Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
att:
I really should not be saying this, but, I am going to anyways.
I know of serving military personnel who have put pressure on the "establishment" to ensure that war crimes commited in Iraq have not gone there full course.
I know of local authority personnel who do not have the resources to do their jobs dilligently to do the job effectively.
And it is public knowledge that various members of Parliament do not know how to do there jobs, are corrupt and do have major conflicts of interest in the pursuit of personal financial gain.
I also know parish councillors who are only there to ensure that they can gain financially via planning decisions etc.
In a word, the Country is full of corrupt figures of authority and incompetent figures of authority.
That is the reason why we should not trust these individuals, I take on board that we elected them, thus we should see them on their way out, but he individuals that replace them will become just as corrupt as time goes by, it is human nature.
Please tell me that there is someone who is above all this, I fear that there is no one, not one person, if, who is totally honest will be able to say that they are.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "att" ---In a word, the Country is full of corrupt figures of authority and incompetent figures of authority.
That is the reason why we should not trust these individuals, I take on board that we elected them, thus we should see them on their way out, but he individuals that replace them will become just as corrupt as time goes by, it is human nature.
--- End quote ---
I agree... :shock:
I agree that we should not trust corrupt individuals whatever the role in life they fulfill.
So... let's not trust anybody... that'll help... won't it?
Don't trust the paper boy.
Don't trust the milkman.
Don't trust the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.
Don't trust Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble or Grubb.
Don't trust the managers.
Don't trust the investors.
Don't trust the owners.
Don't trust the police.
Don't trust the ambulance.
Don't trust the firemen (oops... covered them)
Don't trust the army, navy or air force.
Don't trust the lawyers.
Don't trust the judges.
Don't trust the jury's.
Don't trust me.
Don't trust you.
Sad.. innit?
Me?
I'd rather trust and be proven wrong than mistrust and be proven right.
Bob696:
--- Quote from: "Skibum346" ---
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
--- End quote ---
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
--- End quote ---
Not sure your arythmatic is up to much tbh.
I am sure that Terminus will correct me if I am wrong (and justly so) but I think the crime you describe is called "failure to produce documents". This IS provable in court. You either have or havn't produced them. It is not possable to prove someone hasn't got the documents and it is against the principles of british law to ask someone to prove their innocence (which you appear to find acceptable and even desirable).
You then draw an interesting scenario of a policeman and a drunk. Who has defined what 'drunk' is? Who has defined what level of 'disturbance' is not acceptable? Is somebody who talks too much and is a bore guilty and subject to a fine or do they have to get violent?
A policemans primary role is to protect the public from harm NOT to enforce the law (thats 3rd on the list behind protecting property). What you are arguing for is the order of these prioroties to be changed. A PC could protect the public (including the drunk btw) by putting him a cell for the night and letting the CPS decide if a crime has been commited based on the evidence provided to them.
As to trust. Scan read this and tell me you would trust a policeman without question
http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/wmidlands.html
drmike:
I really sould stop contributing but ...
Part of the problem here is that some years back, early 70s maybe, the public's confidence in many figures of authority was severely shaken by high profile scandals in almost all walks of life, T Dan Smith planning, Profumo, police corruption, teachers going on strke for the first time (not a scandal but it was a shock) and many others.
Now we are still reaping the problems of that period - add the claim culture we have now and it's a calamity.
But I MUST make this my last comment.
Mike
bullfrog:
You cannot call someone drunk. You can say in your oppinion they have had too much to drink but not drunk.
Mad init ? :shock:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version