Registered bored user

jayme21 wrote:
muert yeah Kansas problem was the pass through taxes. Which as the article said allowed too many entities to avoid taxes altogether. So where as you could get more activity thats pointless if its 0%. Even more pointless when you were removing your activity that was paying above that.   https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2017/06/09/kansas-shows-how-not-to-design-a-tax-cut-not-that-all-tax-cuts-are-bad/

I have more time for the following arguments. Tax cuts dont increase revenue when you dont have a mobile pool of workers to call from. E.g put immigration controls and tax cuts. Or creating a race to the bottom woth cuts is a classic orisoner dilemma everyone suffers eventually.
jayme21 wrote:
Wonder how much crime, awkward unprotecred stranger sex and truths told happened in those 40 minutes. 

Like think you have 40 minutes left to live what would you do?
jayme21 wrote:
boredhuman i agree was the thrust of my comment. 

conservative news-media,

Doesnt help. It's smug and as you say 

people are on both political spectra; 

I also find it interesting i agree with a point equating fact denial with conservatism. Give examples to show its not unique to that side of the spetrum and quickly get people saying its both sides in response to that onesidedness. That was the whole point of mentioning the othersides idiots...
jayme21 wrote:
It's pointless to excuse the sins of the self by talking about the sins of the rival.

That was the whole thrust of my comment. I agreed adding conservative is insulting. As ignorance crosses the political dividem
jayme21 wrote:
bearbear01 i agree. Liberals misuse stats and statiatics and science as well. See nuclear and GM for obvious examples. Just agree getting your science from blogs etc is a bad idea. One of the biggest anti science its what i feels that counts people is starting to build steam for the democrats. That Queen Oprah who perhaps has done more harm against modern medicine than anyone else atm. 
jayme21 wrote:
madduck the full article pointed out she is still playing in Russia which has dubious rights problems in Ukraine, Syria and at home.so why single out Israel.
jayme21 wrote:
daegog yeah and thats the point why is one country selectively chosen.

I personally dont give a damb where she plays. But the point of the ad was to say the rights issue runs hollow considering where else she is playing. By ommitting the russia bit of the ad it changes from 'criticise only israel the jewish place your being anti semetic' to 'critise israel your anti semetic".... 
jayme21 wrote:
Think its biased write up Fancy. The advert also made the point that Lorde is not cancelling her 2 shows in Russia. Which is involved in bombing in Syria , annexation of Crimea and supporting the civil war in Ukraine and is not rxactly democratic locking up journalist's and banning the opposition from running. The argument being if its genuinely about juman rights why can she still go there?

jayme21 wrote:
This guy is a monster so you can't really feel bad for anything bad that happens to him.

This is the same attitude that causrs the injustices people here complain about all the time and the biggest problem of a lot of justice ststems. Once you start saying its okay to do whatever to "evil" it then just hecomes a matter of defining evil and that can be pretty wide. 

jayme21 wrote:
punko sweden is dealing with a lot of crap because of the Israel decision atm. Why? Its all the syrians and iraqis theyve accepted are causing problems for the jews. 

jayme21 wrote:
layla_wilson are you sure? Do you also boycott Russia? China? Turkey? And ill widen it for probably less contemptuous examples to you  USA and UK? For the occupation and ill treatment of other territories? Why is Israel so special for your boycott? 
jayme21 wrote:
but not in favor of buying them from that particular company

It not just a evil jewish product but evil jewish science. The world will just have to suffer.... becauss these jews deserve it being born in Israel no doubt....
jayme21 wrote:
Interesting. Whats different between an indictment and conviction? Im assuming one is charge  other is then having it proven then they had sentences to show seriousness? If thats the case it could change the perspectice here.
jayme21 wrote:
rumham ive had it happen a couple of times in UK supermarkets. Got sent to a different till becauae the cashier wont touch packaged pork or alcohol. Minor inconvience but an a hurry its annoyinf. Fair enough but shouldnt go for a job they cant fully do. And there has been court cases on discrimnation over this with the religous exemption winning. 
jayme21 wrote:
jarred i acrually think Bush and Clinton have more class in this then Obama. A POTUS shouldnt be demeaning the office of its successor. Theyve had their term dont snipe from the sidelines.
jayme21 wrote:
Actually agree with 5cats here. Big difference between clock boy and this kid. Clock boy seemed like a hoax to get attention they got away with. And to counter people wouldn't do that, think Balloon Boy or Shannon Mathews people doing it for profit. Think the Trump Fire or the Islamic women claiming to be attacked by Trump supporters which was fake and people doing it to paint as nasty and themselves as victims. 

Clock boy was warned earlier in the day by one of his teachers not to show the clock/set it off etc. He then did later to different teacher. Purposefully obstructive in the investigation by school then police. And the device looked like a fake bomb for the general population.  They done very well out of it. I have not seen any compellong evidence in any narrative that doesnt make me think it was a hoax that went further than expected. 

This kid different story. Should have been handeld differently if they kid did infact say Allah boom...and thats to say some sort look should be made in same way if kid said "daddy pain ""mummy ouch" etc words ypud want to try and find the origin.
jayme21 wrote:
holygod id actually reckon an attempted cop killer wont be. He looks like he will join up some white brotherhood and be fine in the pecking order.
jayme21 wrote:
Good Cops are like Unicorns these days...
Data i found came for 2008. Over 1.1 million police officers. Or more than 373 per 100, 000 people.

Probably what we see here couple dozen high profile police cases a year.  According to this research 96% of complaints cases police didn't get prosecuted between 1995 and 2015. That totalled around 13,000 reports of violations. Cant find firmer data of police complaints from my brief search (couple of minutes)

So the overwhelming vast majority of police officers are the good guys teying their best. Not unicorns....
jayme21 wrote:
But, since a vast majority of rape claims, particularly college rape claims, are never actually prosecuted, it's not really much of an issue yet.

I disagree. Its creating problem of trust in the system which is why this whole argument about false accusations and the other argument of justiceless victims even exist. 
jayme21 wrote:
madduck It's not rare. Its think its more misunderstandings then malice on either side. See my comment above on how a innocent sexual encounter ends up with a person feeling falsely accused of rape and a person genuinely feeling raped and let down by the system. By far the majority of instances police and courts come into contact with are when the 'victim' is somewhere between tipsy and passed out drunk. 
jayme21 wrote:
The most common type of Rape is drunken sex rape. Or as this post referred "date rape". Most people are decent human beings and not attacking strangers.

In English Law at least, a women cannot rape a man. Sexual Offences Act 2003

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The consent bit is the problem, drunken consent is still consent. Too drunk and a person is unable to consent. Part c is to stop false accusations of people who may sleep with someone consenting then change thier mind. 

No one disagrees passed out folk cant consent that is rape. No one would say a tipsy person is unable to consent. Having sex with tipsy people is not rape. Its the grey area in the middle where rapes/sex happen and which causes the problems and pain with false accusations and low conviction rates.

People react very differently to alcohol some people appear more coherent when they're actually way passed it. Add a equally drunk man who has to decide if they're coherent enough to give consent. They can believe their bed partner legitimately consented and was in a position to do so. She/He can wake up and not remember consenting or feel they were unable to do so and taken advantage of. If it can be established they reasonably appeared able to consent its not Rape. 

This is the most common thing anyone working in this area sees. Men(accused) will often feel terrible when they get told. As most humans are decent and they thought they had revieved consented. They may also feel resentful and villified for the accusation. Most women/men(victims) will feel let down by a system because they feel raped and it doesn't get a conviction and punishment. 

This is why occasionally you get a judge or policeperson tell woman to be careful how much they drink. Usually to cries of outrage from a feminist group who cant see the context. As the law is sexist by its definition only men can commit rape, the burden is on women and gay men not to get in that grey area where everyone loses.

But this will forever be a problem while we have alcohol and sex. And society should be better educated at how this situation happens. 
jayme21 wrote:
markust123 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11753050

Soilders rejected orders from a general which would have likely started a much wider conflict in kosovo. That being said Brits rejected US orders. But soilders do have brains.
jayme21 wrote:
mrsnowmeiser 'if I go down i'm taking you with me'.  Is exactly the mentality that has created stability in western countries since WW2. No ones going to launch an attack on a nuclear armed state or ally under a mutual defence agreement. Why? Because everything would be destroyed including whatever reason you went to war over. When people say i wont fire back you then change the calculation to "there is a chance ill get what i want they wont fire back" its why subsequently its all been proxy fights. 
jayme21 wrote:
phacter im not saying its definitive. Im saying think its arguable in court. 

R v knight a guy made threatening phonecall over the phone to judges and police. Threat wasnt imminent even said it was in the future he had no present ability  but held to be assualt.

They were never in fear of imminent harm.

Rixon vs Star City women offered lift, then money for sex. When refused guy sped up said his freind will sort her out then she jumped out the car. Classed as assualt.

Proof of assault requires proof of an intention to create in another person an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact...proof of the assault does not require proof of an intention to follow it up or carry it through

Tweeden was given apprehension that imminently after that picture she had harmful or offensive contact against her. The assualt happens when she became aware that she was in imment harms way. Not when he took the picture when she saw the picture. As thats when all criteria hit.

I disagree that its completely clear that this cannot be assualt because she was passed out at the time. And reckon i could argue it out in front of a judge that  Tweeden was assualted. 

But i fully accept a case hasnt been taken to court and this one wont be. And in my original comment said i reckon i could argue it in court. Ive seen sketchier arguments succeed. 
jayme21 wrote:
Just to make the point different juridisctions have slightly different defintions of assualt. Didnt know which federal or state law to look up so went dor the canadian.Take Canada as section 265 criminal code.


  • 265
    (1) A person commits an assault when

    • (a)
      without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

    • (b)
      he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

I could easily make an argument for the b circumstances :

"he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person"

 The whole point of it was to suggest he was grabbing her breasts whether he did or not, The 'joke' act was to suggest he was attempting to. Id say it meets the criteria.

"if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose;"

Tweeden believes he did. That hurdle passed.

Final part is that belief reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe he did thats the key part.

Reasonable tests for self-defence feom assualt apply the same. From  case law Szczerbaniwicz it is an objective test taken from the a subjectice perspective. I.e was it reasonable when she saw picture to believe he did assualt. Id say yes. If you saw a photo of someone doing that over you at that point, objectively you would believe he followed through. Ergo the act and reasonable belief are there happening upon her seeing the photo. If he'd followrd through its assualt under a and not going into it as no one disagrees with that.