manc-mag

Kiss my stones.

Sorry, I just object to defective logic in any argument that's all. Besides that I would be concerned with the standard issue of tasers. I think the debate needs to be steered away from 'police state' agendas though as this detracts from objective discussion of the issues.

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.

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.

A baton can be used in a number of ways (from a tap or a shove through to beating someone to death). A taser just tasers. Which is I suspect why they deem it as such. Yeah I know this funnily enough-and it also makes a counter point to a degree too. A baton often has to be used several times (causing aggregated injuries) where a taser is discharged once. That's not me arguing general issue is correct either by the way, just trying to marshall both arguments. One of my main bugbears about batons is where you're seeing an officer swinging it several times before a person is effectively 'detained'. Someone that requires to be beaten half to death to be stopped (form doing something dangerous, I'd assume - not stealing a packet of sweets, or something) is a good candidate for justified use of a taser. However that's not an argument for general deployment of tasers, or at least if you claim it is then basically you are also claiming all police should be armed with conventional guns as well. I've never said I was for general deployment of tasers as you well know. My previous points stand.

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...'?

A baton can be used in a number of ways (from a tap or a shove through to beating someone to death). A taser just tasers. Which is I suspect why they deem it as such. Yeah I know this funnily enough-and it also makes a counter point to a degree too. A baton often has to be used several times (causing aggregated injuries) where a taser is discharged once. That's not me arguing general issue is correct either by the way, just trying to marshall both arguments. One of my main bugbears about batons is where you seeing an officer swinging it several times before a person is effectively 'restrained/detained' etc.

I think the UN 'use'/torture point is a bit of a red herring tbh. Police batons can certainly be used as an instrument of torture for instance-the apartheid S.A police had it down to a fine art (amongst other methods).

Condensed to around 4 things if you're knocking 25% off everything.

We can't financially afford world wars (obviously). We were bankrupt for 15 years after the last one.

That's not torture though that's....... erm..... Law and Order? Is electrocuting someone in the neck safe? Fuckin hell! Apparently so (tasers have already been used like that in the UK during the trial, to force already subdued people to further comply). Well the UN disagree, but who are they? Of course if someone in the Yemen might, maybe threaten to do it to someone (maybe), then that IS torture, of course. I would equally like to see peaceful protest taken out of the equation (obviously while it remains exactly that-peaceful-which we know it doesnt always). That said I cringe when the police batons are broken out as it always looks absolutely hideous and causes real injuries-the problem is what happens if the police were made to stop short of that? Serious question btw.

I’d actually be interested to see whether, from a psychological point of view there was evidence to suggest that officers would be less likely to discharge a taser gun than say cs spray in identical circumstances. Personally I think the fact that using a taser was more like discharging a firearm (gun) would actually make me less inclined to use it than cs gas. Police guns are of course discharged extremely rarely. On the one hand, the fact that the police themselves don’t seem to want them as standard issue could be seen as evidence of that and it’s another thing that needs to be taken account of if you’re having a sensible, objective debate on the subject.

It still doesn't stand up to scrutiny as anyone with a gun (imitation or otherwise), sword, axe (or taser) and genuinely dangerous with a knife is still likely to be shot anyway. And in other situations CS spray will be more or less as effective as a weapon of last resort/self defence (although not as a weapon of threat/forced obedience/torture). I think once these are rolled out genrally we'll see the quiet move toward arming all police with handguns - the biggest opponents to this presently are still the police themselves, but the tide is inexplicably moving that way. I think at least on that point you're getting too black and white Fop. Clearly to some extent an enhanced and legitimate threat level is akin and analogous to self defence and in fact minimises the premises of last resort. Clearly torture would not be permissible in any scenario as it is per se illegal. Forced obedience (I'm less sure what you mean by that as it doesnt have a strict legal meaning but of course I think by now I can guess at what you mean) is a greyer area.

Agree. There needs to be tougher legislation against the carrying of knives etc.. I'd agree with that too. I think we're already seeing that in terms of Judges going towards the more severe end of current tariffs but whether that in itself will be adequate...? I don't know that we're seeing any greater deterrent effect coming through yet anyway. I wouldnt be averse to going higher on sentencing on this either for the record.

Does anyone think the carrying of weapons has become more commonplace in recent years by the way, just to address a slightly different but related question? If so then there is clearly a valid debate about how you equip an effective modern police force. Referring to the equipment per se rather than the deployment of said apparatus.

Once again you have much to learn. Followed by trademark jibberish.

fuckin hell.

Once again I think Fop's trademark, agenda based thread subtitle threatens to de-rail a potentially decent and legitimate debate before it's even had a chance to get started. Shame tbh.

You've taken one hell of a shoeing of late. Again. Feel free to keep posting jibberish though.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse? You do. I always link to the source. You just scratch yours. Fucking hell man Fop, you've taken some whuppings on here recently. Brilliant. You've got a lot to learn before graduation. Just repeating stuff can be effective, but there has to be some niggle there first. Jibberish from you now. Even better

cake and eat it time tbh.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse? You do. I always link to the source. You just scratch yours. Fucking hell man Fop, you've taken some whuppings on here recently. Brilliant.

I slept with a lass once, doesn't mean I'm not a raging hom. PS Stevie you don't half talk some shite at times.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt. is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ? Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government. Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british. You would've been as fucked as Iceland. Not according to most economists. Like who? Andrew Hughes Hallett, professor of economics and public policy at George Mason University in Virginia and a visiting professor at St Andrews University for one. Most economists actually meant one economist then? I can't imagine why he'd be biased either. If you want me to name loads of economists who agree with me I can but it may take a while. And all economists are biased depending on who is paying for their advice. And where is the visiting professor visiting at the moment like?