Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
No that doesn't work.
Your analogies never do.
This is the problem with remainers. Your hyperbolic rantings just make people laugh or push against the ridiculous.
Think about what you said. Seriously.
should I say safety in numbers? and they are not bad cars, parts are plentiful and cheaper than other brands.
When my Toyota Supra got broken into, I changed to Audi then that one got stolen, we switched to Ford and I now ride a Woosh e-bike.
Indeed, and a classic case of how that problem was created by government and public.
Back in the early 1960s when I did some voluntary work with heroin addicts, that was the only addictive drug present. There were only some 400 addicts in the whole country, virtually all in London, so it wasn't a problem and couldn't grow into a crime problem for a simple reason. That was that they were prescribed a daily dose of heroin bpc which satisfied their need. There was no physical problem with that since heroin is merely a functional replacement for our natural endorphins that control the physical pains of normal life, and addicts on pure heroin bpc function in every way normally. It's the street heroin bulked with contaminants that are harmful.
So no cause for crime and no motivation to spread drug use.
But the reason all the addicts congregated in London was that Boots in Piccadilly Circus was the one 24 hour chemist in the country, meaning addicts could get their prescription at a minute past midnight when their daily craving took hold most. Of course that led to them congregating at that time, and one day an MP happening on this was annoyed and found out about the prescriptions.
He very stupidly out of ignorance raised it in the House of Commons, starting a fuss that led to the heroin being replaced with methadone which it was hoped would wean addicts of the heroin. It doesn't, it's a very poor substitute which doesn't satisfy, so the addicts craved heroin as well and the crooks stepped into this new opportunity. Thus two new crime forms were created, the heroin supply and dealing and the addicts stealing to pay for the doses.
But of course 400 addicts isn't much of a business, so the dealers tactics were to offer free doses for new recruits to addiction. A typical addicts tactic was to invite someone to a party, get them a bit drunk and give them a heroin dose. That hooked them, and of course the more recruits, the more free doses an addict got. That over time directly led to the explosion of the drugs problem with other drugs like cocaine etc added to the lucrative business.
The entire huge problem kicked off by one unthinking MP with the support from the ignorance of the media and the public. The tiny cost of pure heroin for some 400 replaced by an incalculable permanent cost.
.
Last edited:
As I've already answered previously, life sentences then?
So when does that start, lifting a small item from a shop gets a life sentence? After all, crime starts somewhere. Who decides at what level the life sentence comes in, and meanwhile all their previous crimes have happened, showing how false your argument is.
And it doesn't stand up for another reason, do you really think crime stops with one generation of criminals in prison?
Please read what I post and start thinking. I have already posted how long sentences lead to more generational crime, and that's a major cause of crime increasing. So your "solution" increases crime, and the facts show that to be true.
.
Last edited:
Come in now ,lets go back to basics, you are making it so more complicated. A shot gun cartridge costs 30 cents, does the job, bill the parents for the 30 cents ,and expect them to supply the bleach to wash up the brains and gore. Now what crime would you think merits that? Disrespectful to a policeman?, Japing in the park,Drunk and disordely, consuming an illicit substances? Conning thr public? Failure to attend a public school? ,Having the audacity to have unwed parents,or worse poor parents?.
Transcribed from Todays Irish times ....
"We can’t go back to the “borders of the past” has been a constant political refrain on all sides in the Brexit debate. And we probably won’t, at least not in the way most people think of the old Irish Border, as a security checkpoint with watchtowers and soldiers. But a report published during the week points to what a border of the future might look like after Brexit, and that is none too pretty either. As Boris Johnson seemingly heads towards 10 Downing Street with a mandate from his party to “just get on with it”–as he put it in Friday’s BBC interview– the danger is that he is prepared to take the risks this involves.
There is simply no way around the border dilemma. If Northern Ireland leaves the EU trading bloc, then goods and animals need to be checked entering the Republic – as part of the EU single market. Speaking in Dublin this week, the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson called on the Dublin Government to enter talks with the DUP to find a way forward.
But no way exists which combines the kind of Brexit which the DUP has supported with the absence of a trade Border on the island. A time-limit on the backstop would only be a fig-leaf covering over the real issues and would inevitably sets up risks and uncertainty for the future. Now the EU insists there will be no renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement and so the collision course is set, when the new UK prime minister heads to Brussels and starts banging the table about the backstop.
The latest report to set out the consequences of a no-deal for the Irish Border was published by the North’s Department of Economic Development and written by Michael Lux, who headed the European Commission’s directorate general for tax and customs for 25 years and Eric Pickett, a German lawyer specialising in customs, trade and WTO law. The department itself said its conclusions are a “sobering reflection” on the limited options available in relation to border trade in the event of a no-deal Brexit
What is at issue here are the kind of controls which were in place at the Irish Border before the EU single market in 1993, when customs posts controlled the movement of goods. The report says that things could be done to reduce border checks and limit, to an extent, the cost to business. But there is simply no way to avoid physical checks to ensure customs rules are being met, food is safe and animals are not carrying any risk of disease.
Related
British official in charge of Brexit Border preparations leaves her job
Parity of esteem for Britishness essential in any united Ireland
May’s cabinet to consider alternative Border proposal in Brexit deal
The report jumps through all the legal hoops. The UK and EU could both act under a security clause in World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, refusing to erect border checks because they would create a security risk. However in typically lawyerly understatement, the authors point out that the EU side would be unlikely to agree to this as it would open up dangers including “smuggling, risks to the environment, risks to health”, particularly in heavily regulated fields such as pharmaceuticals and in food and animal safety.
These risks rise as UK rules diverge from EU ones, or products enter the UK from outside the EU and are being shipped on through the Irish Border. But full alignment of rules North and South – the essence of the backstop – is rejected by the DUP and, despite signing up to it, by the Conservatives. And the DUP also rejects checks on goods entering the North. And so we end up going around in the same circle we have been in for the last few years.
Special zones
There are, of course, options which might be considered if a trade border does reappear to make life easier for businesses – such as special economic zones close to the Border allowing some freedom of movement within confined areas, and of course the use of technology to check movements of goods from larger operators with special authorisation. Special frontier zones might help local farmers and microbusinesses.
But if the North leaves the EU trading bloc, you still need checks and infrastructure – one proposal is to have a special back-to-back logistics centre, a large warehouse operating across the Border through which goods could be cleared. And the EU will insist that the Republic clears animals, foods and plants through specially equipped border inspection posts.
None of this is simple. The report takes four pages to assess the rules and possible simplifications of a food product moving from the North to the Republic for processing and then back to the UK for sale to consumers. The concept that a no-deal Brexit can be simply and relatively painlessly executed is completely shattered when you read this kind of stuff. If it is a no-deal, make no mistake, it will be chaos not only in relation to the Irish Border, but on a much wider scale, too.
As the debate heats up again heading towards the next deadline, we must presume the EU will hold firm on the text of the withdrawal agreement. Its central point is that the North must remain aligned to the rules of the EU customs union and single market, to avoid the need for border checks. This meets the Irish definition of no return to a hard Border, which is basically that things remain pretty much as they are.
However the risk now is that the next incumbent of 10 Downing Street may take a different interpretation of what a hard Border means – and be prepared to run the risks to peace in the North that a no-deal exit entails. On Friday, Johnson said the Irish Border problem could be solved by “maximum facilitation”– the nonsense phrase loved by Brexiteers to let on that technology can solve everything– and having the necessary checks conducted away from the Border itself. To pretend this solves the problem is nonsense, but Johnson clearly couldn’t care less.The push from the shires to “just get on with it” is deeply dangerous not only for Britain, but also for this
"We can’t go back to the “borders of the past” has been a constant political refrain on all sides in the Brexit debate. And we probably won’t, at least not in the way most people think of the old Irish Border, as a security checkpoint with watchtowers and soldiers. But a report published during the week points to what a border of the future might look like after Brexit, and that is none too pretty either. As Boris Johnson seemingly heads towards 10 Downing Street with a mandate from his party to “just get on with it”–as he put it in Friday’s BBC interview– the danger is that he is prepared to take the risks this involves.
There is simply no way around the border dilemma. If Northern Ireland leaves the EU trading bloc, then goods and animals need to be checked entering the Republic – as part of the EU single market. Speaking in Dublin this week, the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson called on the Dublin Government to enter talks with the DUP to find a way forward.
But no way exists which combines the kind of Brexit which the DUP has supported with the absence of a trade Border on the island. A time-limit on the backstop would only be a fig-leaf covering over the real issues and would inevitably sets up risks and uncertainty for the future. Now the EU insists there will be no renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement and so the collision course is set, when the new UK prime minister heads to Brussels and starts banging the table about the backstop.
The latest report to set out the consequences of a no-deal for the Irish Border was published by the North’s Department of Economic Development and written by Michael Lux, who headed the European Commission’s directorate general for tax and customs for 25 years and Eric Pickett, a German lawyer specialising in customs, trade and WTO law. The department itself said its conclusions are a “sobering reflection” on the limited options available in relation to border trade in the event of a no-deal Brexit
What is at issue here are the kind of controls which were in place at the Irish Border before the EU single market in 1993, when customs posts controlled the movement of goods. The report says that things could be done to reduce border checks and limit, to an extent, the cost to business. But there is simply no way to avoid physical checks to ensure customs rules are being met, food is safe and animals are not carrying any risk of disease.
Related
British official in charge of Brexit Border preparations leaves her job
Parity of esteem for Britishness essential in any united Ireland
May’s cabinet to consider alternative Border proposal in Brexit deal
The report jumps through all the legal hoops. The UK and EU could both act under a security clause in World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, refusing to erect border checks because they would create a security risk. However in typically lawyerly understatement, the authors point out that the EU side would be unlikely to agree to this as it would open up dangers including “smuggling, risks to the environment, risks to health”, particularly in heavily regulated fields such as pharmaceuticals and in food and animal safety.
These risks rise as UK rules diverge from EU ones, or products enter the UK from outside the EU and are being shipped on through the Irish Border. But full alignment of rules North and South – the essence of the backstop – is rejected by the DUP and, despite signing up to it, by the Conservatives. And the DUP also rejects checks on goods entering the North. And so we end up going around in the same circle we have been in for the last few years.
Special zones
There are, of course, options which might be considered if a trade border does reappear to make life easier for businesses – such as special economic zones close to the Border allowing some freedom of movement within confined areas, and of course the use of technology to check movements of goods from larger operators with special authorisation. Special frontier zones might help local farmers and microbusinesses.
But if the North leaves the EU trading bloc, you still need checks and infrastructure – one proposal is to have a special back-to-back logistics centre, a large warehouse operating across the Border through which goods could be cleared. And the EU will insist that the Republic clears animals, foods and plants through specially equipped border inspection posts.
None of this is simple. The report takes four pages to assess the rules and possible simplifications of a food product moving from the North to the Republic for processing and then back to the UK for sale to consumers. The concept that a no-deal Brexit can be simply and relatively painlessly executed is completely shattered when you read this kind of stuff. If it is a no-deal, make no mistake, it will be chaos not only in relation to the Irish Border, but on a much wider scale, too.
As the debate heats up again heading towards the next deadline, we must presume the EU will hold firm on the text of the withdrawal agreement. Its central point is that the North must remain aligned to the rules of the EU customs union and single market, to avoid the need for border checks. This meets the Irish definition of no return to a hard Border, which is basically that things remain pretty much as they are.
However the risk now is that the next incumbent of 10 Downing Street may take a different interpretation of what a hard Border means – and be prepared to run the risks to peace in the North that a no-deal exit entails. On Friday, Johnson said the Irish Border problem could be solved by “maximum facilitation”– the nonsense phrase loved by Brexiteers to let on that technology can solve everything– and having the necessary checks conducted away from the Border itself. To pretend this solves the problem is nonsense, but Johnson clearly couldn’t care less.The push from the shires to “just get on with it” is deeply dangerous not only for Britain, but also for this
Yes you can commit crimes while in prison. Half the US film output shows how it is done..and that includes murder and extortion.
Burglary is pretty difficult .
Murderers get life already and extortion would get you a hefty sentence. so your post was pointless.Youre not an obnoxious adolescent anymore, old boy. Try to do something different than these tedious attempts at trolling.
A pattern of behaviour which indicates the person will continue to commit crime until such time that they are put in a place which makes it impossible for them to continue. 4-5-6 n+1 crimes, then It’s time to say goodbye for a very very very long time.
Indeed, but entirely avoidable with a tiny bit of research and much thought before acting.
Nowhere are gut instincts more unreliable than in the field of criminology, where gut instincts are very often the opposite of correct action.
.
so basically the thinking is that the uk cannot leave the eu without still being dictated to by the eu, because ireland wants to be in the eu. if ireland left there would not be a problem. So we could use the counter argument that you can't stay in because we want to leave
Done in the USA with very long and harsh sentences, leading to them having one of the world's highest crime rates and a prison population some 5 times ours pro rata and the highest in the world.
And you want the same here, well over 400,000 in prison instead of 86,000, and a big increase in crime?
.
Last edited:
If you don't compare leaving what is in effect a trading bloc with nuclear Armageddon then I won't have to point out your nonsense.
And we have already seen the UK government threatening to have no tariffs and what looks like extremely limited checking. Which makes things coming from the UK into Ireland far less trustworthy than at present.
when we sign a trade deal with another country, we'll have to agree to something and a mechanism of dispute resolution, such as our government can be taken to a US Court in New York by an American company.
Do we say we are pleased that some candidates are insisting on a "proper" contest?
Or disgusted that others would seek to avoid one?
Tory leadership candidates have insisted there must be no unchallenged “coronation” for frontrunner Boris Johnson at the latest round of hustings.
Senior cabinet ministers were reported to have hatched plans to force other candidates to withdraw from the race after Johnson comfortably topped the poll in the first ballot of MPs this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/15/tory-leadership-rivals-no-coronation-boris-johnson
If he were ushered in, would there be grounds for judicial review? Could be an almighty mess they precipitate if they try to avoid a contest.
Or disgusted that others would seek to avoid one?
Tory leadership candidates have insisted there must be no unchallenged “coronation” for frontrunner Boris Johnson at the latest round of hustings.
Senior cabinet ministers were reported to have hatched plans to force other candidates to withdraw from the race after Johnson comfortably topped the poll in the first ballot of MPs this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/15/tory-leadership-rivals-no-coronation-boris-johnson
If he were ushered in, would there be grounds for judicial review? Could be an almighty mess they precipitate if they try to avoid a contest.
I'd like a bit of 'blue on blue action' - only because BJ does not like it.
Who leads them, the matter is internal to the conservative party.
The country voted for a hung parliament but still not enough to stop the conservatives forming a minority government.
Our turn will come at the next GE. I bet the conservatives will lose grip on power.
If BJ becomes PM, the GE may be a bit sooner than if Hunt or Gove or Stewart becomes PM (in that order).