• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Blimey we shoot a known gangster its hand wring time yet the Kenyans use rockets

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Do we? How so?
    Because the establisment wants us to live in fear
    Doing the needful since 1827

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
      Because the establisment wants us to live in fear
      No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
      Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?
      Hard Brexit now!
      #prayfornodeal

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by sasguru View Post
        No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
        Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?
        The human rights act, which strictly also gives rights to corporations as well

        GBTNS
        Doing the needful since 1827

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
          The human rights act
          Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?
            It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

            Citation required for when they don't
            Doing the needful since 1827

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
              It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

              Citation required for when they don't
              No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
              Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
              Unless you're JAC.
              Hard Brexit now!
              #prayfornodeal

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
                It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

                Citation required for when they don't
                Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by sasguru View Post
                  No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
                  Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
                  Unless you're JAC.
                  Which bit don't you understand ?
                  Doing the needful since 1827

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by amcdonald View Post
                    Which bit don't you understand ?
                    I'm just guessing as to what he doesn't understand; the bit where you say the human rights act gives more rights to criminals than victims, and at least two of us were hoping you could show us the exact parts of the act that do that.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                      Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?
                      Ok look at this case ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?
                      Doing the needful since 1827

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X