Jump to content

robbin

Member
  • Posts

    960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by robbin

  1. JL - "while the Russians have dispersed their air units to a variety of locations so that America can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back" I don't understand that - the sentence contradicts itself. If the Russians have moved their aircraft so they don't get targeted, how does that mean the US can't fire missiles? They are not planning on attacking Russian forces (obviously) but the Assad regime - it suits the US to avoid having Russians getting in the way and being killed. In fact it suits Russia too - they don't want a fight (themselves) with the USA - they would be massively out-gunned and anyway it just doesn't suit either power. That is why the Russian ships just left their port at Tartus - they don't want any strikes hitting them. The two powers also have a system of direct communications between their commanders on the ground to avoid mistaken attacks - that will no doubt also be used to try to make sure the Russians are not in the firing line directly. The real danger is they get hit because they happen to be close by, hence the communications. Last time when the US fired cruise missiles at the Syrian air base they told the Russians in advance, so they could move away and no Russians were hurt. All this amounts to is pointless virtue signalling anyway. A night's strikes on a few bases in the desert (with a couple of day's warning) is not going to change the course of anything. It is just showing that the US will not 'tolerate' war crimes of killing civilians with gas/chemical weapons. Apparently its ok to do that for years with barrel bombs and more sophisticated weaponry on a way bigger scale every day though - that's why its virtue signalling. Quite why its ok to blow a kid's arms and legs off leaving them to bleed to death in agony is ok, but to gas them to death is not, I don't quite understand. Both actions seem equally vile to me. The daily Syrian (supported by Russia) bombing and artillery must have killed thousands of times as many as died in the chemical attacks - just this year alone.
  2. BB you have mentioned distraction burglaries more than once, but certain members of their group's history is way worse than that, by reports I have read. They appear to include serious (armed) threats of violence, what amounts to attempted armed robbery and extortion (in one case the suspect accomplice was involved in an attempt to hijack a car using a knife against two plain clothes police officers - which led to convictions). They are reported in the press to have made threats of violent revenge against the victim and his wife (no matter how long it takes) and their house is now boarded up and they have to live somewhere else. At their time of life, having done nothing wrong (in fact no doubt traumatised anyway from the horrible experience - I imagine he feels awful to have killed someone even if in self defence) I think that's a disgrace. Personally, I cannot see any case for the Police not taking a seriously hard line. They have plenty of powers to do so if someone is being threatened, harassed or intimidated. I hope the victims have good family support. The Police and CPS obviously concluded the homeowners were victims. No amount of intimidation of a victim ought to be tolerated.
  3. Malumbu, I'm more worried about why you keep referring to yourself in the third person! ; )
  4. It would have been lunacy to charge him with murder. Lunacy.
  5. Yep. From the moment the Police said the dead man was one of two armed burglars (i.e. not someone known to homeowner and therefore not someone he stabbed in a rage, or an argument) the 78 year old man with his sick wife upstairs (with the other man going upstairs while the dead man stayed in the kitchen) was never realistically going to be charged. Since the law changed to permit disproportionate force there's no real prospect of a conviction on those facts. The Police had to check it out first though - it's their function. Fair play to them and the CPS that they did it quickly.
  6. I've just been reading about the dead burglar and some of his lovely feral family members. It's quite shocking! Pretty vile people.
  7. JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JohnL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The police and CPS have to go through the > > motions > > > - I think the law says also that for a self > > > defence defence you need to feel in imminent > > > danger for your life. > > > > It doesn't - there's no such requirement. You > may > > use (objectively) reasonable force to defend > > yourself. It's use also has to be justified and > > necessary. Since the much publicised change in > > the law in 2013 (Crime and Courts Act), as a > > homeowner, you are entitled to use > > disproportionate force to defend yourself. > > > Seems to be true after checking - not a change in > the law but a precedent case set by judges > > https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/15/high-c > ourt-rejects-challenge-to-householder-defence-law > >Always good to check but... The Guardian?! You're not correct in your interpretation though - it was a change in the law (by statute) as I said. See Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The case referred to in the Grauniad was 3 years later when the family of the injured burglar brought a case challenging the validity of Section 43 on the grounds that it contravened the Human Rights Act as it was incompatible with the right to life (originally in the ECHR). Not surprisingly that argument was kicked into touch.
  8. flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > in a thread of baseless hyperbole and red faced > macho fury, it seemed rude not to stir it a little If you think this thread is full of baseless hyperbole and fury you should try going to the Brexit thread and typing "on reflection, I'm not sure that Brexit will be such a bad thing for the country in the long run" and stand back!
  9. flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Burglars have more rights than the burgled these > days - I know of one bloke who was sued by a > burglar as the laptop he had stolen was not pat > tested and gave him an electric shock when he > tried to sell to cash converters. this is a 100% > TRUE FACT. > > The pensioners should have knocked the arresting > policemans' hat off as they are legally unable to > arrest you if this happens. this is also a 100% > TRUE FACT. Funniest posting of the day - 100% TRUE FACT (I love the hat 'fact' but I'm guessing you may not be a lawyer?!)
  10. JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The police and CPS have to go through the motions > - I think the law says also that for a self > defence defence you need to feel in imminent > danger for your life. It doesn't - there's no such requirement. You may use (objectively) reasonable force to defend yourself. It's use also has to be justified and necessary. Since the much publicised change in the law in 2013 (Crime and Courts Act), as a homeowner, you are entitled to use disproportionate force to defend yourself.
  11. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the reports thus far it sounds as if this > gent was defending himself and if so hopefully all > charges will be dropped - after a full and > properly conducted investigation. I haven't read anywhere that he has been charged with anything (so there's no charges to drop). He's only been arrested, which means he will presumably be interviewed and eventually the CPS will make a charging decision based on the facts known to them. The police have a job to do, which is to investigate - where someone has died, they cannot take things at face value without first checking what is being said/what might have happened.
  12. That posting puts me in mind of a Daily Express health 'breakthrough' headline - sounds exciting, dramatic and new, but when you read the article there's actually nothing new or particularly surprising in it!
  13. Not really!
  14. Louisa wrote: "I am merely pointing out, that is is common courtesy and community spirited to keep kerbside spaces outside of properties, primarily for the use of the resident within that vicinity, as frequently as possible. And when the roads have quietened down, others should be mindful of that fact. I have had many a argument with people over this outside my house, and would do so again. If I need to reserve a space I believe it is my right to do so. It is common sense surely? Louisa." Did these arguments include arguing with your neighbours/other residents of your flats/building? Also, if you stick your bin in the road to obstruct it and stop anyone from parking there - how does that discriminate between locals looking for somewhere to park and supposed out of towners coming to 'steal' 'your' space? It doesn't discriminate does it? It's just selfish and anti-social behaviour.
  15. RH - Not sure where you work out the 15% from. The BG website is confusing and uses different (less precise breakdowns). 'Europe' in the BG site includes Norway - which is where the vast majority of our gas comes from. Norway's pipelines do not (cannot) carry Russian gas, so it is inapposite to apply the figures for European pipelines from the BG website. For what it is worth, the BBC say this: There are no pipelines that allow Russian gas to flow to the UK from Norway (the biggest source of imports). But it's impossible to establish the source of gas flows from continental Europe coming to the UK through pipelines. The government estimated in 2016 that Russian gas via this route would make up around 1% of the UK's gas imports. A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told BBC News that the UK "benefits from highly diverse and flexible sources of gas supply. We estimate less than 1% of our gas comes from Russia and are in no way reliant on it". Whether 1% or 15% (but clearly it is nearer to the 1%) it doesn't seem at all likely that Russia will punch itself in the face by turning off its largest (or close to largest) revenue stream over something like this. It is trying to get stronger not weaker. Even a genuine possibility that cutting off supplies might happen could be damaging to Russia in the medium to long term because Germany and others will see it as a strategic threat and start sourcing energy in different forms and from different suppliers.
  16. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Article here > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43421431 with > details of gas supply to UK . Interesting. I knew we hardly used any gas from Russia, but I hadn't realised it was quite as low as 1% of our total gas imports.
  17. JL I think it was clear enough. I agree all of that - particularly about the long term plan - Putin may not even have an end goal (apart from general destabilisation) but he acts with the long term in mind. He also has flexibility - he can act way faster than most other world leaders if he needs to - he doesn't have to jump through hoops or worry about carrying things through votes in Parliament as some would! I'm sure you're correct that Putin wants a buffer from NATO - I think (having discussed this a fair bit on visits to Russia/Ukraine) that in the West we often fail to understand the genuine depth of concern and mistrust caused by foreign forces being on their border - after all they were occupied at huge cost in WWII in a way we never were and that has never been forgotten. I wasn't suggesting Putin was ever considering taking all of Ukraine - quite the contrary - he needed to secure the Black Sea naval port at Sevastopol in Crimea - just as a couple of years ago he needed to secure his only Mediterranean naval port at Tartus in Syria. His forces/proxy forces then seized and held the richest part of Ukraine in terms of natural resources - the east also had the benefit of close proximity to Russia. Ukraine also doesn't have the extreme mountainous terrain that Afghanistan has in order to assist with an insurgency - mostly just endless miles of plains (the Great European Plain) or steppe. Cleverly, what Putin also appreciated was that in the eastern part of Ukraine there was a fair proportion of the population that would consider themselves far more closely aligned to Russia (most of the population being Russian speakers - not Ukrainian). That made the area a far safer bet in terms of holding the land after it had been seized.
  18. I think you underestimate Putin - he's far more sophisticated than you give him credit for. He doesn't just come out fighting because that's a hard-wired response (or because he has a tough guy image) and he won't necessarily up the ante (he would only do this if he thinks there is a benefit to doing so and cutting off one of your major long term revenue streams doesn't sound too beneficial). He is just as likely, having tested the water and (possibly surprisingly) found it to be rather icy cold, to limit any response to a measured tit for tat and hope the matter blows over. I suspect he was not banking on the sort of combined response that has taken place. If Russia and Putin were responsible for the nerve agent attack, he is most likely to have viewed it as a test to see whether they could cause some instability between the allies at a time when the UK and EU are splitting and there is a minority government and Trump in the WH. Now he has his pretty clear answer, there's nothing in it for him to escalate against so many different countries more powerful than his own. What would be the point in that? He's just won his election. Leaders with a tough guy image who are also clever operators don't pick pointless fights they may lose (or be perceived to have lost). To remain the tough leader you have to pick your fights carefully. Putin does that - he knew he could batter the opposition in Syria and he knew he could take Crimea and his proxies could take the far east of Ukraine, but he equally saw that he should then stop, as a fight for the rest of Ukraine, although one he could win, would come at a major price.
  19. Louisa - don't you live in a flat? If so, how is the space outside your building 'your' space which you can keep for yourself with a bin? How would that be neighbourly behaviour? What about the other 3 or 4 families/residents living in the same building? If you don't, then I ask my question more generally regarding flats.
  20. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... Yes I have reserved a space with wheelie bins when > I?ve been back and forward to hospital and need a > space outside my property without being forced to > walk miles to my front door. I have also reserved > a space when I have been expecting big deliveries > from the likes of B&Q or Homebase. I am not > ashamed of that fact. > > Louisa. Hmmm, you have certainly changed your tune then, Louisa! It didn't used to be just on hospital trips! message Re: One hour free parking in the area... Posted by Louisa 26 January, 2015 15:55 StraferJack I personally believe it is common decency that a person shouldn't park outside someone's house - regardless of how desperate they are for the space. I drive almost everywhere, with the exception of around here because it is primarily residential and I walk so as not to inconvenience people. I've been at the wrong end of a selfish space stealer outside my own place many a time and I wouldn't want to do the same to someone else. A space is outside your house for good reason, it is technically your space (regardless of it being on a public road), and it should be public convention that this space is only occupied by the people (persons) who occupy the property in front of it. Louisa.
  21. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > flocker spotter Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am not wrong. read the RTA sections I > mentioned. > > I did, it mentioned liabilities, but it did not > mention contracts. Not unsurprisingly as the RTA > really isn't concerned with contract law. A > liability is not a contract. > Also, that's not correct - the relevant provisions of the RTA do specifically address contracts - in that they render invalid/unenforceable any contractual terms that would otherwise permit an insurer to avoid such part of a contract that may oblige them to pay out to a third party.
  22. To be fair Loz, although FS seems like a bit of a rude n*b, the issue of whether or not there's a contract between the insurer and the third party seems to be irrelevant in the context of this particular conversation isn't it? I agree that there isn't any privity of contract between the two, but notwithstanding this, the effect of the RTA (as amended) is to prevent an insurer from avoiding liability to pay a third party, albeit only after that third party has obtained a court judgment against the insured. The insurer can, of course then pursue the insured for reimbursement of the judgment sum and costs.
  23. Not very - hence my comment!
  24. To be Frank, I think he's trolling.
  25. ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you. That's not "invalidated" as I > understand it. Ah, spot the lawyer?! I agree - as I said yesterday... whether or not letting an MOT expire would cause problems with a policyholder's insurance cover depends upon the terms of each individual policy. Having no valid MOT will not render a policy void ab initio (unless you have no MOT at the outset and you misrepresent to the insurer that you have). If you let your MOT expire after the policy commences, this means that the policy would be voidable at the election of the insurer, so much would depend upon whether or not the insurer decided to repudiate (avoid) the policy. The chances are, of course, that they would repudiate if it was going to cost them a lot otherwise.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...