No it works exactly the same way as your argument. Why worry about protecting a few people who are statistically insignificant. Even the September 11th attacks, the largest terrorist attack in modern history, killed a minute quantity of people compared to:
driving a motor car
smoking cigarettes
drinking alcohol
living in sub Saharan Africa
etc etc etc
I suspect that the number of people injured by terrorists in this country in the last year is significantly less than the number of photographers who have been harassed by officious plods.
No it works exactly the same way as your argument. Why worry about protecting a few people who are statistically insignificant. Even the September 11th attacks, the largest terrorist attack in modern history, killed a minute quantity of people compared to:
driving a motor car
smoking cigarettes
drinking alcohol
living in sub Saharan Africa
etc etc etc
I suspect that the number of people injured by terrorists in this country in the last year is significantly less than the number of photographers who have been harassed by officious plods.
Prevention of these are in place already, apart from etc etc etc, that's why statistically the deaths have reduced. All of the above are legal activities of which the vast majority of deaths have been either self inflicted or accidental, apart from etc etc etc.
Terrorism is a deliberate act to kill innocents. Have you noticed the difference?
How many of the 'harrased hundreds' have been physically injured, or even killed, by such measures?
How many of the 'harrased hundreds' have been physically injured, or even killed, by such measures?
You're moving the goalposts again.
How many people having their civil liberties abused are equal to one death? If you can come up with a number we can work out how many people are allowed to have their rights trampled on to make up for preventing one terrorist attack...
How many people having their civil liberties abused are equal to one death? If you can come up with a number we can work out how many people are allowed to have their rights trampled on to make up for preventing one terrorist attack...
I'm moving the goalpost? Good grief Mr Pot, methinks your kettle is dark...
Terrorism is a deliberate act to kill innocents. Have you noticed the difference?
Here's some more then:
Premeditated murder
Botched robbery
Gang violence
These all involve killing innocent people, shall we ban kitchen knives next? Arrest anyone buying black clothing in case they're going to rob a petrol station? better ban motorcycle helmets too, but that's alright because motorcyclists are a minority so it doesn't matter if they can't ride their bikes any more.
These all involve killing innocent people, shall we ban kitchen knives next? Arrest anyone buying black clothing in case they're going to rob a petrol station? better ban motorcycle helmets too, but that's alright because motorcyclists are a minority so it doesn't matter if they can't ride their bikes any more.
Have YOU noticed the similarity?
I believe there are laws and measures to prevent specific areas of crime, above included.
SOCA was developed to prevent organised crime specifically, which [pretty much includes your list above, exception of botched robbery because unbotched robbery caused unnecessary suffering to innocents as well...
Laws are therefore in place to cover such issues, therefore you can buy a kitchen knife, but you can't carry it in public. (Why would someone robbing a petrol station wear black? Surely any thief at night time should wear black...)
SOCA was developed to prevent organised crime specifically
Premeditated murder doesn't have to be organised crime. Planning to kill your wife, with a kitchen knife, inside your house makes it premeditated murder and there's no way to prevent it if people are allowed to keep knives in their kitchen...
Premeditated murder doesn't have to be organised crime. Planning to kill your wife, with a kitchen knife, inside your house makes it premeditated murder and there's no way to prevent it if people are allowed to keep knives in their kitchen...
I said includes. Do you accept that organised crime includes premeditated murder?
I which case there was obviously no terrorism or threats of terrorism prior to these laws...
Wrong way round, the threat of terrorism must be why they made the new laws, now that they're passed there is no threat of terrorism any more as being a terrorist would be illegal now yay!
We can all sleep soundly now knowing that the new laws have made terrorism a thing of the past.
Wrong way round, the threat of terrorism must be why they made the new laws, now that they're passed there is no threat of terrorism any more as being a terrorist would be illegal now yay!
We can all sleep soundly now knowing that the new laws have made terrorism a thing of the past.
You said the existing laws were sufficient, which would mean that terrorism was already being prevented.
You said the existing laws were sufficient, which would mean that terrorism was already being prevented.
You still never posted a list of terrorists who have been thwarted and tried, and which section of the terrorism act they were convicted under. Until you do that I can't demonstrate how the existing laws were sufficient I'm afraid...
You still never posted a list of terrorists who have been thwarted and tried, and which section of the terrorism act they were convicted under. Until you do that I can't demonstrate how the existing laws were sufficient I'm afraid...
Goalpost move number 403.
Ok. Can you list the acts of terrorism which have taken place prior to the act please, whilst I go and dig up a list of convictions under the act as well?
No really, I don't. The only reason I keep poking you is cause we're all enjoying a good laugh watching you dig yourself in logical holes and make yourself look like a complete plonker.
No really, I don't. The only reason I keep poking you is cause we're all enjoying a good laugh watching you dig yourself in logical holes and make yourself look like a complete plonker.
No they don't. Look at the all the convicted Irish terrorists released to make Tony Blair look good. Or the Lockerbie bomber released despite the wishes of the families of that atrocity.
The British legal system doesn't care about the victims of terrorism. Just like it doesn't care about the victims of any real crime. Trust me, that's the case.
You know what I mean, my semantics might be wrong, but my point stands.
If your semantics are wrong your point is wrong too. Everyone who goes on about "but it's just semantics" are dismissing the whole point of communication. Semantics are the *meaning* of what we say so it's incredibly important to get them right if you want to make something meaningful (it's syntax - spelling and grammar - which are less important, so long as the syntax is sufficiently well formed that the reader/listener can figure out the actual semantics, in other words the meaning. But if the semantics are wrong, the entire message is lost even if the grammar and spelling is 100% correct).
If we don't take care over semantics we may as well just be grunting like cavemen.
If your semantics are wrong your point is wrong too. Everyone who goes on about "but it's just semantics" are dismissing the whole point of communication. Semantics are the *meaning* of what we say so it's incredibly important to get them right if you want to make something meaningful (it's syntax - spelling and grammar - which are less important, so long as the syntax is sufficiently well formed that the reader/listener can figure out the actual semantics, in other words the meaning. But if the semantics are wrong, the entire message is lost even if the grammar and spelling is 100% correct).
If we don't take care over semantics we may as well just be grunting like cavemen.
It's difficult to imagine someone exaggerating more than you have. Most of the people I meet use a very limited volcabularly (we all do noawadays it seems) yet we understand each other. And even though I should have said something like "The British legal system doesn't treat the victims of terrorism as they deserve" instead of "The British legal system doesn't care about the victims of terrorism" can you honestly say that even one person who read my post would likely misunderstand it?
Comments
No it works exactly the same way as your argument. Why worry about protecting a few people who are statistically insignificant. Even the September 11th attacks, the largest terrorist attack in modern history, killed a minute quantity of people compared to:
I suspect that the number of people injured by terrorists in this country in the last year is significantly less than the number of photographers who have been harassed by officious plods.
Terrorism is a deliberate act to kill innocents. Have you noticed the difference?
How many of the 'harrased hundreds' have been physically injured, or even killed, by such measures?
You're moving the goalposts again.
How many people having their civil liberties abused are equal to one death? If you can come up with a number we can work out how many people are allowed to have their rights trampled on to make up for preventing one terrorist attack...
It was flippancy... :rolleyes:
Here's some more then:
- Premeditated murder
- Botched robbery
- Gang violence
These all involve killing innocent people, shall we ban kitchen knives next? Arrest anyone buying black clothing in case they're going to rob a petrol station? better ban motorcycle helmets too, but that's alright because motorcyclists are a minority so it doesn't matter if they can't ride their bikes any more.Have YOU noticed the similarity?
SOCA was developed to prevent organised crime specifically, which [pretty much includes your list above, exception of botched robbery because unbotched robbery caused unnecessary suffering to innocents as well...
Laws are therefore in place to cover such issues, therefore you can buy a kitchen knife, but you can't carry it in public. (Why would someone robbing a petrol station wear black? Surely any thief at night time should wear black...)
Yep, the same laws that make the terrorism laws unnecessary :p
Premeditated murder doesn't have to be organised crime. Planning to kill your wife, with a kitchen knife, inside your house makes it premeditated murder and there's no way to prevent it if people are allowed to keep knives in their kitchen...
I said includes. Do you accept that organised crime includes premeditated murder?
Wrong way round, the threat of terrorism must be why they made the new laws, now that they're passed there is no threat of terrorism any more as being a terrorist would be illegal now yay!
We can all sleep soundly now knowing that the new laws have made terrorism a thing of the past.
You still never posted a list of terrorists who have been thwarted and tried, and which section of the terrorism act they were convicted under. Until you do that I can't demonstrate how the existing laws were sufficient I'm afraid...
Ok. Can you list the acts of terrorism which have taken place prior to the act please, whilst I go and dig up a list of convictions under the act as well?
No because they have no relevance to whether or not the terrorism act is an unnecessary law.
Also I can't be bothered and don't really care anyway.
Of course...
No really, I don't. The only reason I keep poking you is cause we're all enjoying a good laugh watching you dig yourself in logical holes and make yourself look like a complete plonker.
don't worry, the government are going to spend all our money on a bear patrol.
and so the cycle is complete ;)
No they don't. Look at the all the convicted Irish terrorists released to make Tony Blair look good. Or the Lockerbie bomber released despite the wishes of the families of that atrocity.
The British legal system doesn't care about the victims of terrorism. Just like it doesn't care about the victims of any real crime. Trust me, that's the case.
The British legal system isn't a person, it is incapable of caring, or indeed any emotion. Which is the way it should be, emotion clouds judgement.
I knew you'd say that
You know what I mean, my semantics might be wrong, but my point stands.
We talkin' bout that there Commode forum, eh?
If your semantics are wrong your point is wrong too. Everyone who goes on about "but it's just semantics" are dismissing the whole point of communication. Semantics are the *meaning* of what we say so it's incredibly important to get them right if you want to make something meaningful (it's syntax - spelling and grammar - which are less important, so long as the syntax is sufficiently well formed that the reader/listener can figure out the actual semantics, in other words the meaning. But if the semantics are wrong, the entire message is lost even if the grammar and spelling is 100% correct).
If we don't take care over semantics we may as well just be grunting like cavemen.
It's difficult to imagine someone exaggerating more than you have. Most of the people I meet use a very limited volcabularly (we all do noawadays it seems) yet we understand each other. And even though I should have said something like "The British legal system doesn't treat the victims of terrorism as they deserve" instead of "The British legal system doesn't care about the victims of terrorism" can you honestly say that even one person who read my post would likely misunderstand it?
Homo Erectus and Neanderthals both had language....
Semantics I know... :lol: