TM2YC

Warbler said:

Yeah, I don’t think it would work.

…and yet it does. You do know I wasn’t describing a theory I made up, I was describing the reality of Policing in my Country?

Warbler said:

American Cops are also answerable to the courts.

I didn’t say they weren’t. I said not “in the way you’d compare it to US Police”. Take one infamous case from last year. Philando Castile, a guy who was shot dead on the spot for reaching into his glove box in a suspicious way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36732908

The Officer who killed him was acquitted of all charges. An officer in the UK in the same situation would have been hung, drawn and quartered (so to speak). Killing a member of the public is the last thing they are ever supposed to do. Sometimes it’s required as a last, last, last resort but in a situation like it did not need to happen on any sane level.

A world away from “He looked at me funny”, or “He reached into his glove box, so I executed him on the spot just in case he was going to do something” no questions asked.

Oh good God.

It’s shocking isn’t it (see example above).

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777

Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840

Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392

Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470

Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.

You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.

1. Going into a school where no one is armed.
2. Going into a police station full of armed cops.

Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:

23 percent of emergency department shootings involved a perpetrator taking a gun from a security officer

But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.

Maybe these security officers need better training and maybe they need holsters better designed to prevent a perp from doing that.

Honestly the way some of you are talking, it is a wonder you don’t post that you think cops should no longer carry guns. Maybe the military as well.

Yeah I’m not crazy about the fact that cops have the ability to kill people. That’s something that needs fixing.

First of all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and that’s after due process. So I certainly don’t think a cop should have that power.

So you don’t think a cop should have the ability to defend himself/herself. Got it. ok. I am not going waste my time engaging you on such stupidity.

We manage just fine in the UK without letting our Police execute members of the public

1. the UK isn’t the US. Many more badguys are armed here.

2. execute is not the same as defense.

(specialist fire-arms officers aside).

wait, you have them, why? Why should they get to execute members of the public? No one should have that right, correct?

1. yhwx answered this one very well above.

2. In what way is it different in a practical application? If you give the Police free reign to execute people they feel threatened by, they will use it in many cases. They are Police, so they encounter threatening people all day, it’s their (difficult) job. If our Police encounter somebody who has a gun, or could possibly have a gun (which is incredibly unlikely in the UK) they can call in specialist firearms backup as a last resort. Making the ultimate and final punishment available as the first response to a pressure situation is playing with public safety (I’m also against the deathly-penalty by the way).

3. See answer to 2. Also UK fire-arms Police do not “have that right” to execute people in the way you’d compare it to US Police. If they use lethal force they have to be able to justify it in a court of law. A world away from “He looked at me funny”, or “He reached into his glove box, so I executed him on the spot just in case he was going to do something” no questions asked.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

yhwx said:

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777

Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840

Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392

Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.

https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470

Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.

You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.

1. Going into a school where no one is armed.
2. Going into a police station full of armed cops.

Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:

23 percent of emergency department shootings involved a perpetrator taking a gun from a security officer

But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.

Maybe these security officers need better training and maybe they need holsters better designed to prevent a perp from doing that.

Honestly the way some of you are talking, it is a wonder you don’t post that you think cops should no longer carry guns. Maybe the military as well.

Yeah I’m not crazy about the fact that cops have the ability to kill people. That’s something that needs fixing.

First of all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and that’s after due process. So I certainly don’t think a cop should have that power.

So you don’t think a cop should have the ability to defend himself/herself. Got it. ok. I am not going waste my time engaging you on such stupidity.

We manage just fine in the UK without letting our Police execute members of the public (specialist fire-arms officers aside). What you categorise as “stupidity”, we call normality and common sense.

Three other points related to this current gun debate:

Do some people not realise that there might be some overlap on the Teachers/Psychos Venn-Diagram before handing these stressed and overworked teachers Guns and sending them into class rooms full of annoying children that are winding them up on a daily basis?

Have the NRA considered that all these mass-shootings over the last couple of decades could have created a whole generation of young people who are staunchly anti-gun? If so, maybe they should start considering supporting some basic gun controls NOW, so these young people start seeing Guns as something other than terrifying before they get older and begin to outweigh the current elder generation in voting power.

I think Trump could actually solve the gun problem IF he wanted to, in a way no other President could. Democrats would support him obviously. The Republican politicians would also support him because they’ll cravenly go along with anything he says like they always do, even if they personally object to it. His unshakeable base would support it too because they manage to square any crazy thing he says in their brains (e.g. yesterday I thought it was wrong but if Trump says it, then I always thought it was right!). Trump is independently wealthy and even factoring in his meanness, he could survive without the NRA money if they turned off the taps. Trump loves the idea of beating Obama and “winning” generally and he really could on this issue… IF he wanted to.

Rask40 said:

removing guns (or certain type of guns) from millions of law abiding citizens… would be illegal.

Make it legal then. Laws are changeable, they aren’t “written in stone”, like commandments handed down from God. If the 2nd Amendment is an outdated and unhelpful piece of law, just get rid of it, or rewrite it to introduce an element of sanity and/or common sense.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

There’s also the inherent problem of solving the problems of guns in schools by intentionally putting more guns in the schools. Basically the same thing as with homes: we know that having a gun in your home makes your family less safe, is that also true for schools?

look all I know is

A: nut comes into school, no one there has a gun: nut kills a lot of kids and teachers

B: nut comes into school with armed guards: nut tries to kill a lot kids and teachers and gets killed in the process. less kids and teachers are dead than would have been.

Also most of people who have guns in their homes aren’t trained police officers.

C: nut doesn’t have a gun, therefore he doesn’t come into school (and probably just trolls people on the internet to get his “vengeance on society”)

yhwx said:

Yep. It’s an American problem.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

The US aside, the other two main factors seem to be:

1. Being from a Nordic country
2. Being from a country that speaks French but isn’t France

I watched a rather fine play yesterday about the Roman orator Cicero (Imperium Part I & II by the RSC). For the vain, pompous and ridiculous figure of the then “past it” General Pompey Magnus they had the actor in a Trump style wig and at one point he belows to the audience that he has always been “A good Republican”. Oh how we laughed.

Pompey demanding that Rome put on a military parade in his honour was just an added comic bonus that the writers could not have foreseen when they wrote it.

Not a million miles away…

Frank your Majesty said:

TM2YC said:

“What? I can buy a car that will drive me home from the pub when I’m sh*tfaced and I won’t get arrested? No more orange juice. Sign me up. It’s only 99% safe you say? Still sign me up.”

Human nature.

99% safe is still better than most human drivers, though.

I wasn’t making a comparison between the dangers of the two.

I’m saying vulnerability to hacking isn’t going to really factor into people being unwilling to adopt driver-less-cars (which was the original point I was replying to) because it doesn’t seem to really factor into most people buying any other device/product.

I think we agree on their relative safety.

Double Post.

ray_afraid said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Does the average person trust a machine to do the driving? How hacker proof are these driverless cars? Ordinary cars with wireless connections have already been hacked into.

Warbler said:

I guess it depends when the technology will be reliable enough.

Were both exchanging posts on devices that are wide open to hacking and yet we still bought them.

Someone hacking my cell phone isn’t nearly as scary as someone hacking my car.

I wasn’t meaning to compare the two, I was saying that people will buy driverless cars in 20?? even if they are not at all safe from hacking. In the same we buy phones and PCs that are not safe from hacking now because we can’t live without in 2018, or they just make life easier.

Many people today seem quite happy to install 1984-style omnipresent surveillance units in their homes and pay for it too, just so they can order a pint of milk without getting off the sofa.

“What? I can buy a car that will drive me home from the pub when I’m sh*tfaced and I won’t get arrested? No more orange juice. Sign me up. It’s only 99% safe you say? Still sign me up.”

Human nature.

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Does the average person trust a machine to do the driving? How hacker proof are these driverless cars? Ordinary cars with wireless connections have already been hacked into.

Warbler said:

I guess it depends when the technology will be reliable enough.

Were both exchanging posts on devices that are wide open to hacking and yet we still bought them.

Bit of British politics for a change:

UKIP leader Henry Bolton’s model girlfriend was caught texting racist things and by racist I don’t mean, slightly ill-judged, I mean full-on Nazi Doctrine stuff. She’s giving her charming reaction to Prince Harry’s new fiancee being a mixed-race American:

“I wouldn’t with a Negro”
“Her seed will taint our Royal Family”
“This is Britain, not Africa”

After announcing he would make a statement this afternoon, which everybody naturally expected to be his resignation, Bolton fronted it out and said he’d “Drain the swamp” in his party. Wow. His self-delusion is almost impressive. Whatever illness Trump has, Bolton must have caught it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42770361

yhwx said:

I don’t get so many people’s obsession with public figures’ infidelity.

Only when those figures are presenting themselves as pious, moral, family men.

TV’s Frink said:

TM2YC said:

TV’s Frink said:

TM2YC said:

Your Government shutting down your Government is f**king insane no matter the reason, explanation, or persons to blame. Just checking that y’all know that.

The actual effect to most people (not all) is minimal…depending how long it is shut down of course. And essential services (which is maybe in the eye of the beholder but includes things like national security) are not shut down.

Regardless, if this is the only leverage Democrats have to force the protection of immigrants who are undocumented through no fault of their own, as well as restoring insurance to children (which the shitty Republicans took away) then I’m all for it…no matter what Schumer said previously or will say tomorrow.

This may seem blindingly obvious… If the party of Government can’t pass a bill on their own, they should make concessions until the other party (or parties) gives them the required votes. That’s democracy (or at least it is when you have a properly functioning Democracy).

A “shutdown” is nobodies fault but the party of Government. If they wanted to pass any bill they damn well liked (screw anybody else), then they should have got a bigger majority at the polls. They didn’t, so they need to deal with that fact and compromise like adults and not behave like petulant children.

I’m not exactly clear who you are calling petulant children. The Republicans, Democrats, or both?

Whoever is the majority party (in this case the Republicans).

TV’s Frink said:

TM2YC said:

Your Government shutting down your Government is f**king insane no matter the reason, explanation, or persons to blame. Just checking that y’all know that.

The actual effect to most people (not all) is minimal…depending how long it is shut down of course. And essential services (which is maybe in the eye of the beholder but includes things like national security) are not shut down.

Regardless, if this is the only leverage Democrats have to force the protection of immigrants who are undocumented through no fault of their own, as well as restoring insurance to children (which the shitty Republicans took away) then I’m all for it…no matter what Schumer said previously or will say tomorrow.

This may seem blindingly obvious… If the party of Government can’t pass a bill on their own, they should make concessions until the other party (or parties) gives them the required votes. That’s democracy (or at least it is when you have a properly functioning Democracy).

A “shutdown” is nobodies fault but the party of Government. If they wanted to pass any bill they damn well liked (screw anybody else), then they should have got a bigger majority at the polls. They didn’t, so they need to deal with that fact and compromise like adults and not behave like petulant children.

(My limited knowledge of the fine details of US voting aside)

yhwx said:

Some federal employees get some days off. The actual economic and long-term political effect is actually minimal.

Quick Wikipedia search: During the 2013 shutdown Standard & Poor’s, the financial ratings agency, stated on October 16 that the shutdown had “to date taken $24 billion out of the economy,” and “shaved at least 0.6 percent off annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth.”

Your Government shutting down your Government is f**king insane no matter the reason, explanation, or persons to blame. Just checking that y’all know that.

The Case of the Silk Stocking (2004 BBC TV Movie)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41hNuQgXRkc

Rupert Everett and Ian Hart were perfect as Holmes and Watson (respectively). Shame they only did one together and this was a new story which makes it extra fun. The cast also boasts Helen McCrory (from 'Peaky Blinders) and a certain Mr Michael Fassbender (before his movie career).

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Oprah appeals to the more liberal minded people. But if you want Trump gone, we need someone that will appeal to the moderate and conservative-light people. Obviously the liberals are going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is. But the moderates and conservative-light people need to be won over.

Alternatively, and probably more easily; get someone that actually excites the liberal base—get the non-voters to go out and vote. Going right isn’t always, or even usually, the answer.

the liberals alone can’t elect a President.

They managed to elect Trump by staying at home.

Warbler said:

I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?

You need qualifications anymore? Well assuming you still do…

She makes a well thought out political/social speech, with detail, content, reasoned conclusions and persuasive arguments… that fired people up. That’s a pretty damned important skill for a politician (or so we used to think).

“Normality” has been resumed. Thanks.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll post that info to the team.

Thanks.

Update. I tried switching off wi-fi on my iPhone and then was able to access the forum on my data. So something has changed since yesterday that is preventing the site being accessed from my IP/ISP or something else?

I also tried from a second PC on the same network and it’s blocked.

SO FAR… no other website is giving me any problems.

Hope that info helps.

TV’s Frink said:

Huh? You still can’t get on?

I was afraid you’d say that LOL. I’m still getting the same generic domain screen on Firefox (PC) and Safari (iPhone) and Opera won’t load anything, with or without a VPN.

Any more news on the outage?

Getting a “buy this domain name” type message over on fanedit.org.

Anybody here know what’s up?

People are always making fun of the “How does nobody realise Clark is just Superman in glasses?!?” thing but when Dr.Evil simply puts on a pair of glasses and writes a book on Trump, I’m the only one who notices!