Registered bored user

mikesex wrote:
johncourage Yup. What are the similarities between Clinton and the four I mentioned?
mikesex wrote:
johncourage I'm not defending anyone; just pointing out the similarities in certain cases. If you want to list all the incidents where Clinton's behaviour paralleled those of the four I mentioned, be my guest.

You seem to be suggesting that because A did it we shouldn't critisize B for doing the same thing. If I've misunderstood your point I apologise.
mikesex wrote:
Shelworth Well, I could have included JFK as well and there is no question that both he and Clinton were randy sods. Clinton was accused of rape, but so was Trump, and so far nothing proved in either case. We can but speculate.

I compared the four in particular because of the similarities. I'm guessing that JFK and Clinton were generally rather more attractive to the opposite sex, hence the lack of a comparable number of complaints.  

Perhaps a woman might weigh in with a female perspective?
mikesex wrote:
I'm intrigued by the similarities between Weinstein's activities and those reported about O'Reilly, Ailes and Trump. I thought Trump gave away an important truth about himself in that recording on the bus when he "moved on her like a bitch" and she knocked him back. I think these four got rejected a lot! 

I used to know a couple of guys who could score like bandits, it seemed that almost every woman they met was up for it. But they were men who liked women and, as importantly, were men who women liked. (Both ended up married with kids)

Now there is always going to be some activity around the flies of men who are (seem?) rich and powerful. But with these four I'm betting that most of the women they 'propositioned' were some combination of horrified, disgusted and repulsed. 

Got to wonder how it affects someone who sees himself as irresistible when all the action he gets he has to pay for.
mikesex wrote:
barry9a You raise a point in the first paragraph that I hadn't considered.

Have you any links that I can start with to follow this up?
mikesex wrote:
Sad as this is, I'm watching and listening to all the commentary that always accompanies this sort of event in the USA. A proponent of gun rights (?) in the US was interviewed on the BBC claiming that Australian and British governments 'confiscated' guns following similar events in those countries. Actually, the governments concerned responded to public anger hence the gun bans there. We want to be safe.

In Europe it's SNAFU, in the States it's FUBAR.

Ain't nothing going to change.
mikesex wrote:
Man really knows how to hold a grudge with the NFL! How long's it been now?
mikesex wrote:
5cats Except the majority weren't muslim Just check case by case.

The last time White Christians went on a jihad?  Well, you could try the Crusades. 11th century FYI...

mikesex wrote:
5cats http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/acid-attack-capital-britain-revealed-10008792

Just pick the bones out of this. Now I know every borough listed, I've lived in a few; good luck checking out the ethnic breakdown by population and crime rate. Really more of a social rather than muslim problem in my personal experience.

You and I can go round and round cherry picking our references. What is undeniable is that I live here and know for a fact that you are wrong about this particular issue whereas you (on a different continent) are on a continual search for any (generally spurious) reason for blaming muslims for pretty much everything- for reasons best known to yourself.

Although you could always quote examples from parts of the world you've spent more time in than me! (Not Uganda!!)

And I repeat:
Your point of view boils down to - if a white christian commits a crime it's because he's a criminal but if a brown muslim commits the same crime it's because he's a muslim.

As to why I listed the particular countries? Because those are the countries with reportedly significant numbers of the crime you highlighted. 

mikesex wrote:
5cats 50 attacks in a population of over 60,000,000. Massive Over Representation? I'd be interested in the source of those figures.

The particular nations I selected are those which recorded significant amounts of acid attacks. You know, the subject of our discussion?

mikesex wrote:
trimble The right side is the wrong side, the left side is the right side.
mikesex wrote:
5cats It's being going on since the 18th century in Britain. We even hung someone for it in the 1830's! Also check out the British film "Brighton Rock" from 1947. Just white guys.

Today, it's not just threatening; the convictions  in the UK have been for actual assaults by non-muslims. And acid attacks have not just occurred in Pakistan and UK. There are significant crime levels recorded in Colombia, Uganda, Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh as well. Two of those countries are majority Christian and two Hindu, majorities in excess of 80%.

Your point of view boils down to - if a white christian commits a crime it's because he's a criminal but if a brown muslim commits the same crime it's because he's a muslim. 

Generally, they're all just criminals.
mikesex wrote:
5cats I have about as much knowledge about the Canadian system as you apparently do about the UK system. So I wasn't commenting on the Canadian system, merely pointing out that your comments on the British system were incorrect.

In the UK you get a jury. Acid attack would be too serious a crime for a magistrates court.

As for 'And those UK acid attacks? Every single suspect they've caught has been Muslim so far..' that's just nonsense. Most of the attacks have been gang- or crime-related and a number of the subsequent arrests and convictions have been of white non-muslim perpetrators. That is a matter of Public Record.

Though muslims in Yorkshire were recently the target of threats of acid attacks coming from local white yobs.

In fact Britain has a history of such criminality going back a couple of centuries, long before muslims began settling here. So long history of it here too, yes!
mikesex wrote:
5cats 'then why would they NOT prosecute?'

They could, they might. It's unlikely, but even then a British jury would have the final say. They'd acquit.

Having done jury duty myself I wonder what evidence you have that people in Britain have been successfully prosecuted for self defense.

The British concern about pepper sprays and the like is that, unless regulated, too many people would carry an offensive weapon and claim it was for 'self defense'.

If you really want to see how that might play out in real life just google knife crime in UK. As a result of that problem the police and community take a very dim view of knife carrying, even pen knives sometimes. (Although I've had my own issue in New York for having a Swiss Army Knife in my ruckie.)

We're also concerned about a recent spate of acid-spraying. Perfectly legal household  items can be put to nefarious use. That requires a response from the authorities supported by the public.

One  result is that fast food joints in UK rarely, if ever, get held up by gunmen. Over here we count that as a win.
mikesex wrote:
7eggert Wasn't commenting on a US situation; responding to an inaccurate depiction of UK law that self defence is illegal.

 "How does defending one's self 'cause more crimes' unless you live in Canada or the UK where it is illegal to defend against criminals most of the time."
mikesex wrote:
5cats Sure it's a 'case by case' basis but that's usually going to end with you making a plea and becoming a criminal.

And your evidence for this statement is...?
mikesex wrote:
 Maybe want to check out the UK's Crown Prosecution Service website occasionally.
Extract below.

The Law and Evidential Sufficiency

Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force. 

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:

"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do,
but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967: 

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large." 

Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

  • self-defence; or 
  • defence of another; or 
  • defence of property; or 
  • prevention of crime; or 
  • lawful arrest. 

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

  • was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and 
  • was the force used reasonable in the circumstances? 

mikesex wrote:
If radiation gets out into the open it's on its way to North America.

mikesex wrote:
I suppose that this is going be treated as a feminist issue but it just demonstrates a sales technique called Overcoming Objections. 

Two smart sales people identified a problem, came up with a solution; job done!

I used to have a client who was obsessed with cricket, a game I have virtually zero interest in. So I just caught up on the sports reports on the way to see him.

Yes, I get that they faced a form of prejudice but their resolution demonstrates both marketing smarts and a well-developed sense of humour. My bet is they will go far.
mikesex wrote:
It's not all doom and gloom yet

The Republicans would have hated the Woman even more than the Black Guy if the election had gone the other way your politics would be mired in the more of the crap you've been subjected to for the last two terms.

Now the infection is out in the open and identified you can see the pus and poison and treat the wound accordingly. Trump is only the result, not the cause; that's years of a Republican cancer spreading through your body politic.

British Tory Conservatism is following down the same path, supported by the same people. Europe has so far held out but the dark forces are still there, waiting.

That is why is why so many of us on this side of the Pond are rooting for you . This is now a battle for civilisation itself. Your victory will be ours too!

In 1787 you overcame an empire; surely these twats can be sorted!
mikesex wrote:
No. 4 is Tinariwen, tuaregs from Mali. For my money, one of the best bands from anywhere in West Africa. Worth checking out.

mikesex wrote:
lockner01 Not an American either, but here's my take.

Every president so far has respected the Office. Most Americans have respected the Office, even when they didn't like the incumbent.

Trump doesn't respect the Office.
mikesex wrote:
Draculya Damn! That's cold.