Blunkett quits

[Feath]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4099581.stm

Oh noes!

 

[Kangy]

Oh good.

I never liked Blunket, especially the whole "punishment for teens caught kissing and looking happy together!" talk he raised a while back.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Oh good.

I never liked Blunket, especially the whole "punishment for teens caught kissing and looking happy together!" talk he raised a while back.

He was a bit of a hypodick, what with him thinking he was in the right all the time, while screwing another guys wife and abusing his position.

Be better off without him.

 

[WaryWolf]

guess he didn't see that one coming.... ;-)

ah well, he has his whole future to look forward to now.... ;-)

well, it was blindingly obvious he had to resign, what with all the media opposition.... ;-)

i'll get my coat.

 

[burner69]

Heard this quote (or similar) on the news:

"Blair is distressed at Blunkett leaving; as he was the face of the war on terrorism, the war on drugs"

"Never mind" I thought, returning to the forums to debate the stupidity of the war on terror and the farce that is drug prohibition.

 

[Kangy]

Well, fighting drugs because they are illegal is one thing, but fighting terrorists like they're everywhere and anywhere at one point, all of sudden, despite actually being attacked by the IRA heavily in recent memory (and consequently ignoring it) and cracking down on those awful, awful freedoms of ours is another.

 

[CTTcrew_MrBlue]

Cant say im going to miss him much

 

[oldagerocker]

guess he didn't see that one coming.... ;-)

ah well, he has his whole future to look forward to now.... ;-)

well, it was blindingly obvious he had to resign, what with all the media opposition.... ;-)

i'll get my coat.

You do that son.

And yeah, when i heard the news i was really happy, ecstatic. I've never hated a politician (for his views (no pun intended) more), sure he said what he thinks but i disagree with so much of it in such a huge way... im so glad he's gone. Now lets get rid of Labour in general and stick the conservatives in power :thumbs:

 

[Kangy]

Now lets get rid of Labour in general and stick the conservatives in power :thumbs:

Mind your language!

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm dutch so explain to me what this guy stood for, wha he did as a job, what he idd good, what he did bad, is a lair or hones, is he a hypocrit or not?

 

[Edcrab]

Pfft... I'd question his integrity just as much as whats-her-faces's. It's not like the blind guy leapt on her and forced her into the relationship- if anything, to hell with the fact he was our Home Secretary- that's about up to the usual "sleaze count" for a government, not much to discuss- I just want to know how her husband can possibly continually stand up for a woman who abused his trust in such a way I couldn't do that.

Anyway, as much as I think Blunkett semi-justified his OTT Dead Ringers impersonation, I never had any problem with his ID card proposal, just his vague stance regarding anti-terrorism laws. It was a kind of "I HAVE A STRONG STANCE ON THIS! But I won't say exactly what I've got planned, I'll just let my underlings interpret this indirect but cleary extremist document, and therefore allow the public to think I've forgotten this whole 'freedom' thing". There's already one Guantanamo bay about- if they can be tried, try them in public with every right to defence that we grant petty criminals. Surely if the evidence is genuinely irrefutable they'll get what they deserve?

 

[oldagerocker]

Trial without Jury and imprisonment without charge is just wrong wrong wrong wrong and more wrong.

I'm dutch so explain to me what this guy stood for, wha he did as a job, what he idd good, what he did bad, is a lair or hones, is he a hypocrit or not?

Mr Blunkett became Home Secretary after the last general election. He oversees prisons, crime, police, immegration... anything home security related, a position of which is important when our governments are constantly telling us we can be under attack from 'terrorists' at any time. Then again, we always have been.

He believed that people should all carry ID cards, seperate from the ID we already have, passports, driving liscences, Birth certificates etc to stop illegal immigrants from staying in the country undetected, including terrorists.

He passed legislatino that meant anything believed by the government to be involved in terrorism can be held by the security forces for an indefinate amount of time without any charge bought forth. Much like the 'non-combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, except this is on British soil. Currently, 3 terror suspects are held without charge.

He passed legislation that stated that terror suspects can be tried and sentenced without public or any (as far as i understand it) jury.

What caused him to lose his job was a number of errors, he abused his power. Stating that he'd 'get' a police officer out of his job as he ran a terrible county, but Blunkett publicly abused his power this way, in some sort of personal vendetta.

He also fast tracked a VISA into the country for the Nurse of his ex-wifes baby, which iirc is not actually his. :hmph:


Such a silly silly man imo. The only thing he did good was ASBO's. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Meaning people can be banned by a court from areas and police can forcefully break up groups of loitering kids (mostly chavs). They work slightly, but well enough and it's something.

 

[donkeyhumper]

I'm far from a big fan of Blunkett's but oldagerocker's post is inaccurate afaik so I felt I should correct a few things.

He believed that people should all carry ID cards, seperate from the ID we already have, passports, driving liscences, Birth certificates etc to stop illegal immigrants from staying in the country undetected, including terrorists.

well he thought people should have ID cards but not be forced to carry them at all times (or at least that wans't the proposal

He passed legislatino that meant anything believed by the government to be involved in terrorism can be held by the security forces for an indefinate amount of time without any charge bought forth. Much like the 'non-combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, except this is on British soil. Currently, 3 terror suspects are held without charge.

I'm not 100% sure but I think this only applied to foreign nationals who were given the option to be held indefinately or be thrown out the country. The real problem arises when the regime in the person's host nation is too bad to send them back to. They don't get a choice and are locked up without trial.

What caused him to lose his job was a number of errors, he abused his power. Stating that he'd 'get' a police officer out of his job as he ran a terrible county, but Blunkett publicly abused his power this way, in some sort of personal vendetta.

erm, i personally was shocked when he did that but that was AGES ago and certainly didn't harm his position very much from what i can tell.

He also fast tracked a VISA into the country for the Nurse of his ex-wifes baby, which iirc is not actually his. :hmph:

Assuming you're refering to the latest "scandal", what actually happened was that his girlfriend's (who was married at the time; he was having an affair - i.e. not his wife. He is divorced) nanny applied for a visa. Someone at the home office found out and tried to speed up the process. He did not request it personally (or so he claims) but he should have made sure that nothing like that could have ever happened. His ex-gf is almost certainly pregnant with Blunkett's wife but she is now back with her husband and she is trying to stop him from having any part in the unborn baby's life.

The only thing he did good was ASBO's.

Everyone seems to talk about ASBOs as being Tony Blair's brainchild so, although Blunkett was home secretary, Blair might have been the one making a huge push on them.

 

[Biggleska]

One fascist islamophile gone, another in his place.

 

[el Chi]

Says the man with the BNP link in his sig.

 

[Kangy]

Haha!

That has to be the richest thing all day. I mean, the BNP aren't at all facist, racist or incompetent.

 

[el Chi]

In the same way that Sinn Fein have absolutely nothing to do with the IRA.



He was probably being ironical, but even so.
BTW, that last link was fantastic

 

[Biggleska]

BTW, that last link was fantastic

Even though it sounds as if it was written by a child?

 

[Kangy]

It was the first at hand.

You can take your pick of newspaper, they all reported on it.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Says the man with the BNP link in his sig.

Bah.... the BNP.



Oh how I hate them.

 

[el Chi]

Even though it sounds as if it was written by a child?

As Kangy says - so what if the article was written badly? It wasn't as bad a f*ck-up as the BNP's no doubt fabulous Xmas do. The racist c*nts.

 

[donkeyhumper]

yup, the BNP are openly racist. No way you try to spin it, they make the population sick.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Why cant anyone abolish the BNP?
thats what i wanna know!
theres no room for racists in this world..

 

[el Chi]

Why cant anyone abolish the BNP?
thats what i wanna know!
theres no room for racists in this world..

Well, the problem with the right to free speech is that some people's opinions clash with yours. They have the right to say these things, so long as they don't overtly incite violence.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Well, the problem with the right to free speech is that some people's opinions clash with yours. They have the right to say these things, so long as they don't overtly incite violence.

yeah i suppose, but its still all goin to end up in violence, it makes people angry :/, if you get me, like bmp are racist as hell , some members should go down for that.. f**k the free speech

 

[el Chi]

Oh there's no doubt that they're racists and hopefully some of their members will f*ck up and get arrested for whatever. Personally if I was in the police I'd arrest them for the slightest misdemeanor and throw the book at them as hard as the law would allow me. But sadly the police don't always work like that...
And you can't say "F*ck free speech." Isn't that why there's a war on? Well, besides oil, but that's another argument entirely.

 

[KoreBolteR]

do you think police/government are too soft on on robbers and thugs? :O , i do imhfo, id kill someone if they entered my house .

 

[el Chi]

do you think police/government are too soft on on robbers and thugs? :O , i do imhfo, id kill someone if they entered my house .

Are you serious? You think that someone breaking and entering is worthy of being murdered!? I mean, of course you're going to be furious, and of course they're a bad person but I wouldn't say that they deserved to die for it. And if you killed them then I'd convict you without a second though if I was on your jury. I might waver towards a conviction of manslaughter, but either way, you're going down. Can we say Tony Martin, anyone?
I'm not so sure about them beiong too soft on burglars, etc. What I was referring to was the police's somewhat suspect history on racial convictions... Can we say Steven Lawrence, anyone?

 

[Kangy]

Burgulars are living people too. You have no right to take their life just because they've had a crappy upbringing that let them down that path in the first place.

Solve the cause, and you'll never have to deal with the result.

 

[KoreBolteR]

if they was a threat to my family i would kill them, no doubt about it, they shouldnt break into my house. or maybe id just break his arms and legs, depending on how big he is LOL

 

[Kangy]

Why? What do you gain in killing them, or harming them for life? Murder isn't something you can take back. It isn't a punishment. It's the end of the road.

An enquiry afterwards reveals that he was being forced to steal, or someone would kill him, or perhaps his family. The thing is, you can't do bugger all to change it. There can be no apology, no release. He's dead.

 

[Edcrab]

Burgulars are living people too. You have no right to take their life just because they've had a crappy upbringing that let them down that path in the first place.

Solve the cause, and you'll never have to deal with the result.

Yeah, that's right, because we can afford to give handouts to the selfish morons that refuse to take a stand and stop blaming outside influences. They forfeit their right to be treated as upstanding members of the community when they do their best to undermine it. Cause? Try that gene they found that was apparently linked to violence, and then those that are responsible for impulsive or unpredictable behaviour. Admittedly the relevant research is intrinsicly flawed and will lead to the genetic manipulation or imprisonment of perfectly ordinary people, but meh. What would I know, genetically I'll soon show frog-eating tendencies.

That's just it: I judge people for being people, not because of their situation or physical makeup, or even the social networks that apparently lead them down such a path. With friends who are self proclaimed "reformed arseholes" I can't stand anyone who tries to lay the blame elsewhere. So you're really poor- a lot of people are. There are plenty of people struggling with massive families (won't go into that) who maintain a steady and perfectly legal income. Burglary can be traced to laziness and selfishness: personal circumstances are largely irrelevant, rendered down into nothing but a limp excuse by those that would abuse public sympathy. Many "professionals" are pretty damn rich. Hell, sometimes they're just layabouts looking for something "fun" to do.

Except in one or two extremely worrying (and fairly implausible) situations resulting from sadistic manipulation, no one is forced to steal. Previous police/government attitudes have boggled the mind. "Well, of course you're entitled to defend yourself," stated one MP, "but you can hardly shoot a kid for slipping into your kitchen and stealing apples from your table!". That happens a lot, you know: you can afford to check on what an intruder is doing. I was about to type that we should at least feel glad they're likely to flee the moment you make your presence heard, but then I recalled the increasing level of well-publicised attacks in the home. Ack.

And don't get me started on the idea that you should wait for the police to arrive when some bastard is trying to pick your living room clean. Less than half of all thefts are fully resolved- although don't quote me on that. I've never been good with statistics, someone else could maybe fill us in better on crime-solving ratios and the tracing of valuables. For all I know, the police instantly catch criminals and retrieve stolen property before reuniting you with your material goods and handing out harsh sentences.

So, bluntly, you deserve whatever you get if you barge into my house and try to abduct my tarantula or molest my lamp or whatever. Admittedly I won't try and kill you, but as long as we live in a day or age where I'll be held accountable for an intruder's own decisions I'll continue to wince whenever I witness this kind of conversation. Burglaries are premeditated, defending yourself from some random shadowy shape is not. "Reasonable force" is a joke: how are we meant to know whether we'll encounter someone with a thin skull or four ribs? Not that they'd end up in that sort of situation...

Heh, guess I'm pretty hypocritical- but I think a hardline stance on home affairs is far more understandable than the usual sensationalism regarding international terrorist cells targetting us. I also wonder if we'll ever see a law limiting the relevance of a politician's private life to their cabinet activities... at least Blunkett resigned because of his statements on "fast tracking", not that I think of that as a hangable offense.

 

[el Chi]

Yes that gene that leads to violent behaviour. So you're saying that this gene is for some reason prevalent in lower classes and people from poorer backgrounds and that's why they turn to crime? How do people from better financial backgrounds mysteriously avoid this genetic mishap? It's an indisputable fact that social background has a lot to do with it.
Of course this is not the only reason and of course some people are just wankers, but still.

I agree with you that there's no way most people would wait for the police. You have the right to defend your home, but there are sensible limits to the permissible force and killing an intruder does not come under that. Well, not as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps you do get what you deserve if you tresspass on people. My TaeKwonDo teacher got harassed by a bunch of skinheads (he's black, has an afro and isn't exactly the most intimidating guy in the world to look at) and now one of them walks with a permanent limp. Personally, I think that's funny but mainly because they were racists and they can f*ck themselves every which way with an iron rod. However that's another discussion entirely.

Even so, I still stand by the idea that one can gauge what needs to be done whether that be try and get forceed out/knocked out or whimper quietly in a corner. If you kill the intruder then that really depends on circumstance. Say you hit hit with something and all the sign point towards accidental death because they were frail or whatever, then I might convict you of manslaughter, but certainly not of murder. If you shoot at them, Mr. Martin, you're going down. You don't fire a shotgun to "neutralise" someone, you fire a shotgun to kill them.

As you said, I think that maybe there should be a limit to the way a politician's private life interferes with their public and professional lives. The Whitewater scandal really was, in my opinion, no-one's business except Bill and Hilary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. I'm not defending his having an affair, far from it, but it shouldn't have been as "significant" as it was made out to be.
As for Blunkett? His affair is bugger all to do with anyone else. His "fast-tracking" was foolish and an abuse of his power, albeit very minor. In other countries, such as France or Spain, people wouldn't bat an eye-lid at this, so perhaps this says something for our expectations of politicians. No-one really believes that they will be paragons of righteousness (nor should we expect them to be), but there are certainly limits.
At the end of the day, I'm just glad he's out of office. Not that Clarke will necessarily be any better.

 

[Edcrab]

Agree with most everything you said there el Chi (oh noes!! My angst level is down!) and although the genetic reference was obviously just a bad joke, I'd never voiced the point regarding the suspicious circumstances regarding a gene/class link: it's something I'll have to bring up for use against the usual wannabe-Gattacans when they start spouting elitist drivel.

As for a gun, I personally believe it's possible to fire at someone without intending to kill (it's a principle point of many firearms teams, despite their often justified gun-ho image). If you're an elderly recluse, you can hardly high kick your way to freedom. Either way, although Mr. Martin is hardly the most stable of characters (I still think his imprisonment was more dependant on his attitude than his actions), he acted in self defence. He didn't walk down the street and shoot a man he was annoyed at, he fired at a man who burst into his home without provocation (beyond greed and boredom).

 

[Fat Tony!]

Shame, it will affect the government in a bad way however good he is so no celebrations from me

 

[el Chi]

Agree with most everything you said there el Chi (oh noes!! My angst level is down!) and although the genetic reference was obviously just a bad joke, I'd never voiced the point regarding the suspicious circumstances regarding a gene/class link: it's something I'll have to bring up for use against the usual wannabe-Gattacans when they start spouting elitist drivel.
As for a gun, I personally believe it's possible to fire at someone without intending to kill (it's a principle point of many firearms teams, despite their often justified gun-ho image). If you're an elderly recluse, you can hardly high kick your way to freedom. Either way, although Mr. Martin is hardly the most stable of characters (I still think his imprisonment was more dependant on his attitude than his actions), he acted in self defence. He didn't walk down the street and shoot a man he was annoyed at, he fired at a man who burst into his home without provocation (beyond greed and boredom).

First off, the "link" between class and genetics was, as I'm sure you realised, nonsense. I was taking the piss. Not that you're stupid, but just to clarfiy.

Secondly, yes it's possible to shoot at someone without the intention to kill, but with a shotgun you're just asking for trouble so for f*ck's sake - if you own one, you're aware of the mechanics and thus, the risks. As I said - you're going down, in my opinion. Mr. Martin is, as you said, not the best of examples in this argument, but many rallied 'round him. The Daily Mail, people? Well, if you want support from any mainstream paper in the UK then zieg heil and jack-boots ahoy. Seriously though, if you own a gun, you're perfectly aware of the implications and the potential for harm the object wields. Kill someone with it and, depending on the circumstances somewhat, I'd personally probably convict you of murder and not lose much sleep over it, if any at all.

 

[Eg.]

that whole genetics thin, even thats to touchy for me to mention

but my take if its valid, the people with the "gene" sometimes make up a population of the crimals in teh country, but then again just as many without the gene may also be in jail

and a shotgun to the leg with bird shot wont kill a man, but he never rob u again

 

[el Chi]

and a shotgun to the leg with bird shot wont kill a man, but he never rob u again

He may never walk again either. Some would say that's fair, I'm less sure. If you have a gun as home "protection" then you implicitly accept the risks and potential for killing. Thus if you shoot at someone trying to steal some cash, in my eyes that's not permissible force. If they're trying to kill/rape your family, then it's more understandable.

 

[Edcrab]

Yes, but the simple fact is it's notoriously difficult to determine an intruders aim. They don't wave a coloured flag saying "I'm here to nick a sock", and they're hardly going to admit they planned to rape your wife and eat your liver. If you dare to enter someone else's home merely to further your own ends then you implicitly accept the risks and potential for your own killing.

As for the genetics thing, yes, I'm well aware you were taking the piss. I was taking the piss, as can be identified by the fact that I started the whole genetics "debate" off, and dared to end the first paragraph on the subject with "meh". I'm yet to find an occasion where that word can be used in a serious context... God bless meh!

 

[el Chi]

Yes, but the simple fact is it's notoriously difficult to determine an intruders aim. They don't wave a coloured flag saying "I'm here to nick a sock", and they're hardly going to admit they planned to rape your wife and eat your liver. If you dare to enter someone else's home merely to further your own ends then you implicitly accept the risks and potential for your own killing.

As for the genetics thing, yes, I'm well aware you were taking the piss. I was taking the piss, as can be identified by the fact that I started the whole genetics "debate" off, and dared to end the first paragraph on the subject with "meh". I'm yet to find an occasion where that word can be used in a serious context... God bless meh!

They don't wave a coloured flag saying "I'm here to nick a sock",
They bloody well do in London. I dare say your felons in other parts of the Kingdom are awful bad sports, eh what.
Ahem.

Thing is, I don't believe that you implicitly accept the potential for your own demise by breaking into someone's house. Once again, I don't condone breaking and entering, nor theft nor any other related crimes however I simply do not believe that killing the intruder is permissible force.
In certain circumstances it may be, but for the most part...
And one can judge force and situations - obviously not fantastically well, given the events. Still, if it was clearly an accidental killing then I, as a juror, would either go with manslaughter or possibly not guilty.
We, not unlike Tim Allen and his neighbour in Home Improvements, are talking nonsense from two completely unseen sides of the fence.
And if that wasn't the most obtuse analogy you've read today then I shall endaevour to try harder.
Seriously though - we both have good points, we both have bad points and neither of us is going to budge too much. So goes the way of internet debate