Off Topic The Politics Thread

Never suggested once she deserves death threats as I’ve clearly stated, has anyone else suggested she does? No? The point being is it gets massively disproportionate amounts of coverage… especially on here as the trans community are an easy target. Like I’ve mentioned if I posted every death threat black sports stars and celebs receive, with mention of their ethnicity this thread would double in size very quickly as that happens all the time, good and bad in all demographics kranks and nutters in every demographic… to use this to suggest there is an extremist problem with Trans people with the implications it’s a bigger problem than any other community is just bollocks.

 

Theresa May put forward a much much more progressive proposal in the 2017 manifesto, which Labour used to eviscerate her and deny her a majority. The left really can't throw stones on this one.

 

We aren’t a serious country when this useless **** is Culture Secretary.

 

Is there a single member of this pathetic government that have any kind of real idea or knowledge of the actual world around them?

.....and if they honestly don't.....then why on earth don't they do a little research before constantly putting their feet into their mouths? (At least make an effort to try and look remotely competent).

 

The simple and honest answer is that they don’t need to so no point bothering.

 

Didn't remember c4 was owned by the govt
Surprised it wasn't sold off years ago
Or does no one want it

 

Proposal to make a life sentence mandatory for the manslaughter of emergency workers when going about their work, as a response to the horrible death of the PC who was dragged to his death by a car driven by criminals in Berkshire, when the punishment was widely regarded as too lenient. ‘Harper’s Law’ is the result of a two year campaign by his widow.

Now, no criticism from me at all of emergency workers on this. They face horrible risks as a part of their job and deserve to feel protected.

But why, if you punch an ambulance worker or fireman and they fall and hit their head and die as a result do you get an automatic life sentence, whereas if you (or a policeman!) did the same to me the judge has the discretion to sentence as he or she sees fit (down to a suspended sentence or community service)? Law is meant to apply equally to everyone (though doubtless there are examples already of where it doesn’t) and it’s an uncomfortable precedent when this is ignored. ‘One law for them…..’

Don’t think Raab understood the question when quizzed on this.

 

Wasn't Harper related to someone on here

 

Popular innit. Doesn’t have to make sense.

 

Protecting the protector's

 

It is publically owned however, so the taxpayer has a financial interest in it.

Furthermore, Ch4 borrowings sit on the government balance sheet, so are down to the taxpayer.

 

There was a past poster who claimed to be related to his widow, Lissie.

 

You’d like to think Nadine Dorries, dreadful and useless as she is, would know the difference.

Channel 4 is one of the few large media outlets that dares to not give this shambles a free ride and performs well financially.

 

It's left wing oriented but since we now have GBNews to balance out the bias, I see no reason why the government should interfere. Murdoch's Talk TV starts next year.

 

*taken from faceache, whilst it’s well written and appears genuine I’m unable to confirm it’s factually correct.

From a military legal worker:

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.

May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

This has been my Ted Talk.

 

Who knows when it comes to legality. Local law may be different in the US and may over rule federal law on in - state crimes. This from an article by a conservative writer Adam Serwer in The Atlantic magazine:

“According to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse need not have proved that he acted in self-defense—rather, the state had to prove that he did not. Even if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha with a firearm because he wanted to put himself in the position to use it, as David French writes, “the narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense.” Under some circumstances, Wisconsin law allows an individual to provoke an attack and still claim self-defense.”

Click on the David French link in this quote for more detail of what apparently happened. Perhaps not as clear cut as you think. The other links expand on Wisconsin law.

The writer is appalled by this act and the verdict giving a dreadful example to other young men. But it seems like Wisconsin law gives a pretty free ride to gun users. Or, at least gun users with certain characteristics.

 

Yes thank goodness GB News has finally given the voiceless a voice.

 

Thanks and will do, most stuff on faceache i usually ignore as it has little to no credibility, the piece I posted seemed well written and informed, I suspect you’re right though, through legal loopholes so to speak there is a case for the defence and by the words of certain parts of state law he could be found ‘not guilty’. I would be surprised if there wasn’t another angle or part of the laws that could have seen him found guilty though…

I think one thing I find very disappointing is surely the legal system has to be challenged off the back of this to prevent it happening again, I’d be surprised if it did though

 

They have Eamonn Holmes joining now!!!