By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Kicking off in Belarus on 13:37 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
He asked me if I meant law in general. Sounds like a loaded question to me.
Loads of laws are politically motivated though. Arguing the split doesn't change that.
If our legal system worked Brexit wouldn't be what it is. Because money and shutting down investigations puts one above it. That's the problem. Dragging up "BUT MURDER" or "BUT SOMEONE KICKING YOUR DOOR IN" doesn't take away from that point. As I stated above, it was whateraboutery.
Epstein got away with it for years and many of his friends still are. Prince Andrew is a good example. Or Classic Dom who most likely broke lock down more once and lied, but the police investigation took less than a week to say he's done no wrong. Another thing legal representatives have had to push on their own time based on moral judgement because the legal system has failed us.
The fact Jolyon is fighting tooth and nail to hold the current corrupt shambles to account shows how much money has corrupted our legal system. As I said, a more sensible country would be outraged but we've been dumbed down to digging into this stuff or caring on the whole.
This post has been edited by an administrator
I think your conflating a few issues here. The government undoubtedly acts unethically at times but the laws we have in place mean that they can be held account in the courts, such as with what Jolyon Maugham is doing and with some of the successful legal challenges over Brexit (from the likes of Gina Miller) and proroguing parliament.
Corruption is pretty rife in politics, this Tory government is highlighting that rather nicely for us in a number of ways. But the laws we have in place constrain that to an extent and enable a degree of holding to account. There is likely, for example, to be a judicial review of Robert Jenrick's decision to approve David Sullivan's planning application in the way he did.
The fact that the executive and legislature are separate and that the executive can be held to account through the legal system is a real positive. I think you are somewhat conflating the two. Of course we need to guard against attacks on that, especially from this current incarnation of the Tories, but without a separate legal system to keep things in check I think we'd be far worse off with the kind of shysters we get in power.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:09 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
I'd like to see a world of more fairness and collaboration. Technically we don't need hierarchies or governments to do that in a utopian future but we're a million miles off (and it would never be perfect).
But the system we have in place now - rampant capitalism, tech monopolies, unbelievable wealth gaps, growing nationalism, government corruption globally - ain't sustainable. We either go full totalitarian into one global government policed by rich elites or the system falls apart and we start from scratch to make a better world.
I know which side I'm rooting for...
You have spoken a lot of sense, and been down voted for doing so, in this thread; but I do not agree with the dichotomy you have set up there. In a World of diverse cultures, political systems and theocracies (formal and informal) made of of eight billion disparate people things are always going to change gradually, there will always be a miasma of different systems either existing uneasily side by side or in direct conflict.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:01 - Aug 10 by giant_stow
No problem with Asylum seekers being given safe passage accross. But I guess thats where it get complicated in deciding who's a migrant / who's needs asylum.
I knew nothing about gangs targetting migrants in France, but then isn't that something for the french to correct? Sorry If I'm sounding harsh.
Not just gangs, the police too. I had a mate out there who witnessed the police blocking food and water donations to the camp residents. And that's a small drop of the racism, discrimination, violence and harassment these people face by authority figures who are supposed to protect human life.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:14 - Aug 10 by Herbivore
I think your conflating a few issues here. The government undoubtedly acts unethically at times but the laws we have in place mean that they can be held account in the courts, such as with what Jolyon Maugham is doing and with some of the successful legal challenges over Brexit (from the likes of Gina Miller) and proroguing parliament.
Corruption is pretty rife in politics, this Tory government is highlighting that rather nicely for us in a number of ways. But the laws we have in place constrain that to an extent and enable a degree of holding to account. There is likely, for example, to be a judicial review of Robert Jenrick's decision to approve David Sullivan's planning application in the way he did.
The fact that the executive and legislature are separate and that the executive can be held to account through the legal system is a real positive. I think you are somewhat conflating the two. Of course we need to guard against attacks on that, especially from this current incarnation of the Tories, but without a separate legal system to keep things in check I think we'd be far worse off with the kind of shysters we get in power.
Countless times the rich and powerful evade legal repercussion though. Or laws are kept/adjusted to benefit them.
I don't think that statement is false based on the argument I have presented nor do I feel it is a controversial statement to make.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:17 - Aug 10 by WeWereZombies
You have spoken a lot of sense, and been down voted for doing so, in this thread; but I do not agree with the dichotomy you have set up there. In a World of diverse cultures, political systems and theocracies (formal and informal) made of of eight billion disparate people things are always going to change gradually, there will always be a miasma of different systems either existing uneasily side by side or in direct conflict.
I agree the change is gradual and not easy, but at the same time the fact it is gradual often means people don't see the problem until it's become too big to stop. Not many dictators took total control using fear and power overnight (at least not in front of open doors).
In an ideal world though most global conflicts can be solved by talk, compromise and not being a d1ck. We have layers of complications that remove the human element of society. Which then result in people thinking it's perfectly rational to shoot immigrants on dinghies (yes I have seen that stated by people a few times this week too).
My main reason I post here is to challenge how people think. The downvotes sadly come when others decide it's easier to ignore it and defend the status quo because any other way of doing things seems so distant. I can understand that somewhat.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:26 - Aug 10 by Herbivore
Which laws are you thinking of and which individuals?
The Epstein stuff is a fairly good example. I functioning moral legal system wouldn't have taken this long and have this many bends to bring those involved to justice.
Seems like a fairly straight forward one to me.
And then there are other examples I've mentioned above like Classic Dom, or election funding/spending on the referendum. We're still riding that one out in terms of rich elites using the law to prevent justice.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:17 - Aug 10 by WeWereZombies
You have spoken a lot of sense, and been down voted for doing so, in this thread; but I do not agree with the dichotomy you have set up there. In a World of diverse cultures, political systems and theocracies (formal and informal) made of of eight billion disparate people things are always going to change gradually, there will always be a miasma of different systems either existing uneasily side by side or in direct conflict.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:25 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
I agree the change is gradual and not easy, but at the same time the fact it is gradual often means people don't see the problem until it's become too big to stop. Not many dictators took total control using fear and power overnight (at least not in front of open doors).
In an ideal world though most global conflicts can be solved by talk, compromise and not being a d1ck. We have layers of complications that remove the human element of society. Which then result in people thinking it's perfectly rational to shoot immigrants on dinghies (yes I have seen that stated by people a few times this week too).
My main reason I post here is to challenge how people think. The downvotes sadly come when others decide it's easier to ignore it and defend the status quo because any other way of doing things seems so distant. I can understand that somewhat.
'In an ideal world' - whose version of ideal were you thinking of?
It is good to challenge and I have no idea why Stokie has caused your posts to be removed (if he had not mentioned it I would never have known...has the 'this post has been removed by an administrator' thing been discontinued?) but it is also sometimes worth remembering that you cannot challenge and influence if your broadcasts are not listened to, i.e. flexibility can be useful in getting a message across. There again, flexibility without compromise is not easy and the strain of guarding against backsliding can create internal pressure - which can manifest itself as rudeness.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:29 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
The Epstein stuff is a fairly good example. I functioning moral legal system wouldn't have taken this long and have this many bends to bring those involved to justice.
Seems like a fairly straight forward one to me.
And then there are other examples I've mentioned above like Classic Dom, or election funding/spending on the referendum. We're still riding that one out in terms of rich elites using the law to prevent justice.
Although Epstein did end up getting arrested of course. And the US legal system does look like much more of a mess than many others. That you can be bailed on very serous crimes so long as you can afford to pay is rather ridiculous. I think they've changed things now, but Michael Jackson was able to essentially pay that Jordan kid off to avoid a possible criminal prosecution. That's not right. But that isn't something that happens everywhere.
The Cummings example is trickier, police acknowledged that there may have been a breach, however had they stopped him on his way to Barnard Castle they would have advised him to turn back rather than fine or arrest him. They would have done that with anyone as the lockdown laws generally are being applied quite softly. To retrospectively fine him would have gone against that approach and would have represented not treating him equally to others. There's an argument he ought to have been made an example of, but at a time of crisis I can understand that it wasn't especially a priority. And I say this as someone that loathes Cummings. He should have lost his job through his conduct.
The Brexit stuff, there has been a process around the spending and Vote Leave was fined by the Electrical Commission as a result. There was, however, insufficient evidence for a criminal case to be brought. That's frustrating but I don't think it qualifies as an example of elites using the law to prevent justice.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:40 - Aug 10 by WeWereZombies
'In an ideal world' - whose version of ideal were you thinking of?
It is good to challenge and I have no idea why Stokie has caused your posts to be removed (if he had not mentioned it I would never have known...has the 'this post has been removed by an administrator' thing been discontinued?) but it is also sometimes worth remembering that you cannot challenge and influence if your broadcasts are not listened to, i.e. flexibility can be useful in getting a message across. There again, flexibility without compromise is not easy and the strain of guarding against backsliding can create internal pressure - which can manifest itself as rudeness.
It was removed for being abusive.
0
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:51 - Aug 10 with 1537 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:40 - Aug 10 by WeWereZombies
'In an ideal world' - whose version of ideal were you thinking of?
It is good to challenge and I have no idea why Stokie has caused your posts to be removed (if he had not mentioned it I would never have known...has the 'this post has been removed by an administrator' thing been discontinued?) but it is also sometimes worth remembering that you cannot challenge and influence if your broadcasts are not listened to, i.e. flexibility can be useful in getting a message across. There again, flexibility without compromise is not easy and the strain of guarding against backsliding can create internal pressure - which can manifest itself as rudeness.
It gets harder to compromise though as this world gets worse. Not like we've all been saying Brexit will go exactly as it is right now for the past 4 years!
The issue with Stokie's post is he didn't listen at all, he just piled in with whataboutery and then got he arse because I replied stating examples of laws that are completely political. I've raised more as this thread has gone on too. That's not discussion IMO, he was simply begging for an excuse to scream CALLIS IS WRONG AND NEVER LISTENS, when I feel I've made a perfectly clear case for my opinion and the evidence for it. He also resorted to taking it to personal places and felt his post was fine to stay up. I had to raise that one to Phil myself.
The problem I face, like many other hard lefties, is the compromise isn't enough at this point. What's the point in voting for a better government if said better government isn't really going to do enough about issues on climate change, wealth inequality, etc? These are the actual problems humanity faces that will wipe us out, I'd say combatting those is "ideal world" IMO, and should be to anyone who has the slightest bit of foresight.
Then again I'm used to the abuse I get here only to see my posts age like fine wines. You've seen my posts about veganism or the Tory COVID show and the stick I got for them. I'd say I'm owed an apology by a few posters but at this point I wouldn't accept it!
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:46 - Aug 10 by Herbivore
Although Epstein did end up getting arrested of course. And the US legal system does look like much more of a mess than many others. That you can be bailed on very serous crimes so long as you can afford to pay is rather ridiculous. I think they've changed things now, but Michael Jackson was able to essentially pay that Jordan kid off to avoid a possible criminal prosecution. That's not right. But that isn't something that happens everywhere.
The Cummings example is trickier, police acknowledged that there may have been a breach, however had they stopped him on his way to Barnard Castle they would have advised him to turn back rather than fine or arrest him. They would have done that with anyone as the lockdown laws generally are being applied quite softly. To retrospectively fine him would have gone against that approach and would have represented not treating him equally to others. There's an argument he ought to have been made an example of, but at a time of crisis I can understand that it wasn't especially a priority. And I say this as someone that loathes Cummings. He should have lost his job through his conduct.
The Brexit stuff, there has been a process around the spending and Vote Leave was fined by the Electrical Commission as a result. There was, however, insufficient evidence for a criminal case to be brought. That's frustrating but I don't think it qualifies as an example of elites using the law to prevent justice.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:03]
All of what you say is true, but do you not feel it simply validates my point somewhat? It's people getting away with stuff they should not through power and money. In many cases the evidence is there and is suppressed, there's a reason Aaron Banks keeps trying to sue Carole Cadwalladr, and when you have an infinite amount of money you have a competitive advantage in the courts, not exactly fair of just really when the guilty can pay to be innocent.
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:51 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
It gets harder to compromise though as this world gets worse. Not like we've all been saying Brexit will go exactly as it is right now for the past 4 years!
The issue with Stokie's post is he didn't listen at all, he just piled in with whataboutery and then got he arse because I replied stating examples of laws that are completely political. I've raised more as this thread has gone on too. That's not discussion IMO, he was simply begging for an excuse to scream CALLIS IS WRONG AND NEVER LISTENS, when I feel I've made a perfectly clear case for my opinion and the evidence for it. He also resorted to taking it to personal places and felt his post was fine to stay up. I had to raise that one to Phil myself.
The problem I face, like many other hard lefties, is the compromise isn't enough at this point. What's the point in voting for a better government if said better government isn't really going to do enough about issues on climate change, wealth inequality, etc? These are the actual problems humanity faces that will wipe us out, I'd say combatting those is "ideal world" IMO, and should be to anyone who has the slightest bit of foresight.
Then again I'm used to the abuse I get here only to see my posts age like fine wines. You've seen my posts about veganism or the Tory COVID show and the stick I got for them. I'd say I'm owed an apology by a few posters but at this point I wouldn't accept it!
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 14:55]
Point of order.
You said I made "similar points" to Herbivore yet you've clearly stated my points were "whataboutery".
Both things cannot be true. Isn't there a word you like for situations like this?
What is absolutely clear is that when you see my name next to the post you don't treat the contents in the same way as you do if someone else writes essentially the same thing. The problem here is you not me and thus once again I'd ask you to refrain from mentioning me in your posts.
SB
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:00]
0
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:18 - Aug 10 with 1471 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 14:59 - Aug 10 by StokieBlue
Point of order.
You said I made "similar points" to Herbivore yet you've clearly stated my points were "whataboutery".
Both things cannot be true. Isn't there a word you like for situations like this?
What is absolutely clear is that when you see my name next to the post you don't treat the contents in the same way as you do if someone else writes essentially the same thing. The problem here is you not me and thus once again I'd ask you to refrain from mentioning me in your posts.
SB
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:00]
He made similar points but actually managed to respond civilly, you ran in screaming at me for daring to respond. Then took the moral high ground that I’m never wrong.
As I said before, there’s a word for that. Notice how civil this thread has been since you stopped posting and perhaps reflect on your own way of engaging? You give free passes and fairer discussions to far more problematic and incorrect statements than this based on your leanings towards posters.
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:18 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
He made similar points but actually managed to respond civilly, you ran in screaming at me for daring to respond. Then took the moral high ground that I’m never wrong.
As I said before, there’s a word for that. Notice how civil this thread has been since you stopped posting and perhaps reflect on your own way of engaging? You give free passes and fairer discussions to far more problematic and incorrect statements than this based on your leanings towards posters.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:20]
You've done it again, you've not read the content of the post or addressed the actual points.
How can similar points be whatabouterry in one case and not in the other? You haven't even acknowledged it. It's a clear case of playing the man and not the ball or in your case playing me and everyone else. It's been civil because you don't respond to anyone else in the way you respond to me. It's cause and effect and you are the cause.
My posts were perfectly civil, you started being abusive. I actually got PMs saying there was no need for your abuse. The start of the discussion is still there for everyone to see and I was totally civil.
You are citing the end of the discussion whilst ignoring your abusive posts which admin had to remove before it even got to the post you are citing from me.
You are the one rewriting what happened, not me.
SB
-1
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:34 - Aug 10 with 1439 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:18 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
He made similar points but actually managed to respond civilly, you ran in screaming at me for daring to respond. Then took the moral high ground that I’m never wrong.
As I said before, there’s a word for that. Notice how civil this thread has been since you stopped posting and perhaps reflect on your own way of engaging? You give free passes and fairer discussions to far more problematic and incorrect statements than this based on your leanings towards posters.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:20]
I'm not sure Stokie has ever "ran in screaming" at any one on the site, I don't always agree with him, but he's one of the most consistently balanced and polite posters the forum has.
You're going to think I'm on the wind up, but quite often when you're describing this sort of behaviour it perfectly matches how you're coming across, yourself.
Judging from your responses in this thread and the whole other separate thread you made that got deleted, you've clearly been really triggered by Stokie, honestly, don't let it get under your skin. Easier said than done sometimes, I know.
I'm fully prepared for you to claim I'm attempting to gaslight you, but I'm not sure the intent you're perceiving is that which Stokie is welding.
Try and get back to the discussion at hand, then maybe people like myself who know nothing about it can carry on reading and learning.
1
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:57 - Aug 10 with 1413 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:33 - Aug 10 by StokieBlue
You've done it again, you've not read the content of the post or addressed the actual points.
How can similar points be whatabouterry in one case and not in the other? You haven't even acknowledged it. It's a clear case of playing the man and not the ball or in your case playing me and everyone else. It's been civil because you don't respond to anyone else in the way you respond to me. It's cause and effect and you are the cause.
My posts were perfectly civil, you started being abusive. I actually got PMs saying there was no need for your abuse. The start of the discussion is still there for everyone to see and I was totally civil.
You are citing the end of the discussion whilst ignoring your abusive posts which admin had to remove before it even got to the post you are citing from me.
You are the one rewriting what happened, not me.
SB
It’s there to read mate. You can see the thread and the instant dismissive tone you dived in with for simply replying to your post with examples of political laws.
You did similar earlier this year doubling down on a lie when the post in question was raised countless times. Can’t even remember what it was but you literally claimed I’d said something I hadn’t.
You are a repeat offender and your gaslighting is still present now. You are claiming I’ve ignored your post and points? Which part exactly? I literally just said the difference is how one discusses things.
Go running to Phil, if I get banned calling out your continual need to say “THAT’S NOT ME THAT’S YOU” as gaslighting I don’t really care.
One man pile on in a thread that only has one person who started a conflict and continues to by claiming innocence and not engaging with what’s being said. You continually try and claim you’re going to turn over a new leave and as soon as I disagree or give you a counter point the usual nonsense resumes. Your act is transparent and played out. But none of this is news to you.
Alas I imagine I’ll be booted off now. Libby is right, you do get under my skin as you side track every f*cking disagreement with me into a personal matter after choosIng to engage with me. I mostly avoid you for this exact reason.
There’s a whole thread of discussion going on right now where I’ve perfectly explained my point yet you ignore that still.
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:57 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
It’s there to read mate. You can see the thread and the instant dismissive tone you dived in with for simply replying to your post with examples of political laws.
You did similar earlier this year doubling down on a lie when the post in question was raised countless times. Can’t even remember what it was but you literally claimed I’d said something I hadn’t.
You are a repeat offender and your gaslighting is still present now. You are claiming I’ve ignored your post and points? Which part exactly? I literally just said the difference is how one discusses things.
Go running to Phil, if I get banned calling out your continual need to say “THAT’S NOT ME THAT’S YOU” as gaslighting I don’t really care.
One man pile on in a thread that only has one person who started a conflict and continues to by claiming innocence and not engaging with what’s being said. You continually try and claim you’re going to turn over a new leave and as soon as I disagree or give you a counter point the usual nonsense resumes. Your act is transparent and played out. But none of this is news to you.
Alas I imagine I’ll be booted off now. Libby is right, you do get under my skin as you side track every f*cking disagreement with me into a personal matter after choosIng to engage with me. I mostly avoid you for this exact reason.
There’s a whole thread of discussion going on right now where I’ve perfectly explained my point yet you ignore that still.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:58]
Honestly, I'm saying this with absolute sincerity, I cannot understand how your interpreting Stokie in this way. It makes absolutely zero sense.
It's cool that you acknowledge that for whatever reason he has gotten under your skin, I had a similar thing a few weeks ago when texters and Blubbers said something and in retrospect I completely over reacted and came across poorly as a result, just because it got under my skin. It happens, but maybe just give yourself some space from him.
I would like to say though that there's a degree of irony that you claim that Stokie is just trying to throw everything into a personal matter, you made a completely baseless statement about me in this thread and it's not the first time you've done so, infact you do it so often that until a few weeks ago I actively tried to avoid threads you were participating in as I couldn't be arsed with being called a tory or similar to what you've done in this thread today. Those comments certainly do not"age like a fine wine"
I know you hold resentment towards me, but I believe that you're a good man at heart and watching you play out in threads like this time and time again concerns me.
I'm sure you've plenty of family and friends who you can talk to, but if you ever want to chat with someone who has experienced similar, you can message me.
Peace. x
0
Kicking off in Belarus on 16:11 - Aug 10 with 1383 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:57 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
It’s there to read mate. You can see the thread and the instant dismissive tone you dived in with for simply replying to your post with examples of political laws.
You did similar earlier this year doubling down on a lie when the post in question was raised countless times. Can’t even remember what it was but you literally claimed I’d said something I hadn’t.
You are a repeat offender and your gaslighting is still present now. You are claiming I’ve ignored your post and points? Which part exactly? I literally just said the difference is how one discusses things.
Go running to Phil, if I get banned calling out your continual need to say “THAT’S NOT ME THAT’S YOU” as gaslighting I don’t really care.
One man pile on in a thread that only has one person who started a conflict and continues to by claiming innocence and not engaging with what’s being said. You continually try and claim you’re going to turn over a new leave and as soon as I disagree or give you a counter point the usual nonsense resumes. Your act is transparent and played out. But none of this is news to you.
Alas I imagine I’ll be booted off now. Libby is right, you do get under my skin as you side track every f*cking disagreement with me into a personal matter after choosIng to engage with me. I mostly avoid you for this exact reason.
There’s a whole thread of discussion going on right now where I’ve perfectly explained my point yet you ignore that still.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:58]
This is what happens if you have no laws....anarchy!
0
Kicking off in Belarus on 16:15 - Aug 10 with 1375 views
Kicking off in Belarus on 15:57 - Aug 10 by monytowbray
It’s there to read mate. You can see the thread and the instant dismissive tone you dived in with for simply replying to your post with examples of political laws.
You did similar earlier this year doubling down on a lie when the post in question was raised countless times. Can’t even remember what it was but you literally claimed I’d said something I hadn’t.
You are a repeat offender and your gaslighting is still present now. You are claiming I’ve ignored your post and points? Which part exactly? I literally just said the difference is how one discusses things.
Go running to Phil, if I get banned calling out your continual need to say “THAT’S NOT ME THAT’S YOU” as gaslighting I don’t really care.
One man pile on in a thread that only has one person who started a conflict and continues to by claiming innocence and not engaging with what’s being said. You continually try and claim you’re going to turn over a new leave and as soon as I disagree or give you a counter point the usual nonsense resumes. Your act is transparent and played out. But none of this is news to you.
Alas I imagine I’ll be booted off now. Libby is right, you do get under my skin as you side track every f*cking disagreement with me into a personal matter after choosIng to engage with me. I mostly avoid you for this exact reason.
There’s a whole thread of discussion going on right now where I’ve perfectly explained my point yet you ignore that still.
[Post edited 10 Aug 2020 15:58]
I don't believe any of that is true and you are right, the start of the thread is there for anyone to go read and form their own opinions.
Go read the posts I made without your anti-Stokie glasses. They are totally fair and civil. Your post didn't address any points I made, it was a glib response citing a few examples which I had said do exist in my previous post.
You've missed the entire point. The difference isn't how I discuss things, the difference is how you discuss things with me. The same points made by Herbie get a reasonable response without abuse, when made by me you immediately become aggressive and abusive.
I had stopped engaging with you in this thread until you specifically mentioned me again. I've asked you to stop, if you stop then there will be no issues.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
