- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3438 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
207 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. 411758
Why would he go to armed forces day events when everybody knows he's no fan of theirs (and vice versa, if the general threatening a coup against a hypothetical Corbyn premiership is anything to go by)? A photo op with some squaddies isn't going to change anyone's mind.
|>>|| No. 411759
Race has nothing to do with it. It may be corporate manslaughter, that's something for the investigators to decide. What it certainly isn't is murder.
Because sometimes you've got to be the bigger person and offer an olive branch instead of being a cunt.
|>>|| No. 411769
Well, no. You see, a carrot is not something that would be a 747 were it not for a couple of technicalities.
|>>|| No. 411770
If the carrot were made of aluminium, weighed 300 tonnes and had four jet engines, it'd be a 747. It's just a couple of technicalities.
|>>|| No. 411772
Technically, the carrot and the 747 both have the ability, in very different ways, to make you see in the dark.
Yes I know it was just WW2 propaganda, you shuffling quadra-spaz.
|>>|| No. 411773
>If the carrot were made of aluminium, weighed 300 tonnes and had four jet engines, it'd be a 747.
Why would you put jet engines on a carrot?
|>>|| No. 411774
That would be a silly idea, not least because of how jet fuel interacts with steel beams.
|>>|| No. 411775
Murder is that thing that requires intention. (which didn't happen unless you belive Lilly Allen et al's stories about faceless billionares in top hats twirling their mostaches).
A 747 is that thing that follows Bowing's design specifications, which expressly rules out the use of carrots in the fusilage even if you tied 4x Rolls-Royce RB211s to it, it would not be one.
|>>|| No. 411776
I'm going to assume you lads are talking about carrots doing nine eleven because of the heat.
|>>|| No. 411778
There is only one, small, technical difference between a carrot and a 747 and that is that one's a carrot and the other's a 747.
|>>|| No. 411783
>Murder is that thing that requires intention
It requires intent, but not necessarily intent to kill. Someone intentionally downgraded the fireproofing on the cladding for financial reasons, and people died as a direct consequence of that deliberate action. If this were an individual landlord and an individual supplier, they'd both be tried for murder and would likely go to jail for a very long time.
Not that the specific details matter given he's speaking figuratively. It's like when people complain about calling OJ Simpson a murderer. He may have been acquitted on the charge but he very obviously killed his wife. Even the jurors who tried the case now admit this.
|>>|| No. 411786
>It requires intent, but not necessarily intent to kill.
No you stupid cunt:
>For the principal defendant, (see later for Joint Enterprise) the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin  1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).
>Not that the specific details matter given he's speaking figuratively.
So back to the other original point of the other lad: John McDonnell was wrong and deliberately trying to stoke up tensions because he's a complete fucking dickhead trying to use the tragedy for his own agenda.
|>>|| No. 411787
Derek Bentley didn't kill anyone. Neither he nor his juvenile accomplice went in intending to kill anyone. Indeed, the shooting happened when his accomplice misunderstood an instruction to hand over the gun. He was nevertheless convicted of murder and hanged for it.
Anyway, since you seem to have difficulty with both the law and figures of speech you'd best get back to work before your bosses at CCHQ find out you've wasted your morning on an obscure imageboard used by three people.
|>>|| No. 411789
>Derek Bentley didn't kill anyone.
Kill =/= Murder but yes he was pardoned. Again refer to CPS guidlines.
|>>|| No. 411792
>Kill =/= Murder
That's not how that works, lad.
>but yes he was pardoned
Yes. Pardoned, not cleared. Pardons are personal and extrajudicial so do not set precedent. Someone in the same position could not point to someone else's pardon in support of their own case.
|>>|| No. 411795
>>Kill =/= Murder
>That's not how that works, lad.
Not them but, That’s exactly how it works. Killing is not always murder, like say when the police kill a group of daft militant wogs running around London Bridge stabbing people, or when a doctor cuts Siamese twins apart because it will save one of their lives but definitely kill the other, or if someone deliberately walks in front of your car, but you don't react quick enough. Killing someone is not always murder. Murder is a subset of killing someone.
|>>|| No. 411796
>Not them but, That’s exactly how it works.
No, it isn't. Go read the part he quoted again. He's suggesting that murder isn't always killing, which is the reverse of what you just said.
|>>|| No. 411797
This is fascinating stuff. Here are some suggestions for future episodes of Autism Today:
* The Japanese Empire didn't have a penis, therefore Nanking was not raped.
* Jimmy Savile clearly couldn't have groomed the nation because the nation is considerably over 16 years old.
* Richard the Lionheart actually had a human heart like everyone else.
* The band Thompson Twins were not twins. There were three of them and none were called Thompson.
* This board is called "random" but it's clearly not random at all.
|>>|| No. 411799
I'm pitching that to Radio 4. It'd fit in nicely between World at One and the Archers repeat.
|>>|| 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?
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]