For Sale, Airworthy EE Lightnings x3.. Buccaneers x3.. Hunters x4
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can always rely on pr00ne to spew his left wing views at every opportunity.
He claims to be a Barrister yet makes a comment that the only people shooting people in cars are the Met Police.
One does not have to be shot at first before shooting back and as a loaded gun was found in the car one has to assume that the police were threatened and rightly responded.
He claims to be a Barrister yet makes a comment that the only people shooting people in cars are the Met Police.
One does not have to be shot at first before shooting back and as a loaded gun was found in the car one has to assume that the police were threatened and rightly responded.
millerscourt
You have very conveniently forgotten that I used the words 'seems' and 'initial reports."
Of COURSE I spew my left wing views at every opportunity, my politics is to the left and I therefore have left wing views, is that so hard to understand?
Yes, I do CLAIM to be a Barrister, and there are a good few of us who have some rather disturbing experiences with the 'assumptions' that armed police sometimes make, do you recall one certain Brazilian on the way to the Tube?
Assumptions where deadly force are involved are extremely dangerous.
You have very conveniently forgotten that I used the words 'seems' and 'initial reports."
Of COURSE I spew my left wing views at every opportunity, my politics is to the left and I therefore have left wing views, is that so hard to understand?
Yes, I do CLAIM to be a Barrister, and there are a good few of us who have some rather disturbing experiences with the 'assumptions' that armed police sometimes make, do you recall one certain Brazilian on the way to the Tube?
Assumptions where deadly force are involved are extremely dangerous.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
Glad you included 'sometimes' as preconceived ideas amongst defence lawyers and barristers are often the curse of the court room!
Foldie
JP of this parish!
the 'assumptions' that armed police sometimes make
Glad you included 'sometimes' as preconceived ideas amongst defence lawyers and barristers are often the curse of the court room!
Foldie
JP of this parish!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"one certain Brazilian on the way to the Tube?"
But as Napoleon said re Admiral Byng's execution: "pour encourager les autres
After that chap was shot there were no more bombings
Doesn't make what happened right, but it had the desired effect of scaring the the other side
Note - I am NOT suggesting in any way that he was involved in any kind of illegal activity. He was just the wrong bloke in the wrong place at the right time
But as Napoleon said re Admiral Byng's execution: "pour encourager les autres
After that chap was shot there were no more bombings
Doesn't make what happened right, but it had the desired effect of scaring the the other side
Note - I am NOT suggesting in any way that he was involved in any kind of illegal activity. He was just the wrong bloke in the wrong place at the right time
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne old chap,
I sometimes get the impression that you haven't seen the nastier side of life. The problem though is that as a barrister you generally should have done.
Do you believe that good people should have to put up with the goings on of bad people? Do you believe that the rights of bad people are more important, and supersede the rights of good people? Do you believe that it is alright to break the law and drive around with a loaded weapon when not allowed to do so? Do you believe that it is okay for people to riot, destroy infrastructure, houses, shops, steal, loot, mug, threaten and kill?
I am sincerely interested in what your replies might be, as every thing that you write would point to the fact that yes you do believe that bad has more rights than good.
I sometimes get the impression that you haven't seen the nastier side of life. The problem though is that as a barrister you generally should have done.
Do you believe that good people should have to put up with the goings on of bad people? Do you believe that the rights of bad people are more important, and supersede the rights of good people? Do you believe that it is alright to break the law and drive around with a loaded weapon when not allowed to do so? Do you believe that it is okay for people to riot, destroy infrastructure, houses, shops, steal, loot, mug, threaten and kill?
I am sincerely interested in what your replies might be, as every thing that you write would point to the fact that yes you do believe that bad has more rights than good.
hval,
What?
Well, let me try and make some sense of that post.
I can barely comprehend let alone believe in that ridiculous list of my potential beliefs.
Who are you to decide what or who is good or bad? What on earth do you mean by 'put up with' the goings on of bad people? I believe very strongly in social justice and in the wealthy powerful elite being brought to account. I also happen to believe in the criminal justice system and that means everyone has a right to a defence. I believe that anyone who is caught in possession of a firearm, if they are proven guilty, should go to prison. Possession for 'self defence' is no defence in my view. The only people who I would allow to carry firearms would be the armed forces and certain specialist Police teams. There is NO need for anyone else to carry the damn things.
I also believe very strongly that every person has a right to live out their life without the risk of the Police shooting them dead because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. John Charles de Menezes death was a needless tragedy compounded by senior folk rushing out totally inaccurate statements in the immediate aftermath such as he jumped the ticket barrier, he wore a thick coat and that he ran away. The poor bastard simply got on a tube and was held down and shot seven times in the head and once in the body. Someone should have gone to prison for that death, and I do NOT mean the officers who carried out the shooting. It was a crime but it was NOT murder.
As for the nasty side of life, I split my practice between activity in the City in both London and New York, and working with asylum seekers and young adults who were abused as children who need something to do or somewhere to go when the system kicks them out at 18. I also flew Tooms with a navigator behind me in my youth, so yes, I've seen several 'nasty' sides of life.
I'm a Barrister, how on earth can I possibly believe that bad has more rights than good? People have rights, 'good' and 'bad' don't, so I have to confess to not really knowing what the hell you are blathering on about.
I also respect the rule of law, the one true distinction of a genuine democracy. When your Government or ruling party or family is above the law, then you have NO democracy, which is one of many, but probably the most important, reasons why I am a Republican.
What?
Well, let me try and make some sense of that post.
I can barely comprehend let alone believe in that ridiculous list of my potential beliefs.
Who are you to decide what or who is good or bad? What on earth do you mean by 'put up with' the goings on of bad people? I believe very strongly in social justice and in the wealthy powerful elite being brought to account. I also happen to believe in the criminal justice system and that means everyone has a right to a defence. I believe that anyone who is caught in possession of a firearm, if they are proven guilty, should go to prison. Possession for 'self defence' is no defence in my view. The only people who I would allow to carry firearms would be the armed forces and certain specialist Police teams. There is NO need for anyone else to carry the damn things.
I also believe very strongly that every person has a right to live out their life without the risk of the Police shooting them dead because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. John Charles de Menezes death was a needless tragedy compounded by senior folk rushing out totally inaccurate statements in the immediate aftermath such as he jumped the ticket barrier, he wore a thick coat and that he ran away. The poor bastard simply got on a tube and was held down and shot seven times in the head and once in the body. Someone should have gone to prison for that death, and I do NOT mean the officers who carried out the shooting. It was a crime but it was NOT murder.
As for the nasty side of life, I split my practice between activity in the City in both London and New York, and working with asylum seekers and young adults who were abused as children who need something to do or somewhere to go when the system kicks them out at 18. I also flew Tooms with a navigator behind me in my youth, so yes, I've seen several 'nasty' sides of life.
I'm a Barrister, how on earth can I possibly believe that bad has more rights than good? People have rights, 'good' and 'bad' don't, so I have to confess to not really knowing what the hell you are blathering on about.
I also respect the rule of law, the one true distinction of a genuine democracy. When your Government or ruling party or family is above the law, then you have NO democracy, which is one of many, but probably the most important, reasons why I am a Republican.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne,
My post must have been clear as you have answered it perfectly.
Why, in the United Kingdom do criminals have more rights than those who don't commit crimes? Why does crime pay in the United Kingdom? Why is there positive discrimination? I feel that the left have totally and utterly lost the plot. Everything points to the fact that the general, law abiding populous have less rights than those that commit crimes. Looking after the rights of criminals has gone too far; way too far.
Take the rioting. Why aren't the police able to stop them? Because the left have tied the arms of the police behind their backs. Have you ever tried to stop a riot? You can't do it without using physical force of some sort. Yet the police are told of for kettling even!
What I am about to write is a generalisation.
I am one of a dwindling number of working middle class. We, are the ones who pay the most to society. We pay more than the rich on tax , we pay to keep the unemployed and the immigrants in comfort. I don't mind paying benefits to the unemployed, but when long term unepmployed are able to afford holidays when I can't, when the unemployed can afford to go out and I can't, there is something seriously wrong. We pay to keep the unacceptably huge public sector in a job where they get to retire on nice pensions at a younger age than I, whilst having worked less hours than I and for having done very little. Don't tell me that the Public Secttor get paid less; they don't. That has been a fallacy for a number of years. We are paying for the mistakes of a completely corrupt labour govermnement that was previously in power, that along with a amoral banking sector have bankrupted this nation. Mind you, the Conservatives do not seem to be any better. Why are amoral politicians allowed to run ths country and we can't get rid of them? Why do we have such a large legal sector, where criminals nearly always come out on top? Why does my money go to pay for criminals to have holidays, or days out at Alton Towers?
Pr00ne, just as you believe that the House of Windsor are above the law, I would sat that most politicains, irrespective of country, are also above the law. You look at the US political system. It appears to me that the person with the most money wins, not the person who is going to do the best for the nation.
As for bankers... Don't get me started. May we shoot them all? I could go on, and feel we could have an interesting discussion for many, many hours. Did you know that the gap between the rich and the poor is now worse than during the Victorian era. At least the Victorian wealthy generally gave to society (libraries, parks, swimming pools, big buildings, villages, towns etc). It is very rare for any of todays extremely wealthy to do similar (there are exceptions; e.g. Bill gates, Hunter etc).
My post must have been clear as you have answered it perfectly.
Why, in the United Kingdom do criminals have more rights than those who don't commit crimes? Why does crime pay in the United Kingdom? Why is there positive discrimination? I feel that the left have totally and utterly lost the plot. Everything points to the fact that the general, law abiding populous have less rights than those that commit crimes. Looking after the rights of criminals has gone too far; way too far.
Take the rioting. Why aren't the police able to stop them? Because the left have tied the arms of the police behind their backs. Have you ever tried to stop a riot? You can't do it without using physical force of some sort. Yet the police are told of for kettling even!
What I am about to write is a generalisation.
I am one of a dwindling number of working middle class. We, are the ones who pay the most to society. We pay more than the rich on tax , we pay to keep the unemployed and the immigrants in comfort. I don't mind paying benefits to the unemployed, but when long term unepmployed are able to afford holidays when I can't, when the unemployed can afford to go out and I can't, there is something seriously wrong. We pay to keep the unacceptably huge public sector in a job where they get to retire on nice pensions at a younger age than I, whilst having worked less hours than I and for having done very little. Don't tell me that the Public Secttor get paid less; they don't. That has been a fallacy for a number of years. We are paying for the mistakes of a completely corrupt labour govermnement that was previously in power, that along with a amoral banking sector have bankrupted this nation. Mind you, the Conservatives do not seem to be any better. Why are amoral politicians allowed to run ths country and we can't get rid of them? Why do we have such a large legal sector, where criminals nearly always come out on top? Why does my money go to pay for criminals to have holidays, or days out at Alton Towers?
Pr00ne, just as you believe that the House of Windsor are above the law, I would sat that most politicains, irrespective of country, are also above the law. You look at the US political system. It appears to me that the person with the most money wins, not the person who is going to do the best for the nation.
As for bankers... Don't get me started. May we shoot them all? I could go on, and feel we could have an interesting discussion for many, many hours. Did you know that the gap between the rich and the poor is now worse than during the Victorian era. At least the Victorian wealthy generally gave to society (libraries, parks, swimming pools, big buildings, villages, towns etc). It is very rare for any of todays extremely wealthy to do similar (there are exceptions; e.g. Bill gates, Hunter etc).
Last edited by hval; 10th Aug 2011 at 10:14. Reason: Spelling, and an incorrectly typed sentence
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To continue the thread drift - I did not know that we have a Labour government. I also note that a group of residents in London who had assembled to protect their property and possessions were dispersed by the police in case they contributed to disorder!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wander00,
Totally sympathise - I come on to this Thread to see if there is any further news on why the Thunder City Aircraft Company collapsed - particularly interested to see what will happen to the Buccaneers?
What I get is, once again, pr00ne climbing on his soap box and calling people racist etc. What has all this to do with the origin of this particular thread?
For those who wish to engage with pr00ne, let me quote William G. McAdoo,
'It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument'
pr00ne,
The guys who set this site up anticipated people like you - take your dribble off to Jet Blast.
Again, you are a foolish person.
S4G
Totally sympathise - I come on to this Thread to see if there is any further news on why the Thunder City Aircraft Company collapsed - particularly interested to see what will happen to the Buccaneers?
What I get is, once again, pr00ne climbing on his soap box and calling people racist etc. What has all this to do with the origin of this particular thread?
For those who wish to engage with pr00ne, let me quote William G. McAdoo,
'It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument'
pr00ne,
The guys who set this site up anticipated people like you - take your dribble off to Jet Blast.
Again, you are a foolish person.
S4G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A2QFI
Totally and utterly correct. I wrote something else, edited it and it came out totally incorrect. Thank you for pointing it out, I shall go correct it, along with the spelling errors I noticed.
I did not know that we have a Labour government
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ewan,
Nutloose,
I am in routine contact with one of the Thunder City team and have it from the horse's mouth that the costs (Millions of Rand) of implementing the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lightning accident were so prohibitive that they had no option but to stop flying passengers. They did continue to fly the jets for themselves but it seems now that that is no longer an option.
Foldie
So, is the sale a direct result of the sad loss a year or so back? Did the company have their license taken away, or has it simply lapsed?
It did not help, brought up the spectre on no manual reversion, which is what the UK CAA has been preaching for many a year. Top that off with the recession and the writing was sadly on the wall.
Foldie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne,
Forgive me but I do not get the connection!
Was it flying with a navigator?
Was it flying Tooms?
Was it being in Germany (I seem to recall that from a previous rant)?
It couldn't have been as a Recce puke!
And the Toom didn't have the legs to get across the IGB (had you needed to) so it wasn't because you might have had to fly over enemy territory!
Please enlighten us!
a
ole!
Foldie
I also flew Tooms with a navigator behind me in my youth, so yes, I've seen several 'nasty' sides of life.
Was it flying with a navigator?
Was it flying Tooms?
Was it being in Germany (I seem to recall that from a previous rant)?
It couldn't have been as a Recce puke!
And the Toom didn't have the legs to get across the IGB (had you needed to) so it wasn't because you might have had to fly over enemy territory!
Please enlighten us!
a
ole!Foldie
foldingwings,
simple, I had to listen to him.
hval,
At the risk of contributing to the understandable unhappiness at enormous thread drift, criminals do NOT have more rights than their victims. Until they are convicted they are NOT criminals.
If you think that convicted criminals have afar better time than their victims can I suggest that you go next door, rape your neighbours wife, torch his car and THEN se who is better off after the subsequent court case, you or him.
simple, I had to listen to him.
hval,
At the risk of contributing to the understandable unhappiness at enormous thread drift, criminals do NOT have more rights than their victims. Until they are convicted they are NOT criminals.
If you think that convicted criminals have afar better time than their victims can I suggest that you go next door, rape your neighbours wife, torch his car and THEN se who is better off after the subsequent court case, you or him.
Close This Thread
What started as a thread which might be of interest to some of those who are supposed to be members of this forum - "professionals who fly military machines, or backroom folk who assist" - (please excuse the precis) - it has become a thread which has drifted beyond the bounds of reason, and does little to enhance the credibility of this forum.
Please shut it down.
Please shut it down.
Better than shut it down, why not send the people who cannot remain on-topic to the naughty corner? Don't see why those of us who do want to discuss it can't do so because of the actions of others...