notts
Just two questions for you:
1) Did they deliberately and consciously pick up the block of concrete on their own volition?
2) Did they deliberately and consciously throw the block of concrete off the bridge?
The verdict and sentance says they did. This is what I base my judgement on. Prove to me they did not and you have changed my mind.
Dave_Notts
So we're back to you deciding that speeding drivers who kill are thugs. Or better still, a copmpany director who doesn't do his duty to ensure health and safety. leading to the death of his employee - he's a thug too. We've got to a point where you've rendered the word thug meaningless. Well done.
Thanks for the answers to my questions.
Dave_Notts
Do you think they needed answers Dave? You've already made a tediously false claim about what I have or haven't said about the difference between murder and manslaughter, why should I bother answering irrelevant questions? We're onto page thirteen and you still haven't got to grips with the issues. I have never asserted that they didn't thrown the concrete block off the bridge. So what's the point of your questions?
Thanks for the answer to my question.
So forget this is about miners, police, strikers, etc.
A person throws a block of concrete off a bridge onto a road where traffic travel along. This can be any bridge, in any country. This act is described as what?
From this thread you assert it is an act of someone who is foolish.
I assert it is an act of a thug.
Why is my descriptor less valid than yours?
Dave_Notts
Because you've stretched the meaning of your descriptor beyond breaking point - a word that began as a name for vilent, deliberate criminals who set out to rob and harm people now includes, in your world, people who did not set out to cause harm.
As an example of the dilution of meaning by hyperbole it's pretty much a textbook case.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Oh for gods sake !! Just admit that you are wrong for once !!!
Just because the law says they didn`t mean any harm doesn`t mean that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can`t see the truth.
Or, agree to disagree and move on. It's just going around in circles.
Quote by Freckledbird
Oh for gods sake !! Just admit that you are wrong for once !!!
Just because the law says they didn`t mean any harm doesn`t mean that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can`t see the truth.
Or, agree to disagree and move on. It's just going around in circles.
They probably can't even do that without a discussion...
Quote by Freckledbird
Oh for gods sake !! Just admit that you are wrong for once !!!
Just because the law says they didn`t mean any harm doesn`t mean that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can`t see the truth.
Or, agree to disagree and move on. It's just going around in circles.
Thats me told then
Dave_Notts
My last say on the matter I promise.
Someone who did not set out to cause harm can not be looked on as a thug?
A few examples will mean these acts are not of a thug but of someone who is foolish only then.
1) Someone who puts a firework through a letterbox of a house.
2) Someone who throws a brick through a window.
3) Someone who throws a block of concrete off a bridge on to a road.
4) Someone who shines a powerful light at an aircraft.
5) Someone who etc...........
......as none of these acts started out to harm anyone but if these are googled then there will be cases where they resulted in harm to individuals.
Sometimes a dictionary definition is too narrow and words take on a new meaning within society to the acts they see around them.
Dave_Notts
Because you've stretched the meaning of your descriptor beyond breaking point - a word that began as a name for vilent, deliberate criminals who set out to rob and harm people now includes, in your world, people who did not set out to cause harm.
As an example of the dilution of meaning by hyperbole it's pretty much a textbook case.
Someone who did not set out to cause harm can not be looked on as a thug?
A few examples will mean these acts are not of a thug but of someone who is foolish only then.
1) Someone who puts a firework through a letterbox of a house.
2) Someone who throws a brick through a window.
3) Someone who throws a block of concrete off a bridge on to a road.
4) Someone who shines a powerful light at an aircraft.
5) Someone who etc...........
......as none of these acts started out to harm anyone but if these are googled then there will be cases where they resulted in harm to individuals.
Sometimes a dictionary definition is too narrow and words take on a new meaning within society to the acts they see around them.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Freckledbird
Oh for gods sake !! Just admit that you are wrong for once !!!
Just because the law says they didn`t mean any harm doesn`t mean that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can`t see the truth.
Or, agree to disagree and move on. It's just going around in circles.
I'm not the one implying that anyone who doesn;t share my opinions has less than an ounce of intelligence.
Incidentally, is the notion that you can weigh intelligence evidence of higher intelligence?
Sex God
Quote by awayman
I'm not the one implying that anyone who doesn;t share my opinions has less than an ounce of intelligence.
And I think I know Dave well enough to know that he isn't implying that either. You both have different ideas - doesn't mean either of you is right (or wrong)or more/less intelligent.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Just like going back to the bad old days...
Now this is a real thug.....or maybe he is not to some??
I don`t think it`s possible to go back to the "bad old days" ....I`m assuming you are refering to the late seventies early eighties !
If strikers fail to gain public sympathy and start trying to intimidate those that want to work I`ve no doubt that facebook, twitter and mobile phones will enable people to fight back .....
I know I`d take some time out to support somebody trying to get to work against a bunch of bullies trying to stop them :thumbup:
Ohh anti strike rallies, I like that :thumbup: I don't like bullies either
Quote by Bluefish2009
TUC chief Brendan Barber has said the public will not accept large-scale spending cuts, as trade unions gather in Manchester.
Is here correct? I don't think so, I believe the cuts are not only required but urgent.
Or is he another union leader wishing to take on the Torys?
Alright, I normally don't go into the Current Affairs section of the Forum these days but the above got me back.
The British Public will not support the Strikes not because we are against the Trade Union Movement but because we are selfish. We only take any action when something directly effects us on a personal level.
An example being that the area I live has a public pathway that leads to the Local Train Station that has bad lighting that makes it unsafe. This has been a problem for well over 20yrs but nobody has ever done anything about it until I raised it with the Local Cllr & MP.
Am going to deal with this issue once my personal concerns are dealt with.
In short, we British just selfish 'we close our curtains' & don't care what happens outside. Then watch The X-Factor & talk about it on Facebook, read about it in The Red-Tops along with endless debates (yes, I've seen them) at work...!! We are also a nation of spineless wimps whom don't do anything direct (unlike the French or Germans) the amount of people I've met whom moan about that certain colleague OR Line Manager whom they hate in work... yet they don't do nothing about these people whom make their lives a 'horror-show' & I have to sit in the Pub hearing them moan about this until they either leave or that person does.
I mention about HR but the reply is like a 'peseant being asked to stand up against The Sherriff of Notingham'...yet in these times we have Employment Law.
In short, us British want to live in the past hence ALL this recent retro stuff about the 1980's? What I remember about the 80's was the Pop Music & Liverpool Football Club being great but everything was either just about alright or sh*%e.
Yet, the revolution will occur in the UK in about 15 - 18yrs when people realize that due to over subscription (is that the correct term?) of the Under Graduate University System tooo many people will have degrees but will be working in really really low paid jobs. Some will accept this, others will try to move abroad but others will start to commit suicide. At first a few then loads.... all with 2:1's & 1st...!!
People will then realize that the whole way we live our lives in Britian is rubbish.
Old saying.. where all in this together.
