British Politics Thread.

[Psychosplodge]

Inreality it was Sheffield council at greatest fault as they allowed the game to go ahead despite the lack of safety certification.

If you're going to get in to that sort of thing, treating the "fans" as one gestalt individual, then I think the history of policing has a far worse reputation of making poor decisions that lead to the unlawful killing of innocents.

It probably does. As I said it took all three.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Jeremy Hunt is a smarmy ******* that needs a slap

[Mr Mystery]

Of course he is.

Not only is he a Tory, but he's the Tory in charge of the NHS, which they seem hell bent on wrecking and selling off piecemeal to those very nice chums they have, and no doubt at a rock bottom price.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Though that would potentially encourage conformism and not allow dissenting views of anysort

Hardly. You'd have a committee of people who know the subject, not necessarily people enforcing a certain ideology.

Again, any argument worth its sort would have at least some compelling evidence to back up its claim, something irrefutable unlike, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams." Something that an expert can't punch holes in and disprove immediately.

I'm just saying that we should really use scientific process in more areas, because letting anyone with an opinion stand next to an expert and be treated equally is a farce. It's how a**hats like Jeremy Hunt are regarded to know more than doctors about how doctors are treated, how anti-vaccination is still kicking, and how homeopathy is only now being removed from the NHS list of medicines they'll fund despite decades of dozens of studies proving that it's just damn water.

There's a difference between challenging the system with a new, unforeseen paradigm, and putting your fingers in your ears screaming, "LALALALALALA," while the evidence tears your argument asunder. One of them holds up to the evidence in some way, but is an unlikely hypothesis that warrants further research. The other is pure fantasy, more often than not, based on something that sounds like it might work but really doesn't.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Scientists and Historians are largely welcoming of any challenge to their findings - after all, that's how they support their conclusions.

[Denzark]

Jeez we're all over the place today - what can be allowed to be said in public, Hillsborough and Jeremy Hunt.

OK - who should be banned in Public. EDL is an easy example. As MM said, even a cursory glance can discount what they say as nuts. But hang on - they first came about as a deliberate response to Muslims against Crusades protesting against a home coming march of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton. They also don't want Sharia Law in the UK. Stopping protests against homecoming marches and not having Sharia law are 2 reasonable things according to me. So not all EDL stuff is whack. Then someone will retort - Muslims against crusades were only exercising their right to protest. OK so already we are in the grounds of - how do you peer review EDL or MaC? (I get in the med examples barking Wakefield should not have been givne the oxygen of publicity - or oxygen at all for that matter).

Hillsborough. Jeez. £116m to get to here, what price a life? Whilst I hope that police found to have lied or been obstructionate with statements get prosecuted, and whilst I hope those ignoring stadium maximum numbers for safety get corporate manslaughter, I've got to say, Police may have opened a barrier, but they weren't pushing their truncheons into the backs of fans who then crushed other fans. People WERE forced into security fencing, people WERE NOT forced into the stadium. Police should have planned and controlled better, but excited (not malicious) fans were part of cause and effect.

NHS - some interesting reports in the DT today about the new contract - 13.5% payrise and less hours overall iirc. Just arguing about their weekends. No sympathy - my pay and pension and contract was arbitrarily changed and I can't go on strike.

MM - I will start a Refrendum thread later when I can be arsed as there is defintiely enough for a separate thread.

[Psychosplodge]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-36149020[/url]

Unless the ban only applies in Scotland, it seems wrong that a reading that wouldn't get you charged in England gets you banned (maybe they should just fine you in the overlapping part?)

[grimmas]

It'll be based on where the offence occurred. England and Scotland already have very different laws. In the case of Drink drive it'll be where they breath test you as that's where the offence practically occurs. Still there are already plenty of powerful beers and largers that'll take you over with just one pint in Engalnd as well.

[Haighus]

To be honest, it should be that low in England too, but we do tend to lag behind the Scottish in laws that benefit our health, such as in smoking legislation. I always hated it when Dad said he can have one pint, it'll be fine.

[Psychosplodge]

It'll be based on where the offence occurred. England and Scotland already have very different laws. In the case of Drink drive it'll be where they breath test you as that's where the offence practically occurs. Still there are already plenty of powerful beers and largers that'll take you over with just one pint in Engalnd as well.

Yeah but I meant they're being banned from the rest of the UK's roads as well when they haven't actually done anything illegal here.

To be honest, it should be that low in England too, but we do tend to lag behind the Scottish in laws that benefit our health, such as in smoking legislation. I always hated it when Dad said he can have one pint, it'll be fine.

I think its about right where it is. You can go out, have a pint with your lunch somewhere and drive home. The people that go out and ignore the current limit would ignore a lower limit, but all the currently law abiding people that do no harm would either be criminalised, or not bother going out - like a large percentage of smokers did.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm in favour of 'no drinks at all at all if you're driving'.

You can risk your own life and limb as much as you want - but think of those lives all too easily ruined because 'one more won't hurt'