Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me how you manage and measure a wildly numerous population, without surveillance in one form or another ? . How you identify and assess threats and risks ? If you don’t measure, you cannot manage, and thus you can only be “reactive”. That’s too late for the innocents who lose loved ones in a terrorist attack. Then the questions will be, “Why did no one know about this ? Why was no action taken ?” . Laws may exist to deter (though that’s debatable to a high degree). Prisons and sentencing exist to mop up after the criminal deed. Surveillance then and pre-emptive action is the first line of defence, because without it you are relying on an individual’s sense of right and wrong, and the law of the land. Things which mean nothing to some. I’m a libertarian, so the rights of the individual are of paramount importance to me. But that ends when those rights infringe on others, especially when they could cause harm. . Unlike some libertarian’s, I do value surveillance of the individual where appropriate. There needs to be an auditable reason for that surveillance, so someone can be held to account and that it was not frivolous. That’s good governance. . But I agree that oversight needs guard-rails and should be centred on law enforcement and prevention. " But mass digital surveillance on every conceivable facet of every individual's life is a world not worth living in. The imbalance of power is hideously skewed, and we're virtually there now. Privacy and consent are actual things inscribed into the human story, and are worth protecting at all costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on?" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unfortunately, we look up to the politicians to protect us and we give them the power to do so. The more we rely on them to protect us, the more power they get. And we can't guarantee that this power will be used only for good and not for oppressing people. So it's always a compromise between safety and freedom. Which side of the scale do you want to lean more on? Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. " I agree 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. " Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal." You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " When we're you last searched and how was the search justified? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Privacy and consent are actual things inscribed into the human story, and are worth protecting at all costs. " . Not blindly no. Because when you protect privacy at all costs, you create a fertile ground for criminality to flourish, unnoticed and unchecked. . In essence, you give opportunity for some to "fly under the radar". . Yes I am aware of an old Benjamin Franklin quote "“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” . Unfortunately the quote is regularly misunderstood and misapplied in the modern era in debates about surveillance, security policy, or civil liberties — especially when governments expand powers in the name of "national security." In these cases, people often misquote or flatten the original meaning, making it a sort of blanket objection to any trade-off between rights and security. The correct context of the quotes was its original intent. It referred to a dispute between the colonial legislature and the Pennsylvania proprietors over the Assembly’s right to tax landowners (the proprietors) to fund frontier defence during war. So, "liberty" in this case referred to self-governance, and "safety" referred to military protection. . It gets wielded like a trump card, as if any compromise on civil liberties automatically deserves condemnation. . It implies that liberty and safety are mutually exclusive, or that any trade-off is morally wrong, which is not always the case. . That phrase is a false dichotomy — the idea that we must choose between either total liberty or total safety, with no nuanced in-between. . Personally, I'm for nuance and deliberation. Not hasty decisions, but effective ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " Why would anyone want to use force against a police officer ? In almost 60 years I've never been searched by a police officer,most likely because if never put myself in a position that it would happen and if for some reason it did Id just cooperate knowing I've nothing to hide . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good post mate. But we also have to remember that politicians took away our rights to defend ourselves. Back in the day if you were attacked, you had the right to defend yourself. Then we were told we could only use reasonable force. Then it was call the police and they will defend you. Now we have the police attacking us and we have no rights to stop them. Absolute rubbish, you're reading too many conspiracy theories Section 76(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states: “A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and (b) …evidence of a person’s having done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.” This means that in the heat of the moment, lapses in judgment are natural and expected. A person might overestimate the level of threat they face, and the law recognises that such actions may still be deemed reasonable or as self-defence. However, once a threat has been neutralised, continuing to use force is not considered reasonable. For example, if an attacker has stopped fighting or is no longer a threat, any further assault would be unlawful. Similarly, it is illegal to set a premeditated trap for someone, such as inviting a person over with the intention of attacking them. When cases of alleged assault, battery, or excessive force are brought to court, two key questions are considered: Did the person using force genuinely believe it was necessary? Was the force used proportionate to the threat faced at the time? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then the force is likely to be deemed reasonable under the law. Therefore, if you find yourself in a situation where force might be necessary, it is crucial to mentally ask yourself these questions before taking action. Legal force may be used to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, to prevent crime or assault, to search someone, to defend property, or when assisting in the lawful arrest of a criminal. You can not use any force against a police constable, no matter what they do. Nice little dig in the ribs while they search you illegally. Can you give them a dig back? Not legally. And unless you have video evidence complaining is pointless. " You appear to be clutching at straws as your post about not being allowed to use reasonable force was rubbish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
