- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2744 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
232 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 411294
Why haven't we got a thread on this yet? It's going to prove a turning point in Britsh history.
|>>|| No. 411808
I would say that the scandal was a hammer blow, but then our autistic torylad would complain because nobody hit them with a hammer and as far as we know MC Hammer never sucked them off.
|>>|| No. 411811
You may be shocked to learn that the Court of Appeal did in fact quash the judgement and pardon him:
I said kill does not equal murder. That is what this '=/=' means.
Are we just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that murder has an intent element? Even after evidence has been posted that explicitly states this fact?
|>>|| No. 411813
>Are we just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that murder has an intent element?
No. We are just going to go round in circles because you can't get it into your head that when someone says "murder" they don't literally mean the offence of murder as defined in the Homicide Act 1957, you mouth-breathing carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 411816
Blame it on the rain.
Fun fact: Their producer Frank Farian cheated on Boney M records as well. He sang all the male voices himself. Boney M's "singer" Bobby was just for show. And it's painfully obvious when you watch live performances:
He couldn't sing for toffee. And from the looks of it, he was a shit dancer as well.
|>>|| No. 411817
Anyone else remember the time someone tried that on Eurovision? The rules are strict and insist that all vocal elements are performed live on the main stage, so sometimes people try and hide their backing singers with clever staging or lighting. But then there was this one entry with a solo performer lip-syncing front and centre in the light with the actual singer unlit but still very visible in the corner of the stage.
|>>|| No. 411819
Maybe the lad is on the spectrum and doesn't understand nuances and takes everything literally. Go easy on him.
|>>|| No. 411824
Maybe you want to read the start of this discussion. The otherlads are correct that McDonnell deliberately used inflammatory language and frankly stupid comments like:
>If you say so, fascistlad. Would it be murder of they were white?
Point to someone who either has no fucking idea what murder is or more likely is deliberately misusing the term to suggest that an act of negligence was something more deliberate.
Also the Homicide Act didn't define murder only refined it, there is no statute from Parliament that says murder is a crime it is a common law invention.
|>>|| No. 411825
I'm sure it's a worthwhile discussion, but this debate is making me want to set fire to a tower block full of innocents.
|>>|| No. 411827
That won't be murder though.
>an act of negligence was something more deliberate
Like leaving an IED on the motorway with a randomised timer? Will it ever blow up? If it does and people die, it really isn't murder, right?
I'm sure asbestos is dirt cheap. If I line all poor people's houses with it, is it really murder when they all die of lung complications? Or is this different because the cladding on Grenfell was "legal" and "within regulations"? So all those people died because a bunch of rich cunts in wigs never said that it was illegal to use it?
|>>|| No. 411828
Given that a tower block full of innocents is only a couple of technical details away from being a carrot, it wouldn't be so different from simply making a casserole.
|>>|| No. 411830
That's much further away from murder than >>411825
It's on a spectrum you see. Murder on one side, and Not Murder on the other.
|>>|| No. 411831
>Or is this different because the cladding on Grenfell was "legal" and "within regulations"?
Yes. If the contractors were fully aware that the cladding was a serious fire risk despite being compliant with the regulations, they may have committed manslaughter by gross negligence. If they knew that the cladding wasn't compliant with the regulations but fitted it anyway, they may have committed manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. If they had been led to believe that the cladding was compliant with the applicable regulations and reasonably safe, then they are guilty of neither offence.
>Like leaving an IED on the motorway with a randomised timer?
That's murder, because the act of planting the IED is a deliberate act with the intention of causing harm, that you would reasonably believe could lead to death. There is obvious mens rea. It's not merely negligent, but actively malicious.
Imagine I'm a mechanic who does a really sloppy job of fixing your brakes, which causes you to crash and die. If I should have reasonably known that my poor workmanship might cause your death, I may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence. I didn't take any deliberate action to cause you harm, but I breached a duty of care that led to your death.
If I deliberately cut your brakes and you crash and die, then I may be guilty of murder. I took a deliberate action to cause you harm that could be reasonably expected to lead to your death. That's the key distinction - I deliberately did something with the intention of causing harm, rather than doing something badly or failing to do something that might lead to harm being caused.
If you're still struggling with this, I'll get my crayons out and draw you a diagram.
|>>|| No. 411832
>That's murder, because the act of planting the IED is a deliberate act with the intention of causing harm, that you would reasonably believe could lead to death.
Like putting up cladding that you know can easily catch fire and spread it everywhere?
Fuck off lad.
|>>|| No. 411833
Is it murder if I drop a satellite from space just on your house and you die a horrible death?
There aren't any regulations about dropping satellites, and I thought it would "hit the ocean," rather than your house which is owned by your ugly mum.
|>>|| No. 411836
If you fired the thrusters to aim it at my house, it's murder. If you just let it drop out of orbit with no regard for where it might land, it's manslaughter by gross negligence. If you took every care to aim it at the ocean but it inadvertently crashed through my roof, it's just an accident.
This isn't rocket science.
|>>|| No. 411837
Yeah but how would anyone know? I will try and aim for the ocean, but unbeknownst to anyone I will subconsciously hit your house with it and murder you and your ugly mum. It isn't murder right? Nobody can prove I hated you and your mum.
|>>|| No. 411838
The police would interview you and your henchmen. They would search your volcanic lair for documents and computer data related to the satellite. Forensic experts would examine the smouldering wreckage of your satellite for telemetry data.
At trial, your innocence would be presumed. The jury would need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you either maliciously targeted the satellite at my house (for a charge of murder), or that you allowed the satellite to fall onto my house with flagrant disregard for my life (for a charge of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence).
In the latter case, a total lack of evidence would strongly imply guilt. Where is the documentation demonstrating your health and safety precautions? What risk assessment did you undertake before performing the manoeuvre? What training did your underlings have in satellite re-entry procedures? What evidence is there that your satellite was well-designed and properly maintained? If you are completely unable to explain why your satellite obliterated my mum's house and why you were unable to prevent it, a jury may well be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that your management of the satellite was grossly negligent.
|>>|| No. 411839
Of course, all of this is moot because before that satellite ever touches down sometime from MI6 will have stormed the lair, engaged the satellite's self-destruct, and pushed otherlad into his tank of laser sharks.
|>>|| No. 411840
We only had a month's training and we're oil miners not astronauts, damn it. What choice did we have?
|>>|| No. 413650
It's undeniable that people, particularly those on the left, were shamelessly trying to exploit Grenfell for political capital and were trying to paint this as a major sea change, where of course the momentum was supposedly travelling in the direction they just happened to want it to go, whereas the reality, now that the dust has settled, is that this has turned to be pure hyperbole.
|>>|| No. 413653
You're still just trying to "win" the debate here, for the little dopamine boost it gives you.
|>>|| No. 413689
Not them but I agree it is important to expose all stupid moral panic conspiracy crap like this on the hopes that maybe people won't be as stupid next time. Even if they all decide you are just being really boring because they don't want to face that they were wrong and besides that was 3 moral panics ago, this one is definitely worse than they are telling us. As the saying goes “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
|>>|| No. 413693
People were stupid, though. They either got caught up in the wave of hysteria or were taking advantage of the situation to propagate their own agendas and propaganda.
Look at the OP of this thread. "It's going to prove a turning point in Britsh history." What rot.
|>>|| No. 413721
Busting a gut to live alongside dolescum, whether or not you have a nice kitchen, is a fool's game.
|>>|| No. 413723
My cousin is a university lecturer and lives in a lock-up garage. London is fucking mental.
|>>|| No. 413725
No word of a lie, a lot of her colleagues are envious of her lock-up. It's quiet, it's reasonably warm and the rent is the right side of a grand a month. A lot of people want to live in London. Who am I to judge?
|>>|| No. 413727
>A lot of people want to live in London
I don't get it. If I did the same job in London then I could, at best, earn 15-20% more but my living costs would increase by a greater amount so I'd actually be worse off in net terms.
I've no intention of living in a grotty houseshare with strangers at my age, you'd hardly have any money to afford to actually socialise, you're probably going to get stabbed, mugged or have acid thrown in your face and the city is so soulless because everyone is either a tourist or a drone bustling about.
|>>|| No. 413728
So much wealth and activity is concentrated there that the expenses are more than offset, depending on what you value. Social venues may be prohibitively expensive, but London easily has more going for it in the sheer number and variety of groups there are to associate with.
|>>|| No. 413729
It's also a lot easier to avoid any particular people and be just another face in the crowd, if that's your bag.
|>>|| No. 413730
A lot of industries are heavily London-centric. If you want to work in something like media or finance, your career progression is severely limited if you're not in London. Most people eventually move out to the home counties when they can afford it, but shitty flatshares are just a price you have to pay for opportunity in the early stages of your career.
|>>|| No. 413766
>A lot of industries are heavily London-centric. If you want to work in something like media or finance, your career progression is severely limited if you're not in London.
It does depend on what kind of career you envision for yourself. If you'll be happy reporting on dog bites and stolen milk bottles for a small regional newspaper up north, then there's no point in you moving to London hoping to land a job at the Times or the Guardian. Or if you don't mind working for an ad agency that designs flyers for a hipster bar (assuming they don't make them themselves on their £1,000 Macbooks while sipping on fair traded latte). Likewise, you can spend your whole life being a small wheel in a local NatWest branch in Tynesside, or even move up to run the place at some point. You don't have to become an investment
wbanker at the London stock exchange.
If you have higher aspirations, then yes, a few years spent at a major company in your field in London is definitely a feather in your cap. But you might indeed find that it'll be difficult to find a job back in your home town once you've become Assistant Global Brand Manager. There isn't much that local businesses in rural Yorkshire will be able to do for you employment wise.
|>>|| No. 413769
There's plenty of decent finance opportunities in Yorkshire.
Fund houses like Investec have offices in Leeds. Discretionary fund managers like Brewin Dolphin have offices in Leeds. The most successful branch of St James's Place is on an office park on the outskirts of Leeds. The head office of Yorkshire Building Society is on the outskirts of Bradford. There's national stockbrokers like Redmayne Bentley with their head offices in Leeds.There's similar opportunities in York and Sheffield. The big accountancy firms have offices there. You get the idea.
There's plenty of opportunities if you look for them. The whole you've got to go to London if you want a successful career is bollocks. Maybe if you want to be a fund manager or something but that's a very small number of people compared with the people who flock to London. It reminds me of the whole brainwashing under New Labour of you've got to go to university or you fail at life.
|>>|| No. 413770
I did say rural Yorkshire, but then again just to illustrate my point; I don't know Yorkshire very well myself for that matter.
> The whole you've got to go to London if you want a successful career is bollocks. Maybe if you want to be a fund manager or something but that's a very small number of people compared with the people who flock to London.
One of my mates initially trained in London at Lloyds at their headquarters in London after school. They then told him that if he wanted to further his career, he had to go to uni and study something finance related. So he did, but in Cardiff. If I understood him correctly, simply for the sake of living somewhere else besides London for some time. Did his MSc in finance there. The catch was that he met his fiance there, who was from Cardiff born and raised. He would have liked to stay in Cardiff after uni, but they told him that there were no positions with Lloyds in that whole region that he would have been a good fit to work as. They did offer him one job as some sort of regional manager, but told him "You wouldn't be happy there, and we wouldn't be happy either". So he had to bite the bullet and move back to London. Made a big career for himself, going on eight years now, huge salary too.
I guess my point is, you kind of sell your soul if you opt for the big career in London. At some level, you will have to stay in London if you want to keep finding work in your field.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]