FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

laws

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Interested to see what ONE law you would change or implement ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, go

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would make it so no-one is above the law, that way when they get caught they are dealt with. All laws would apply universally to all people of a country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Meh....I ignore a lot of them anyhow.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Life bans for anyone convicted of causing death while driving.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

Throw the fucking book at parents smoking in confined spaces with their children present

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *verysmileMan
over a year ago

Canterbury

I would strip lottery wins from serious offenders (ie anyone guilty of an offence that should be tried at the Crown Court).

I would also ensure that anyone individual seeking special tax treatment pays a minimum of £10 million per year. Any business wanting to operate here would have to either pay due tax or seek a tax certificate equating to 30% of their Global turnover.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Life bans for anyone convicted of causing death while driving."

Yep. Then jail time Id they're caught driving again

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Meh....I ignore a lot of them anyhow. "

I don't worry about the law, the law worries about me!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lie detector tests are useless, so not used in court of law. But...

If they ever invented a proper lie detector, that could be used because it is accurate and works on everyone, i would make it so they get an electric shock every time they lie.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution."

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Drink driving , if you drink , dont drive , if you have even 1 drink and drive you should be banned for life , end of

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles. "

for the most part id agree but then if you had an accident and were trapped in a car how would you phone for help?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Meh....I ignore a lot of them anyhow.

I don't worry about the law, the law worries about me!"

The law barely acknowledges me nor I it.....

I set and adhere to my own morals, most of which do fall within the parameters of the law but that's purely coincidental.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Not a chance I'd subscribe to that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required.

Not a chance I'd subscribe to that. "

if it was law you'd have no choice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Why on earth would you want that??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required.

Not a chance I'd subscribe to that.

if it was law you'd have no choice "

There are many laws I already don't subscribe to.

They'd have to find me and overpower me to get me to subscribe to that one......no way. I live as free as I can....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would make it so no-one is above the law, that way when they get caught they are dealt with. All laws would apply universally to all people of a country."

It IS the law (in this country) that no-one is above the law. Whether that is fully applied in practice is possibly different...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath. "

How the feck can you put paedophiles and rapists in the same category as homosexuals and adulterers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guy who posted that message. You refer to rape and paedophilea as sexual acts which people don't approve of which suggests you do. They are not sexual acts, they are serious sexual offences and I for one would happily string up a long line of paedo's.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Any politicians that lie ; instant treason!!

........the 'oh so' long road to democracy MUST continue!!

*hopeful lÖÖk

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath. "

Why must he approve of stoning women to death?

What has the intolerance of Islamic societies,in regards to homosexuals,and their mistreatment of women,have anything to do with the death penalty for rapists,and paedos in the UK?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would make it so no-one is above the law, that way when they get caught they are dealt with. All laws would apply universally to all people of a country."

Awwwwwe, in a perfect word that would be nothing short of beautiful!

.........but unfortunately, Westminster, whom make the laws, are the biggest bunch of corrupt assholes -that is totally normal, don't worry - but it does tend to dampen anyone's fluffy ideals, unfortunately.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

Why must he approve of stoning women to death?

What has the intolerance of Islamic societies,in regards to homosexuals,and their mistreatment of women,have anything to do with the death penalty for rapists,and paedos in the UK?

"

Red herring fallacy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required.

Why?"

We live in a country where the vast majority of the population believe that it is wrong to 'grass' and close their curtains and turn the lights out when there is trouble outside their door and cross the street when they see trouble when out (or record it to upload on the net). I do not know how we have got here because the only people this attitude helps is criminals. I think it is the same with the objections to a biometric database and ID card. The only people that are helped by not having these tools are criminals and illegal immigrants.

My question to everyone that is anti these tools is: Why are you so anti something that will make your lives more secure? The stance of I have a right to privacy and this invades my privacy sounds to me a little like the Americans demands for the right to be victims of gun crime and have their children mown down in schools because they do not want to loose the right to bare arms.

A biometric data base and ID cards will quickly make our streets safer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd like to see them actually enforce the ones we have.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a really good idea

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ban drinking in the street. Must you really wait for the bus while drinking larger??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution."

So, if you were innocent of your, say, rapist crime, I'd hazard a guess that Fab would -kind of - simulate your average national dury (IMHO), so which dury members would you choose considering you're facing the death

penalty, - I know who I wouldn't want .... .... ...but death?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

Why must he approve of stoning women to death?

What has the intolerance of Islamic societies,in regards to homosexuals,and their mistreatment of women,have anything to do with the death penalty for rapists,and paedos in the UK?

"
So when you want to kill someone for their sexual conduct that you do not approve of thats OK and reasonable but when others kill people for sexual conduct you participate in then they and their societies are intolerant. And you see no similarities between you and them. I know I do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hatterfabWoman
over a year ago

Wakefield


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

How the feck can you put paedophiles and rapists in the same category as homosexuals and adulterers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guy who posted that message. You refer to rape and paedophilea as sexual acts which people don't approve of which suggests you do. They are not sexual acts, they are serious sexual offences and I for one would happily string up a long line of paedo's. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ummy vickyTV/TS
over a year ago

Liverpool

[Removed by poster at 14/03/15 20:59:33]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a really good idea "

no its a really stupid one.. how would you call for help if your trapped in a car after an accident

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ummy vickyTV/TS
over a year ago

Liverpool

[Removed by poster at 14/03/15 21:02:22]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

Why must he approve of stoning women to death?

What has the intolerance of Islamic societies,in regards to homosexuals,and their mistreatment of women,have anything to do with the death penalty for rapists,and paedos in the UK?

So when you want to kill someone for their sexual conduct that you do not approve of thats OK and reasonable but when others kill people for sexual conduct you participate in then they and their societies are intolerant. And you see no similarities between you and them. I know I do."

You are comparing rape and paedophilea with adultery and homosexuality. There is no comparison in any culture or society. You are the only person who has made that comparison

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ummy vickyTV/TS
over a year ago

Liverpool


"I'd like to see them actually enforce the ones we have. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would bring in a law that would make defence and prosecuting barristers swear they were telling the truth in court and if it was found they didn't believe Thier client was telling the truth they themselves would be charged with contempt and perverting the course of justice ! That would soon sort the wheat from the chaff !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *bony in IvoryCouple
over a year ago

Black&White Utopia


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."
why not go the whole hog? Micro chipped and bar code tattoo at birth!

Why has gotta be the nxt question!?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 14/03/15 21:11:26]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Genius idea - for criminals! Wouldnt take them long to copy the technology (the same way they did with the skimming devices on atms). Then they have the perfect way to steal your entire identity as they have a nice little card they can present to land you in some real trouble. Unless police are gonna do a full on the spot check to make sure the retinal scans n etc match the card there and then, which would be unrealistic to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd also like to see the law changed so that a defendant has to prove Thier innocence not the other way round ! If you are truly innocent I doubt this would be too hard in most cases !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"How the feck can you put paedophiles and rapists in the same category as homosexuals and adulterers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guy who posted that message. You refer to rape and paedophilea as sexual acts which people don't approve of which suggests you do. They are not sexual acts, they are serious sexual offences and I for one would happily string up a long line of paedo's.

"

I was waiting for someone to say that! LoL

How can I compare the 2 is easy. In Islamic States a female is of age to marry at 9, that is paedophilia as far as we are concerned. However homosexuality and adultery are crimes that carry the death penalty. Now considering that they think the exact opposite to us can you tell me what makes your choice of who should dies right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How the feck can you put paedophiles and rapists in the same category as homosexuals and adulterers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guy who posted that message. You refer to rape and paedophilea as sexual acts which people don't approve of which suggests you do. They are not sexual acts, they are serious sexual offences and I for one would happily string up a long line of paedo's.

I was waiting for someone to say that! LoL

How can I compare the 2 is easy. In Islamic States a female is of age to marry at 9, that is paedophilia as far as we are concerned. However homosexuality and adultery are crimes that carry the death penalty. Now considering that they think the exact opposite to us can you tell me what makes your choice of who should dies right?"
I can oh along with that thinking , but the rape bit ? I don't think any country or religion old that do they ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Aftet reading some of the comments id make a tick box on the forms to be excused jury duty.

" jurys are full of people to stupid to avoid jury duty"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Meant allow that !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence. "

There's no point. They work off how the body reacts, and can't actually detect whether a person is lying or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster

If you are not born a legal citizen of the country your are living in when convicted of a crime, under the laws that govern that country, you are automatically deported back to where you originated from and not allowed back into the country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

for the most part id agree but then if you had an accident and were trapped in a car how would you phone for help?"

It would work when the ignition is turned on. Once you have stopped the engine you phone would work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why not make it an offence for a politician not to answer a question straight and honestly ! Yes I know we'd have to build a lot of prisons !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How the feck can you put paedophiles and rapists in the same category as homosexuals and adulterers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guy who posted that message. You refer to rape and paedophilea as sexual acts which people don't approve of which suggests you do. They are not sexual acts, they are serious sexual offences and I for one would happily string up a long line of paedo's.

I was waiting for someone to say that! LoL

How can I compare the 2 is easy. In Islamic States a female is of age to marry at 9, that is paedophilia as far as we are concerned. However homosexuality and adultery are crimes that carry the death penalty. Now considering that they think the exact opposite to us can you tell me what makes your choice of who should dies right?"

We are discussing the laws in this country not some far away land. If a Muslim was to engage in sexual activity with a child in this country then they would be dealt with as a paedophile no matter what their religion says. And again, I'd happily string them up once convicted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

for the most part id agree but then if you had an accident and were trapped in a car how would you phone for help?

It would work when the ignition is turned on. Once you have stopped the engine you phone would work. "

& how would I take business calls as my driver takes me to my next appointment?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence.

There's no point. They work off how the body reacts, and can't actually detect whether a person is lying or not."

There a great tool. There used all over the world from the cia and fbi to insurance companies. Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd make it illegal for fuckwit politicians to sell of public owned organisations (eg the national health). It's a shitty thing to do. Off with their heads.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

for the most part id agree but then if you had an accident and were trapped in a car how would you phone for help?

It would work when the ignition is turned on. Once you have stopped the engine you phone would work.

& how would I take business calls as my driver takes me to my next appointment?"

I haven't thought about that yet. I'm still working on it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly RogererMan
over a year ago

Braintree


"I'd like to see them actually enforce the ones we have. "

My thought entirely, however!!! Most "laws" were written in the dark ages and have so many gray areas now that a good solicitor can exploit. There are so so many laws and sub sections it is impossible to keep up.

As they say.... the law is an ass

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly RogererMan
over a year ago

Braintree


"If you are not born a legal citizen of the country your are living in when convicted of a crime, under the laws that govern that country, you are automatically deported back to where you originated from and not allowed back into the country."

Agreed!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I was waiting for someone to say that! LoL"

I am somewhat dismayed to think it is a statement worthy of a Laugh Out Loud


"How can I compare the 2 is easy. In Islamic States a female is of age to marry at 9, that is paedophilia as far as we are concerned. However homosexuality and adultery are crimes that carry the death penalty. Now considering that they think the exact opposite to us can you tell me what makes your choice of who should dies right?"

I believe that the op refers to the Law of the Land. The age to marry is not the age of consent. With some countries, arranged marriages of minors is legal but cannot be argued as consentual, so not only falls flat on consent but also constitutes rape.

I find any argument that tries to reason that sex with a minor can be downgraded from paedophilia for "cultural" reasons disasteful.

Within the UK it is illegal. Threads like this can be a handy filter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lie detector tests are useless, so not used in court of law. But...

If they ever invented a proper lie detector, that could be used because it is accurate and works on everyone, i would make it so they get an electric shock every time they lie."
..

That Jeremy kyle seems fond of them!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Corporate law is where I would focus my attention!

Business has knowningly killed, maimed, disfigured amd mentally impaired more men women and children than most.

Tory bastards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

50p every quarter on a packet of fags. Darwin 'll turn in his grave but 100000 dead bodys has to be the biggest issue in the country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath. "

Thank you for your comments and your opinion!

1. I live in the UK and am referring to laws of OUR land not Sharia. I have no issues with adulterers or homosexuals and I don't know how you can put them in the same category as rapists and Paedophiles.

In my opinion, no matter where we are in the world - adults who mess with, marry or abuse children (even those countries where it is ok) I find disgusting! In the UK, if the law came about, I would have no qualms with executing them! I could care less what laws are in other counties. I still have my _iews on it, and wouldn't go visit those countries. Why would I visit a country where it is ok to mess with a child but I'd get killed if I committed adultery!

2. You mention I should go and live in the USA - maybe you should go live in Sharia.

I like the law in the USA, and yes they have guns and lots of crime, but so does everywhere else. People in this country are killed or attacked in their beds by scum that break in and rob.

Now, as for the criminals who break in and them being 'tooled up' - I am also 'tooled up' extensively for the instance someone does break in! and I would not kill them, but I would hurt them badly - that's regardless of the law in its current form, and I would be more than happy to pay the consequences buy defending my property and teaching them a lesson at the same time. If they want to break in - their mistake.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"

I was waiting for someone to say that! LoL

I am somewhat dismayed to think it is a statement worthy of a Laugh Out Loud

How can I compare the 2 is easy. In Islamic States a female is of age to marry at 9, that is paedophilia as far as we are concerned. However homosexuality and adultery are crimes that carry the death penalty. Now considering that they think the exact opposite to us can you tell me what makes your choice of who should dies right?

I believe that the op refers to the Law of the Land. The age to marry is not the age of consent. With some countries, arranged marriages of minors is legal but cannot be argued as consentual, so not only falls flat on consent but also constitutes rape.

I find any argument that tries to reason that sex with a minor can be downgraded from paedophilia for "cultural" reasons disasteful.

Within the UK it is illegal. Threads like this can be a handy filter."
If you go back to the first exchange you will see that I am not proposing that under-age sex is OK just that it is not something that should attract a death penalty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence.

There's no point. They work off how the body reacts, and can't actually detect whether a person is lying or not.

There a great tool. There used all over the world from the cia and fbi to insurance companies. Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread. "

This a fantasy thread, of sorts.

They can't be used on in court because they can't be detect lies or the truth. Simple as that.

They can detect physiological changes in someone, but that doesn't mean they are lying, just means they're heart rate has changed or whatever.

So what if the CIA and FBI do them, it still doesn't detect lies or the truth, therefore cannot be used as evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"50p every quarter on a packet of fags. Darwin 'll turn in his grave but 100000 dead bodys has to be the biggest issue in the country.

"
.

Are biggest problems are not enough people dying or too many being born.

It's a tough call

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lie detector tests are useless, so not used in court of law. But...

If they ever invented a proper lie detector, that could be used because it is accurate and works on everyone, i would make it so they get an electric shock every time they lie...

That Jeremy kyle seems fond of them!"

I know. And he goes on about they're 96% accurate...

They're 100% accurate at detecting body changes, 0% accurate at detecting lies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Lie detector tests are useless, so not used in court of law. But...

If they ever invented a proper lie detector, that could be used because it is accurate and works on everyone, i would make it so they get an electric shock every time they lie...

That Jeremy kyle seems fond of them!

I know. And he goes on about they're 96% accurate...

They're 100% accurate at detecting body changes, 0% accurate at detecting lies."
.

I think there use in courts of law actually comes from the problems of there failures with certain mental issues.ie they genuinely believe their innocent when in fact their guilty, and the detector won't pick anything up because mentally they didn't do it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence.

There's no point. They work off how the body reacts, and can't actually detect whether a person is lying or not.

There a great tool. There used all over the world from the cia and fbi to insurance companies. Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

This a fantasy thread, of sorts.

They can't be used on in court because they can't be detect lies or the truth. Simple as that.

Thats not why there not used at all.

They can detect physiological changes in someone, but that doesn't mean they are lying, just means they're heart rate has changed or whatever.

which is an indicator of lying.

So what if the CIA and FBI do them, it still doesn't detect lies or the truth, therefore cannot be used as evidence."

you haven't said they dont work or aren't usefull. You just keep repeating the same thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think there use in courts of law actually comes from the problems of there failures with certain mental issues.ie they genuinely believe their innocent when in fact their guilty, and the detector won't pick anything up because mentally they didn't do it."

They detect physical changes in the body. Some people react to stress physically, but yeah not everyone does.

They can't take them as fact because they can't prove a person is lying, all they can prove is just they are physically changing.

The results might be taken as an excuse to suspect someone further but cannot be taken as an absolute proof of anything.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

"

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?"

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

"

It doesn't work though. It cannot detect lies, that's why they don't use it. Anyway my original comment was just saying why they don't do that already, and arguing in fun topics turns them into shit topics so i'm done. You can have your use them in court thing coz it's a fantasy topic and fantasy ideas are allowed. I was just giving you facts but there was no need to coz none of this topic is real so doesn't need facts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster

As someone who had a very close family member proven "guilty" by a lie detector test, to then later be proven innocent by advancements in DNA testing. I can safely say Lie dectors shouldnt be used as evidence!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly RogererMan
over a year ago

Braintree

In which year?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ll 4 herCouple
over a year ago

Bury/Bolton

If you commit a crime that denies somebody else their human rights you waive your own by default.

This is one law change that would have a knock on effect on so many others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would make smoking while pregnant illegal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackbirdtimestwoWoman
over a year ago

birmingham

[Removed by poster at 14/03/15 23:52:06]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As someone who had a very close family member proven "guilty" by a lie detector test, to then later be proven innocent by advancements in DNA testing. I can safely say Lie dectors shouldnt be used as evidence! "
.

Which country was that in?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"As someone who had a very close family member proven "guilty" by a lie detector test, to then later be proven innocent by advancements in DNA testing. I can safely say Lie dectors shouldnt be used as evidence! .

Which country was that in?"

jeramany?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

"

Well this comes off the FBI web site, easily found by googling FBI and lie detection:

"Lie detection is a difficult task, and some techniques work part of the time and only with some people. No single technique is effective all of the time under all conditions. There is no approach or question that enables an inter_iewer to separate lying from truthfulness in every situation. In fact, some methods may decrease the accuracy"

At the very best they're saying it's unreliable, or potentially totally misleading. That's why it'd be useless in court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Absolutely disagree. Our liberties are hard won and further erosion of them is wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itSamCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a really good idea "

What about passengers.

What about cars with hands free.

I think that kids on the back seat playing up is more of a distraction then on hands free on a car.

On the subject of hands free. How many people do not know the difference with hands free and speaker phone. I see so many people now holding a phone in front of their face thinking it is legal because it is on speaker phone. As it says speaker phone is a phone that uses the speaker and hands free means you do not have to pick the phone up to use it. It has to be secured in a way where you can press a button easily. Our car has the answer button built into the steering wheel and it never moves as the center of the steering wheel never rotates. The outside moves around so we always know where the button is at all times and never take our eyes off the road.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

Well this comes off the FBI web site, easily found by googling FBI and lie detection:

"Lie detection is a difficult task, and some techniques work part of the time and only with some people. No single technique is effective all of the time under all conditions. There is no approach or question that enables an inter_iewer to separate lying from truthfulness in every situation. In fact, some methods may decrease the accuracy"

At the very best they're saying it's unreliable, or potentially totally misleading. That's why it'd be useless in court."
.

Yes like sodium pentothal it's often confused as something that's accurate 100% of the time?.

However I believe they still use detectors and drugs in combination to abstract certain information!.

Me I prefer Shiraz... I'll blab anything after a bottle and a half

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a really good idea

What about passengers.

What about cars with hands free.

I think that kids on the back seat playing up is more of a distraction then on hands free on a car.

On the subject of hands free. How many people do not know the difference with hands free and speaker phone. I see so many people now holding a phone in front of their face thinking it is legal because it is on speaker phone. As it says speaker phone is a phone that uses the speaker and hands free means you do not have to pick the phone up to use it. It has to be secured in a way where you can press a button easily. Our car has the answer button built into the steering wheel and it never moves as the center of the steering wheel never rotates. The outside moves around so we always know where the button is at all times and never take our eyes off the road."
.

I actually agree with a statement by Jeremy clarkson once said..

If you want people to drive safer... Put a great big metal spike on the steering wheel

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *carineMan
over a year ago

Armthorpe, Doncaster

Exile to a galaxy far away for all the fascists who`ve posted suggestions on here involving bans, life sentences or state murder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"IThere is a few I'd do!

1. Death penalty for paedophiles, rapists and murderers!

2. If anyone broke into my property I should be able to defend it by any means necessary without worry of prosecution.

Have you thought what you are proposing out?

1. The death penalty: There is a good argument for death penalty for murder (one I have come to support). But the death penalty for rape and paedophiles, really? Are you seriously saying we should kill people for sexual acts we do not approve of? If so I take it you approve of the stoning to death of women for adultery, the burning of homosexuals and the beheading of male adulterers under Sharia law. After all those are sexual practices that are not approved of in Islamic countries.

2. I note you do not say reasonable force. Maybe you should go live in the USA where they have those sorts of property protection laws. They have such a peaceful country. It's not like they have so many people murdered in their own beds by burglars that they have a name for the crime like 'home invasion murder. After all, criminals are so law abiding that if you and I had the right to do what we liked to any that broke into our property that they would not 'tool up' and do us first as a mater of course to protect themselves...

I await you reply with baited breath.

Why must he approve of stoning women to death?

What has the intolerance of Islamic societies,in regards to homosexuals,and their mistreatment of women,have anything to do with the death penalty for rapists,and paedos in the UK?

So when you want to kill someone for their sexual conduct that you do not approve of thats OK and reasonable but when others kill people for sexual conduct you participate in then they and their societies are intolerant. And you see no similarities between you and them. I know I do."

When did the UK last stone a woman to death for adultery?

Or a religious organization tie a gay man to a plastic chair,and then kick him off a building?

All societies have degrees of intolerance within them.I'm no deluded utopists..however some societies are absurdly more brutal than others..

Paedophilia,and rape are brutal crimes committed against someone.having an affair,and being gay are comparable how?I see the condemnation,and punishment of rape,and paedophilia as a sign of value in the people I share my culture,and country with.long may it continue.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Yes like sodium pentothal it's often confused as something that's accurate 100% of the time?.

However I believe they still use detectors and drugs in combination to abstract certain information!.

Me I prefer Shiraz... I'll blab anything after a bottle and a half "

I'm with you on the shiraz as an alternative truth serum. They do use lie detectors for employment screening and 'security' screening, despite the American Academy of Sciences having produced a 400 page report to say how ineffective and inaccurate it is. This was one of their conclusions:

Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for DOE employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"Lie detectors to be admissable as evidence.

There's no point. They work off how the body reacts, and can't actually detect whether a person is lying or not.

There a great tool. There used all over the world from the cia and fbi to insurance companies. Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

This a fantasy thread, of sorts.

They can't be used on in court because they can't be detect lies or the truth. Simple as that.

They can detect physiological changes in someone, but that doesn't mean they are lying, just means they're heart rate has changed or whatever.

So what if the CIA and FBI do them, it still doesn't detect lies or the truth, therefore cannot be used as evidence."

You can also teach yourself to cheat a lie detector machine just by controlling your breathing...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Yes like sodium pentothal it's often confused as something that's accurate 100% of the time?.

However I believe they still use detectors and drugs in combination to abstract certain information!.

Me I prefer Shiraz... I'll blab anything after a bottle and a half

I'm with you on the shiraz as an alternative truth serum. They do use lie detectors for employment screening and 'security' screening, despite the American Academy of Sciences having produced a 400 page report to say how ineffective and inaccurate it is. This was one of their conclusions:

Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for DOE employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
.Like a good currency.

The truth is in the deception of belief

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For myself I would bring in a universal biometric (DNA, fingerprints and retinal scan) database of all those in the UK and introduce biometric ID cards that we would all have to carry at all times in public and produce immediately when required."

Really??

I feel trapped in a shitty system as it is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Death for all murderers, rapists, pedos.

Legalize all drugs. The government makes money off booze and cigs anyways.

Everyone has to take their driving test every ten years

Every car comes with a card reader. No license=getting a taxi

Homeless to be homed and given a job.

All on duty police to be fit and can actually run more than 100m without getting out of breath.

Drinking age upped to 21.

I know I didn't choose one. You law doesn't apply to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This was in psychology today in 2012 from a former FBI counterintelligence officer about lie detection machines:

It merely recognizes physiological changes in reaction to a cue (a question) but it doesn't detect lies and it can't. I repeat it can't. It is the polygrapher who interprets the instrument and your reactions to it and decides whether or not there is deception. It is this human factor, not dissimilar from some of the activity noted above, that the courts have found wanting (this is why polygraph result cannot be used against you in court) and why the American Academy of Sciences had less than choice words for the use of the polygraph in its formal report on the polygraph in 2002.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

Well this comes off the FBI web site, easily found by googling FBI and lie detection:

"Lie detection is a difficult task, and some techniques work part of the time and only with some people. No single technique is effective all of the time under all conditions. There is no approach or question that enables an inter_iewer to separate lying from truthfulness in every situation. In fact, some methods may decrease the accuracy"

At the very best they're saying it's unreliable, or potentially totally misleading. That's why it'd be useless in court."

unreliable and potentialy misleading like witnesses?

The fbi polygraph all there employees, you make it sound like they think its useless.

you've asumed something not being perfect makes it useless. Thats a big leap. It can be used in court as part of the evidence not instead of a trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Far more accurate than some of the puddings on this thread.

All you said is the FBI and CIA use them, didn't provide proof of that or explain why. I gave my evidence, where's yours?

It says on there website.

Also explain why they should be used in a court of law, what have you got to back that up?

Why dont you stop trolling and go and look for one of the hundreds of studys. Do you really think insurace companys have to much money to spare? The cia do it for a bit of a laaarf? You dont seem to challenge a word I say, you haven't said it isn't a useful tool or doesnt work.

Well this comes off the FBI web site, easily found by googling FBI and lie detection:

"Lie detection is a difficult task, and some techniques work part of the time and only with some people. No single technique is effective all of the time under all conditions. There is no approach or question that enables an inter_iewer to separate lying from truthfulness in every situation. In fact, some methods may decrease the accuracy"

At the very best they're saying it's unreliable, or potentially totally misleading. That's why it'd be useless in court.

unreliable and potentialy misleading like witnesses?

The fbi polygraph all there employees, you make it sound like they think its useless.

you've asumed something not being perfect makes it useless. Thats a big leap. It can be used in court as part of the evidence not instead of a trial. "

I haven't assumed anything. I looked at the evidence because you said it was on FBI and CIA web sites. It wasn't. What the American Academy of Science said, having re_iewed the studies, was that it was useless. What the FBI website said was that it's useless. What an experienced FBI interrogator said was that they are useless.

With all those experts saying that, I didn't need to say anything.

Also, if you look it up you'll find that in most jurisdictions in the USA they can NOT be used as evidence in court. In the 3 or 4 that allow them both the prosecution and defence have to agree to the evidence. If not they are inadmissible.

As someone said earlier, this is a fantasy thread, so you could enjoy it as that - the evidence doesn't stack up as supporting anything else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I would put a mobile phone blocker in all vehicles.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a really good idea

What about passengers.

What about cars with hands free.

I think that kids on the back seat playing up is more of a distraction then on hands free on a car.

On the subject of hands free. How many people do not know the difference with hands free and speaker phone. I see so many people now holding a phone in front of their face thinking it is legal because it is on speaker phone. As it says speaker phone is a phone that uses the speaker and hands free means you do not have to pick the phone up to use it. It has to be secured in a way where you can press a button easily. Our car has the answer button built into the steering wheel and it never moves as the center of the steering wheel never rotates. The outside moves around so we always know where the button is at all times and never take our eyes off the road."

Are mobile phones that important in our lives though that you can't do a car journey without them ? How did those poor people cope before them. I'm just popping to grandmas, ok but make sure you stop off at a pay phone on the way because twenty minutes without contact and I'll think you're dead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case "

Yes it is amazing how they can waste all that money on something with no scientific validity or acceptance. You asked people to look at the evidence. Job advertisements aren't evidence that a method works.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case "

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage. "

You'd have to start on $59000 and you'd only get the top rate if you passed your polygraphers exam and got the premium pay. Not of course that you were being misled..

Personally I wouldn't take the pay cut

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

Yes it is amazing how they can waste all that money on something with no scientific validity or acceptance. You asked people to look at the evidence. Job advertisements aren't evidence that a method works."

you said the fbi website said it was useless but they polygraph suspects and there staff?

I've just caught you lying from two hundred miles away with a samsung, sure the feds can have a dabble.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why not make it an offence for a politician not to answer a question straight and honestly ! Yes I know we'd have to build a lot of prisons !"

Most of them would be dead under the kill all peadophiles rule anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage.

You'd have to start on $59000 and you'd only get the top rate if you passed your polygraphers exam and got the premium pay. Not of course that you were being misled..

Personally I wouldn't take the pay cut"

It's so vulgar to boast about ones wage.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

Yes it is amazing how they can waste all that money on something with no scientific validity or acceptance. You asked people to look at the evidence. Job advertisements aren't evidence that a method works.

you said the fbi website said it was useless but they polygraph suspects and there staff?

I've just caught you lying from two hundred miles away with a samsung, sure the feds can have a dabble.

"

Believe what you like. Luckily even the Americans aren't so daft as to use lie detectors in court and there's no sensible country that will. Do you think that if you tell people they are trolling because they disagree with you, and that you have evidence, shouldn't you at least check that the evidence exists?

The FBI web site says they are useless. FBI agents say they are useless. The American Academy of Science says they are useless.

You should get that Samsung fixed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage.

You'd have to start on $59000 and you'd only get the top rate if you passed your polygraphers exam and got the premium pay. Not of course that you were being misled..

Personally I wouldn't take the pay cut

It's so vulgar to boast about ones wage. "

Mmmmm it is isn't it? Here I am sitting up at 2am working on my tax avoidance schemes... a charity here, a charity there.. rescue some poor orphan...

I hope noone sneaks up on me with a lie detector

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Your earlier post said the yanks use them in court and now you say nobody does?

The feds use them on suspects and there own staff but they say its useless?

You are just proper trolling.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I find sodium pentohal works far better.

But that's just me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage.

You'd have to start on $59000 and you'd only get the top rate if you passed your polygraphers exam and got the premium pay. Not of course that you were being misled..

Personally I wouldn't take the pay cut

It's so vulgar to boast about ones wage.

Mmmmm it is isn't it? Here I am sitting up at 2am working on my tax avoidance schemes... a charity here, a charity there.. rescue some poor orphan...

I hope noone sneaks up on me with a lie detector"

Is noone an FBI agent ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

*sodium pentothal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The cias website is hiring polygraphers for $94,203 pa. Its amazing how people can misinterpret information to support there own case

I'll have some of that. That's a decent wage.

You'd have to start on $59000 and you'd only get the top rate if you passed your polygraphers exam and got the premium pay. Not of course that you were being misled..

Personally I wouldn't take the pay cut

It's so vulgar to boast about ones wage.

Mmmmm it is isn't it? Here I am sitting up at 2am working on my tax avoidance schemes... a charity here, a charity there.. rescue some poor orphan...

I hope noone sneaks up on me with a lie detector

Is noone an FBI agent ? "

CIA I think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Your earlier post said the yanks use them in court and now you say nobody does?

The feds use them on suspects and there own staff but they say its useless?

You are just proper trolling. "

You should go and read the evidence you said was there. It's really easy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"you said the fbi website said it was useless but they polygraph suspects and there staff?

.

"

Haven't you noticed that governemnts rely on people presuming something to be true, rather than give factual evidence to back it up?

All they need is for people to believe something is fact, and it can become fact, despite no evidence to back it up?

All they need is to twist words into something else, i mean why isn't it called a polygraph, why is it called a lie detector? It does not detect lies at all. It's a graph making machine that detects physical changes, surely it should be called something else?

They rely on people like you to believe in it, so that they can set up a system based on it. They can use that system however they want because the more people believe something to be true then the more people they can push it onto and use that to their advantage.

I mean how many people think if you have a TV then you have to buy a TV license, just because it's called a TV license? Loads do. -- Promoting a myth is easy, if the use the correct words and manipulation and leave out the facts and keep them quiet. -- 'Lie detectors' probably would be used in courts if they hadn't been proved unreliable, but they have been proved unreliable so they aren't allowed.

I'm sure they are employing people to use 'lie detectors' so they can figure out a way to tweak them or get more reliable evidence somehow, oh and to use them for their own corrupt ends as well, but that'd be about it.

Look into how government agencies work, they all test stuff out on their employees, have done for ages now. None of us are actually humans to them, we're psychological experiments, or things to be used to make up statistics to show how great a country is (or how shit another is). But don't ever believe half the shit they come out with, seriously look into everything they say, they fool so many people so easily it's unreal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *urvymamaWoman
over a year ago

Doncaster


"As someone who had a very close family member proven "guilty" by a lie detector test, to then later be proven innocent by advancements in DNA testing. I can safely say Lie dectors shouldnt be used as evidence! .

Which country was that in?"

Was actually Australia, but these stories are becoming more and more common and in a lot of cases people are being proven innocent long after theny have passed away, after previously been proved guilty by a poligraph test, because of this they are now mostly used as a tool but no longer classed as evidence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top