manc-mag

They need to use "if I have 3 bananas and I take..." or it'll never sink in. And they're going to tax me at 45% too? Cunts. That's another interesting point, an independent financial think tank has said (i) that will basically raise £0, as people will (ii) simply put more effort into tax avoidance. The people that are going to be most hit (and basically pay the most for all this) are those on £19,000 and below. (i) obviously being utter nonsense (ii) obviously being utterly inevitable (i) not my conclusion - an respected independent financial think tanks conclusion. So take it up with them if you're more qualified, they may offer you a job. (ii) indeed, see (i). (i) someone a few £k above the threshold will obviously be able to practice a bit of tax avoidance and thus avoid the rise. Someone a few hundred £k/£million will not and hence the point is disproved. (ii) 'see (i)' being a defective argument. Tax avoidance is standard practice wherever the threshold lies. (i) I think maybe they won't be giving you that job, you know. (ii) again no, which is the reason tax on top earners and large companies has been a taboo issue for so long. Neither of those addressed the points at all. Excellent, you've conceded this one early doors.

You've already seen it, I predicted tasers would be handed out like sweets ages ago. It depends on what the Government can wangle, and how much it's pushed. We already see guns deployed to many situations they wouldn't have been just 10-15 years ago (even 7 years ago in some cases). So I expect we'll see them ever widened in steps before general deployment. It was a simple enough question. Guns=when?

You dodged the question!! I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant? So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered? No. Are you feeling OK? So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue. You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze? That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy. It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end. I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen? Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree. Give us a timescale if you dont mind. I know you think I'm amazing, but I can't quite predict the future with 100% certainty (yet). Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight. It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

It's just someone making up a story to avoid more serious charges. Unfortunately it broadly looks like she's got away with it. No shit Sherlock. I reckon Cath actually needed that explaining to her too. Indubitably Watson. Your post was the very essence of pointlessness by the way. Fittingly of course. HMS Irony steams along, perturbed by nothing on the great Ocean of Obviousness. The irony being?

They need to use "if I have 3 bananas and I take..." or it'll never sink in. And they're going to tax me at 45% too? Cunts. That's another interesting point, an independent financial think tank has said (i) that will basically raise £0, as people will (ii) simply put more effort into tax avoidance. The people that are going to be most hit (and basically pay the most for all this) are those on £19,000 and below. (i) obviously being utter nonsense (ii) obviously being utterly inevitable (i) not my conclusion - an respected independent financial think tanks conclusion. So take it up with them if you're more qualified, they may offer you a job. (ii) indeed, see (i). (i) someone a few £k above the threshold will obviously be able to practice a bit of tax avoidance and thus avoid the rise. Someone a few hundred £k/£million will not and hence the point is disproved. (ii) 'see (i)' being a defective argument. Tax avoidance is standard practice wherever the threshold lies.

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind. Therein lies just about every problem with Chompsky.

It's just someone making up a story to avoid more serious charges. Unfortunately it broadly looks like she's got away with it. No shit Sherlock. I reckon Cath actually needed that explaining to her too. Indubitably Watson. Your post was the very essence of pointlessness by the way. Fittingly of course.

You dodged the question!! I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant? So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered? No. Are you feeling OK? So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue. You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze? That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy. It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end. I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen? Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree. Give us a timescale if you dont mind.

It's just someone making up a story to avoid more serious charges. Unfortunately it broadly looks like she's got away with it. No shit Sherlock. I reckon Cath actually needed that explaining to her too.

They need to use "if I have 3 bananas and I take..." or it'll never sink in. And they're going to tax me at 45% too? Cunts. That's another interesting point, an independent financial think tank has said (i) that will basically raise £0, as people will (ii) simply put more effort into tax avoidance. The people that are going to be most hit (and basically pay the most for all this) are those on £19,000 and below. (i) obviously being utter nonsense (ii) obviously being utterly inevitable

Your example was , deal with it. Torture is still torture if you legalise it, just like killing is still killing if you legalise it. Alreet Chompsky!

jesus wept.

From Co. Durham though. Should have been keelhauled tbh.

Aye but in the 'got-to-have-the-last-word-at-all-costs' stakes he is the chompion.

Fop='Chompsky' tbh

Must have been the most horrendously frustrating inquest for the judge etc as its clear the (broader) explanation was utterly disbelieved. Completely horrific story. *Gumph! Rest of post removed*

Really sorry to hear that Craig. Hope your dad's on the mend asap!

etc etc ad infinitum

see my last but one post.

see my last post.

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless. So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'? Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture. Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances? As you have done. For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases. Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all? No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate. Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it. Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"? Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment. Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try. You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic. Lawful torture is still torture, just like lawful killing is still killing. I think I've won again. In my last post, (which was all of one line long), did I or did I not solely refer to the accuracy of the term 'lawfully'? Your defective logic/legal knowledge prevents this debate from going any further tbh.

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless. So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'? Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture. Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances? As you have done. For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases. Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all? No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate. Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it. Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"? Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment. Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try. You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic.

I could hear the violins.

Away and shite. Bet your fella was sat at the third table along.

Aye, when you're speedating I bet.