View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 605 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 604, 605, 606, 607, 608  Next

PDR
1358437.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:31 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
Not true: Abu Hamza was arrested for mass murder, and Julian Assange for rape.


But in both cases the crimes were beyond the jurisdiction of the English court. They were arrested to face extradition in accordance with Treaties the UK had signed with the countries where the alleged crimes took place.

Quote:

And no, you can never be arrested for breach of contract because there is a fundamental distinction between civil law and criminal law. Fraud is a crime, forgery is a crime: these are not breaches of contract. The concepts are different.


It is true that civil and criminal law are different things, but in breaching a contract intentionally you can be committing any of a number of criminal offences for which you can be arrested, and all of which spring directly from the breaching of the contract.

But all of this is just sophistry - a legal debate for a classroom. To claim there is no such thing as international law flies in the face of reality. Treaties are recognised as such, schools offer classes in it, and chambers offer specialist expertise in it. The sad fact is that you are simply trying to spin the indefensible acts of an abhorent man to further your long-established and utterly reprehensible little-englander agenda.

Thankyou for clearly identifying yourself as a person whose word cannot be trusted, and who regards the truth as optional. We shall keep that in mind when reading your posts.

PDR

 
crissdee
1358438.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:38 pm Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
crissdee wrote:
It is (afaik) in no way illegal for me to talk, or write, about my plans to break various laws as and when it suits my purpose to do it


That depends on the plans and the crimes that are being planned I believe. If you are planning with an accomplice that would be a conspiracy,


But still, would the onus not be on the authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I (and/or any accomplice) intended to carry through our plan?

 
barbados
1358440.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:57 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
barbados wrote:
People are quite happy to overlook breaking the law if it suits them to do so.

Perhaps you are, but it’s not everyone who suffers from that level of moral turpitude.


Are you telling mr that you would never overlook breaking a law?



PDR wrote:

I did actually ask him that question a few pages back, and he declined to answer. But while he did give Tetts an answer to the same question this statement would appear to contradict that answer.

I guess we must draw our own conclusions from this.

PDR

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish - you do anyway, and generally that conclusion is incorrect. However Alfred E Neuman did not ask a question. Also Tetts did not ask the same question as you did - he asked
Quote:
Can we have a simple answer?

To which I answered “yes” not sure how that contradicts the statement made here? but out of interest, seeing as you appear to be joining in the questioning of morals, what are your thoughts on whether someone should ever overlook breaking the law or not?

 
barbados
1358442.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:24 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
How often are spot checks conducted within the EU? What proportion of producers fail them?


Remember the horse-meat scandal?

PDR

Are you sure you want to use that as a beacon for the EU?

 
PDR
1358443.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:56 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Also Tetts did not ask the same question as you did - he asked
Quote:
Can we have a simple answer?

To which I answered “yes” not sure how that contradicts the statement made here? but out of interest, seeing as you appear to be joining in the questioning of morals, what are your thoughts on whether someone should ever overlook breaking the law or not?


Thankyou for clarifying, and I happily concede that I was wrong in assuming that you were actually answering a question for once rather than twisting, deflecting and generally equivocating in your desperate support for the manifestly dishonourable, disreputable scum we have for a government.

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer this question speaks volumes.

PDR

 
PDR
1358444.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:01 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
what are your thoughts on whether someone should ever overlook breaking the law or not?


General thoughts on breaking laws - people should abide by the law, and if they disagree with a law they should use the democratic process to change it except for the rare cases where it is clearly bad law. We have the ECHR as a benchmark we could hold such examples against.

But in a case where I negotiated and signed a treaty I would feel absolutely obliged to abide by its terms (the spirit and the letter) unless and until I had either formally withdrawn from ALL of that treaty and/or had mutually agreed a replacement.

PDR

 
PDR
1358445.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:07 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
PDR wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
How often are spot checks conducted within the EU? What proportion of producers fail them?


Remember the horse-meat scandal?

PDR

Are you sure you want to use that as a beacon for the EU?


I'm not using it as a "beacon for the EU". I'm using it as an example to show why it is necessary to maintain food testing standards across borders. The sort of fuck-witted drivel proposed by your beloved Boris creates the perfect opportunity for those of a criminal bent to exploit the leaky border.

Sadly the Brexit Mendocracy are still telling their poor little drones that it is possible to take back control of our borders without allowing the EU to do the same. It's that sort of brainless twaddle that shows how utterly moronic these people are.

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1358449.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:30 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Alfred E Neuman wrote:
barbados wrote:
People are quite happy to overlook breaking the law if it suits them to do so.

Perhaps you are, but it’s not everyone who suffers from that level of moral turpitude.


Are you telling mr that you would never overlook breaking a law?



PDR wrote:

I did actually ask him that question a few pages back, and he declined to answer. But while he did give Tetts an answer to the same question this statement would appear to contradict that answer.

I guess we must draw our own conclusions from this.

PDR

You can draw whatever conclusion you wish - you do anyway, and generally that conclusion is incorrect. However Alfred E Neuman did not ask a question. Also Tetts did not ask the same question as you did - he asked
Quote:
Can we have a simple answer?

To which I answered “yes” not sure how that contradicts the statement made here? but out of interest, seeing as you appear to be joining in the questioning of morals, what are your thoughts on whether someone should ever overlook breaking the law or not?

Typical.

You’ve gone from “happy to overlook breaking the law” to “would you ever overlook breaking the law”.

It’s the usual round of make a stupid statement, get called on it, refuse to admit you might have made shot your mouth off and a mistake, twist the statement, refuse to answer any direct questions and in general act like a tosser.

You’ve said it. You are happy to overlook breaking the law when it suits you. Just as you are happy to mislead people when in a discussion. Don’t try to bring me into it - we’re busy discussing your lack of ethics.

 
barbados
1358451.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:15 am Reply with quote

I didn’t “bring you into it” you did that.

 
CB27
1358458.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:36 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
PDR wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
How often are spot checks conducted within the EU? What proportion of producers fail them?


Remember the horse-meat scandal?

PDR

Are you sure you want to use that as a beacon for the EU?


I'm not using it as a "beacon for the EU". I'm using it as an example to show why it is necessary to maintain food testing standards across borders.
...

PDR

While the cause of the Horse Meat scandal was not a great example of the EU working well to stop it from happening*, the reaction certainly was.

Spot checking across the whole of the EU at so many stations identified the issues and culprits involved. The kind of co-operation across the continent at such speed, and the cleanup was quite remarkable, and the Government will complicate such future co-operation with their antics.

* Reports into the scandal suggested there was some inevitability that criminals could target the industry because of the pressure to remove some regulations and cut the funding for inspectors, and looked at whether it was correct for some industries to be self regulated. There have already been suggestions this Government is willing to remove regulations to agree trade, which I would say is worse that what was happening in the EU at the time.

 
barbados
1358462.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:04 am Reply with quote

My point was that the horse meat scandal was traced back to two processing plants, one in Monaghan, the other in Tipperary. Had the checks been carried out properly it would have been discovered prior to arrival in the UK

 
CB27
1358463.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:08 am Reply with quote

Had the checks been carried out here in the UK, it would have been spotted here first, they weren't and and it wasn't.

It was a shit show all round, but saying it happened because of the EU is a stretch.

The worse part is that, while the EU introduced regulations and checks to help stop this happening again, the "Brexit at all costs" brigade seem to suggest the UK should do away with complying to these regulations to help trade.

We get it, we're no longer part of the EU, but are we willing to race to the bottom to scamper for the pennies, at the sake of the health of the people of the UK?

 
Willie
1358466.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:24 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
My point was that the horse meat scandal was traced back to two processing plants, one in Monaghan, the other in Tipperary. Had the checks been carried out properly it would have been discovered prior to arrival in the UK


I think you may be missing out the plants in Glasgow, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, a number of plants in France, Luxembourg, Holland, Germany, Belgium, Lithuania and all the beef products in the UK from Sudexo.

The two plants you mention are part of the same company as the Glasgow and Yorkshire plants.

 
Celebaelin
1358485.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:28 am Reply with quote

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/2/15/1360950346111/Horsemeat-scandal-the-ABP-001.jpg
Routes

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/graphic/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-food-safety
14 companies

 
CB27
1358493.  Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:31 am Reply with quote

I never noticed it before, but one of the companies involved is Dutch and is called Paard, and they claimed they labelled all their meat as horse meat.

The company name spelled backwards is literally Horse in Dutch.

 

Page 605 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 604, 605, 606, 607, 608  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group