jayme21

Registered bored user

jayme21 wrote:
waldo863 its on the approved USDA/APHIS list Apple from France. Ever worked in /around customs? Failure to declare can often meam destruction of item even if allowable.

Also, you seem to think it's Delta's fault she decided to take her free IN-FLIGHT snack off the Flight?  No
Where have I said that?
I said 
Airlines should warn for simple fact its happended enough now for them to know its an issue.
Airlines dont have to do a lot of things they do to be helpful.  They give out landing cards for instance. Cathay Pacific give out toothbrushes and toothpaste at HK. Airlines tell you the local time and weather. Its making things smoother for thier customers.

They should do it as it costs them nothing and limits ill will from people who forget they were given an apple 2 hours ago on a 12 hour flight or think its insignificant and then blame them.
jayme21 wrote:
aegis1294 im saying someone who is antisemetic may find it hilarious to have dog that does that to wind up jews and then claim its just a joke.

I bought some nazi coins for a historical interest. At uni some arab lefty friends(no more) found out, wanted to see them and conversation moved to evil jewish bankers, jewish lobby and israel. Ask them theyd say it was historical interest, i have no doubt the 'nazis had a point' stuff was probably a bigger factor.

Or think the N word Nickle pranks on youtube. Where the guy films reactions to saying Nickle giving impression its nigger. Hed say its a joke comments demeaning black people underneath like the racial baiting and superiority of judging the reaction.

So was it a joke? Was it more sinister? I dont know i wasnt in court to get all relevant information. But just cause someone gives a non nefarious reason publicly doesnt always mean its the case it could just be sophistry.
jayme21 wrote:
squrlz4ever do you think joint role of Mod & Debater is having an effect on this interaction?
jayme21 wrote:
waldo863 its processed food. They'll look at it and then give it back. It is ourrly the failure to declare. Remember seeing a China Oz flight where 30 odd chinese nationals on a tour all got fines for the "free" apples. Airlines should warn for simple fact its happended enough now for them to know its an issue.
jayme21 wrote:
holygod dont travel to Australia...
jayme21 wrote:
punko the man is called Count Dankula a small time youtube comedian. Gervaise (for reasons that escape me) is a prominent high profile British comedian. The nature of the case is the limits and punishment of humour in British. Its his trade and has direct relation to what he can and can't do in Britian. 

Its like getting Ford CEO to dicuss car emissions legislation. Or a banker on a lending rules court case.
jayme21 wrote:
aegis1294 what someone claims and what true motives are dont always match. 

That being said was a stupid case that was not in the public interest to pursue and shouldnt have gone to trial. 
jayme21 wrote:
Id accept her rolling her eyes etc because people fake illness all the time in court .

But regardlesd you have to treat people as if it is real for cases like this where it was. The woman was obviously confused not getting adequate legal advice and was just trying to explain the situation i.e the daughter living there is not a yes no question as she lives there part of the time.

Did the judge cause her death? No. Did she cause cause her last moments of life to be degrading ?yes. 
jayme21 wrote:
casaledana if you have children and  are statisticslly likely to die before thst child hits adulthood thats unfair on the child. You are relying on state, family friends to nurture and support your offspring when you die. They're more likely to need to help look after you as  you will statistically need care and cannot provide it properly. How can you go run around a park or play catch when that old.

Just because some parents get hit by a bus, or some cant raise the children properly doesnt mean its okay because they  definitively wont raise a child properly and give it the same start in life
jayme21 wrote:
monkwarrior tut tut
§ 4.5. Do not vilify or give disrespectful nicknames to individual users.

§ 4.10. Do not introduce or spread rumors about another user's personal or professional life.
Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: claiming a user beats his wife; claiming a user is an alcoholic or drug addict; claiming a user suffers from a serious mental illness.
jayme21 wrote:
trimble that attitude ended causing havoc with he who shall not be named... Speaking of which there is a user here who reminds me of them.
jayme21 wrote:
AE911Truth testified before a distinguished panel of attorneys representing the Lawyers’ Committee, including the late Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy.

Why are they mis contextualising stuff? The late Ferdinando Imposimato was a an Italian politician with prior legal experience and in the Italian system honorary judges etc are not legal experts but lay input. Itd be like saying Hillary Clinton is a distinguished judicial authority.

When you read that it makes you wonder what other stuff is mis contextualised and manipulated. How many of thier distinguished engineers are not.
jayme21 wrote:
holygod 

Reebo has a point

3.2. "The Vegas Rule"
The Vegas Rule can be summarized as follows: "What happens in a thread, stays in that thread." More specifically, it means every thread is a fresh start and users are not allowed to attack other users based on something that occurred in another thread. Using The Vegas Rule, moderators will judge the behavior of users in a given thread solely by what has transpired in that same thread.
jayme21 wrote:
emmettyville  im not saying some of the content is not good. But HBO style programs aren't Hollywood, British film isn't Hollywood, Bollywood, Indie etc. 
jayme21 wrote:
rumham yeah I found it when I read a 'if you liked X then youll like x article' it was slated as better than firefly, disagree but expanse was only show I agreed was good out the list. 

Annoyingly in UK I have to either go through hassle of finding a decent stream or waiting until Autumn :/


jayme21 wrote:
Does Netflix count as Hollywood now?
jayme21 wrote:
Ranking women as numbers bit of a twat. His central premise divorced mothers have higher priorities then a new man. Well of course. 

I actually agree, id prefer a women without baggage if i was still looking. Problem is at his age what does he expect? Its divorced men & women or people who had some quirk or reason( like being a judgy arse theyre 4 not 8 etc.)  not to marry. 

The chances of finding normal single non divorced childless people decreases the older you get.
jayme21 wrote:
Draculya you think they would after paying $4 billion 
jayme21 wrote:
jayme21 also mods does this treatment come under
§ 4.5. Do not vilify or give disrespectful nicknames to individual users.
I am being repeatedly villified as callous for a opinion ive never expressed.
jayme21 wrote:
It's fucking callous that you think a 15-year-old kid should be sentenced for murder for a cop killing someone else in a shootout.

I think someone invloved in serious criminal enterprises such as armed robbery. And anyone dies as a result of that should be held jointly responsible. I dont think a 15 year old should be tried as an adult. They're separate issues you can believe in one and not the other. 

Stop putting words in my mouth. 
jayme21 wrote:
 I read BBC, Guardian, Sky, Dailymail, Telegraph and some news from aggregate feeds. 

I always find it interesting when i see the Guardian with the same level of ommission as a Dailymail on many topics yet the disparate reputation of the two. 
jayme21 wrote:
dm2754 I was waiting round magistrates court watching cases. Two drink driving offences i always remember. Black man , white single mother.

Black man - unrepresented , caught on boxing day morning afer christmas drinking. Going to a business meeting about his personal training business hed started. Losing license would end this opportunity.

White women - Had a lawyer paid by mummy. Drinking with friends on a night out. Gets in car with friends after the club. Police walk up to her , tries to flee but stalls as shes too drunk. 

Same punishment both small fine and 9 month driving ban. 

No way was that fair.  Was it racial? Other black defendents got puny sentences that day. Was it the male female disparity? Was it fact she was a mother? 

We all saw in the office reguarly and our own cases always get a lawyer. 

I know most major injustices in USA have been legal access. Ive seen one where public defenders fee was $1000 to do a death penalty case o.O

But then ive also see unreformed criminals lieing everytime and just saying LEAs are racist. 

Its a difficult one. You can recognise peoples problems in the system and outcomes as disproportionate but the crimes are still being committed. 

Someones perception of the problem isnt always the reality.
jayme21 wrote:
How fucking callous do you have to be to call that sentencing fair, even with the breakdown?

Where have I said that? 

I pointed out he should have taken the sentencing deal. Because it made sense dven without the murder aspect.

A lot are complaining on the accomplice liability. I dont have a problem with that. Other aspects of the trial yes hence why i said. 

There are massive peoblems with the US justice system but I dont have a problem with joint enterprise laws
Problems*

Dont put words in peoples mouth. 
jayme21 wrote:
dm2754 theres a grain of truth in this. A lot of evidence shows that minorities are under the impression (rightly in some respects wrongly in others) the system is rigged against them. So they dont engage with it. Rather than accept the plea deal(even though plea deals are bullshit) show even fake remorse he was cocky annoyed the judge and treated harsher than could have been.

25 years would have been less that the 15 years for burglary 1st, 10 years for theft 1st and 10 years for theft 2nd. Then hit up parole in 10 years. 


jayme21 wrote:
He didnt get 65 years for the murder. He was sentenced to 30 years for felony murder, 15 years for burglary 1st, 10 years for theft 1st and 10 years for theft 2nd. 

So even removing the felony murder on that he would have been better off taking the deal. 

There are massive peoblems with the US justice system but I dont have a problem with joint enterprise laws. It serves a purpose getting criminsl groups and not just say the patsy they used to do actual deed.