Jump to content

ai_Droid

Regulars
  • Posts

    3,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ai_Droid

  1. In this case it wasn’t the legality of the criminal act it was the severity of the sentence compared with violent crimes and other similar crimes that provoked the thread. Whilst drug dealing is illegal I would want to see drug dealers locked up. I just don’t think they should be going to jail for longer than rapists and perpetrators of vicious assaults.

     

    A very complicated issue, and one that's very emotive. Rape and assault are both hideous invasive crimes for the victims, and deserve harsh punishment. From what I understand of the law, one of the important aspects is the mens rea, the guilty mind. I think in the eyes of the law knowingly and calculatingly living a life of serious crime is worse than losing your mind in the heat of the moment and thumping someone. That's probably not much comfort to the person getting thumped, but that's how it works.

  2. But all these problems are a result of the drug being illegal.

     

    If it were legal, would the problems be worse? I suspect not, but I don't know because there is very little objective information available, and a huge amount of emotive claptrap.

     

    An interesting hypothetical argument, but today large scale production and sale of cocaine is illegal worldwide, so I don't see how it fits in with criticising this sentence.

  3. Although I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying you could be talking about wearing trendy trainers which have been produced in sweat shops in China or India. Which is to say the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

     

    They did it legally though. It may well be morally wrong, and I agree with you there, but nobody was forced at gunpoint to smuggle trainers up their bottom through an airport.

     

    But the victims in your list are the victims of the state which imposes laws against drugs.

     

    And unless you see a worldwide change, that'll continue to be the case. Separate argument as was said above, the fact is it is illegal so the sentence should reflect that.

     

    I think that most of the problems associated with drugs come from the illegal status of the drug and not from some inherent quality of it. So I would like to be able to answer: They were produced in a pharmaceutical factory in Basel Switzerland. The exploited were the same who are exploited by any company which makes a profit. They made it into the UK via a haulage company. No one put them in their belly or broke any laws as drugs are legal and so too is their sale and transportation.

     

    Yes, perhaps, but where do you stop? Legalise heroin? Crack?

  4. If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway)

     

    I think you're over simplifying. How where the drugs produced? Who was exploited? How did they make it into europe, and then into the UK? Who had to risk a life sentence or even execution in some countries with a life threatening belly full of drugs to get them here? Did an innocent traveller face life in a foreign prison because his bag was used without his knowledge to get the drugs through customs? A bit of charlie at a party seems pretty innocent, but these aren't victimless crimes, far from it.

  5. In response to Christian adverts running on London buses, which linked to a website saying non-believers would burn in hell for all eternity a group has launched a appeal for dosh to fund an Athiest bus campaign.

     

    The slogan will read "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.", pic and more info here:

     

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ion-advertising

     

    I think this is a great idea, a perfect like for like response to the religious ramming their message down our throat all the time. What do you recon?

  6. I am starting flyfishing next season and wondered if anybody could recommend a still water to start on, i have only been to look at Sulby so far and the size of the place is a bit daunting for a beginner. Are some of the other places easier/harder to fish.

     

    I like Clypse and Kerrowdoo, not too big, with lots of space behind you for casting and you can get the right side of the wind because you can fish any side of the ressie, which is essential for a bigginner. Baldwins also good, as is Cringle if you're a southie, though it can get busy.

     

    I'd avoid ballure and sulby until you're a bit betterer both need some skill to fish. Consider getting yourself a spinning rod too, you're not allowed to use it on clypse/kerrowdoo but it's nice to have a break from the fly fishing on the other waters.

     

    Also on the various websites it says that Eairy Dam allows bat fishing, does that mean that it's bait fishing for trout or does it have other species in there(i.e perch, etc)

     

    any information would be helpful.

     

    Pretty sure you can do what you like there, but it's not stocked, so anything will be futile as far as I know. Never had any luck there myself.

  7. The amount Clinton was put away for isn't really that much (and the £80K value is using 'police' prices, not actual prices

     

     

    He's got a reportedly good lifestyle with no documented source of income. That means he's doing more than what he was caught with, it also means he pays no taxes. He's got two kids too, who you're paying for. You think this is fine?

  8. So if the problems arise because cocaine is illegal, why not legalise it?

     

    Why not indeed. Different discussion entirely though ;)

     

    I've mixed views on it. I sometimes think it should be, but then when you go to somewhere like 'dam where grass is legal, you get the harder drugs right in your face on the street, and it's really not pleasant. Perhaps this wouldn't happen if they were all legal, but where do you stop? Legalised heroin?

  9. It also shows alcohol to be considerably more harmful than ecstacy, and not much less harmful than cocaine. Do you drink? And if you don't, would you ban it?

     

    I agree there's a double standard, and yes I do drink occasionally. But alcohol is legal and cocaine isn't, just that very fact means that cocaine supply has it's victims that aren't just the people who chose to take it.

  10. LQQ good lists. I'm struck that most of those crimes, while horrendous, only has single victims. The importation and dealing of drugs like cocaine has many victims. Perhaps that's part of the sentencing difference? Not an expert, so dunno.

     

    Many of these cases aren't straightforward. Should you get 15 years for punching a bus driver in the heat of the moment vs knowingly and calculatingly making a long term career out of crime and exploitation? They're very different aspects of breaking the law.

     

    I think either way that the argument is that those punishments are too lenient, not that this drugs one is too harsh.

     

    Sentencing is not, and never will be, a deterrent to crime, some countries carry the death penalty for drug dealing and guess what? People still deal drugs. I'm not saying crime shouldn't carry a punishment, but when it comes to drug offences, it's my contention that common sense and the notion that the punishment should fit the crime, both fly out of the window.

     

    This is barmy. Of course its a deterrent. Does it deter people completely? No, some people will always think its worth the risk, but you don't simply get rid of sentencing because of that.

     

     

    As for the 'selling stuff to my kids' line, I'm no more or less worried about coke dealers than I am about Tesco or Shoprite or the corner shop, all of which are prolific alcohol and tobacco dealers, and those two drugs are flagged up as more harmful to both individuals and society than, for example - ecstasy, which is an evil class A drug.

     

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

     

    You're barking mate. Your own link shows cocaine to be about twice as harmful as ecstasy.

  11. Yes.

    Let's have an end to all this smoke and mirrors economy, intangible and undesirable services touted as 'products' to generate short-term bonuses, let's say adios to marketing whizzkids, political correctness, the nanny state and management double-speak.

    What we need are proper boilers made in Bolton, cutlery made in Sheffield, mustard (and sports cars) from Norfolk, kippers from Peel and an end to parasitic industries leeching on the efforts of the real producers.

     

    I'm going to bed now. I think I almost just became a communist for a moment...

     

    Stu: what's the real tangible value in what you do? Are you going to barter your skill at dealing with an 80 year old ranter on the radio with your weekly shopping and rent? Are you a "real producer"?

     

    While there's been over-leveraging, unsustainable price inflation, and excessive risk taking, I'm not sure that equates to smoke and mirrors.

     

    Lots of the losses as a knock on of the credit crisis are equity based. Equities are real, they have a value, they're shares of companies in real activities.

     

    Certainly we need to get back to long term growth rather than short term booms, financial instruments that board members, risk departments and regulators can understand, but to declare the whole of finance as obsolete is ludicrous. There's simply not enough of us 'making stuff' and not enough of us only consuming 'stuff that's made' for our economy to operate in that way.

     

    I agree with much of what Gladys and Albert say though, we need to find the 'real' cost for many things. It isn't cheaper to buy apples from half way round the world than british ones really, it just works out that way because of subsidies, zero tax on certain uses of hydrocarbons, etc.

  12. You'd get less for rape.

    You'd get less for manslaughter (that is, killing someone but you didn't really mean it).

    You'd possibly get less for murder.

    You'd certainly get less for kicking the shit out of some poor innocent bloke on the prom at the weekend after a few beers.

    You'd get less for hospitalising your partner through physical violence.

    You'd get less for abusing a child.

    You'd get less for knocking over and killing someone whilst driving drunk.

    But hey ho at least the MESSAGE is getting out!

     

    Have you got any specific examples here?

     

    So then, great result, the taxpayer lashes out hundrends of thousands of pounds to put this bloke away for fifteen years (and I say again, you'd get less than that for dragging a random woman down an alley for a laugh and raping her), and the net result is?

    Absolutely fuck all.

     

    Simply not true. I'd quite like to be able to email a guy in liverpool, have him mail a few grands worth of cocaine to me and I flog it on the prom for a 500% markup, but that darn 15 years is putting me off. It works.

     

    Some folks do it responsibly, some folks fuck it up - the drug in question doesn't really matter.

     

    Fifteen years for absolutely fuck all in my humble opinion.

     

    Would you say the same if he was flogging the stuff to your kids?

  13. A local man just got 15 years jail for importing a kilo of cocaine, in the UK he would have got around half that sentence

    The punishment should fit the crime and this kind of inconsistent sentencing just shouts Banana Republic

     

    You're just giving PK more ammo for the manx hate.

     

    This sentance isn't wide of the UK. Here's the story as reported by the manx papers:

    http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Drugs-man-g...ears.4607192.jp

     

    He imported 80 grands worth of cocaine and was dealing it and living off the proceeds.

     

    Take a recent UK equivs:

    Importing cocaine, 14 years. http://www.build.co.uk/national_news.asp?newsid=83420

     

    Newbury was given life wasn't he, not 20 years?

     

    Edit: Gah, I agree with Cronky!

  14. I suspect that human nature will respond to incentives rather than price hikes - for example a VAT and registration 'holiday' on hybrid/electric cars' between now and 2015. But anything like this needs to be part of an overall 'greening the IOM' policy so that there are business and tourism spin offs.

     

    Registration is already cheap enough to be nearly free, its a fiver for an EV vs 280 quid for a 3.5 ltr 4x4. The big problem with EV's currently is the purchase cost, knocking 17.5% vat off may help that a little, but not enough yet.

     

    I'd like to see a bigger incentive for high mpg cars rather than just basing things off engine size, basically making 4x4's fekking expensive and a polo diesel fekking cheap to register. Has to be noticeably'ouch' different, not just a bit of an inconvenience different and the dosh reaped by those who are prepared to pay must go into renewables.

     

    Bring on the 'I must own a 4x4 because I must own a jetski or I will die' brigade :)

  15. Alternatively, introduce big incentives for people to start replacing existing cars with electric/hybrid cars which will become much more common over the next few years. Given the distances we cover on the Island they sound ideal. Set a target of 50% electric/hybrid by say 2015 - and publicise it. NZ did well by promoting its goal of becoming carbon neutral - why shouldn't we?

     

    Like wapping more tax not less on fuel, and at the same time have renewable electricity generation to make the alternatives much cheaper. Gets my vote, provided the extra revenue is spent on reducing hydrocarbon use.

     

    We're really far behind on renewable power compared to much of the world, and now we're skint because the boom times are over sadly. The only solution I can see for the island in the near term if fuel prices continue to rise is to bring power power over the cable.

  16. and in that communist utopian paradise to which you aspire, what happens to freedom of choice? You start by limiting the type of car I can drive, then the type of holiday I can go on, then the job I can do, then the food I can eat, then the books I can read (or do books end up being burned in your imaginary world?)

     

    Behave. There are degrees to all your freedoms. Take porn as an example. Or knives.

  17. I have noticed on a number of forums that people have been complaining about DRM on a number of upcoming must have titles....I am not technical genius so was wondering if this was anything for the casual gamer like myself to get upset about???

     

    Can anyone explain in layman's terms what its all about.....

     

    I think the issues are for games like Spore and Bioshock that limit the number of installs you can do over the software's life which is very harsh. They also require online authentication, and call home periodically to verify. I hear that Farcry's drm is also date limited, you can't play it before a certain date, so potentially after a certain date too.

     

    It all makes it easier to just rip it off in the first place, the logic being, if you're going to get treated like a criminal, you might as well be one.

     

    Just pushes me further away from PC gaming personally. I'll pay a premium to get the 360 version to avoid the bull.

  18. how many bankers out there would be happy with shares in a company they KNOW is all smoke and mirrors?? they all want cash now while they can get it. these recently nationalised banks that the government want to sell will never be sold at what they claim is market value. shares in banks are as much use to investors as the war bonds were.

     

    That's the point. Give them shares instead of cash so that they have a long term incentive in the success of the bank and move them out of risky short term bonus chasing ventures.

  19. Agree Stu, good post.

     

    Gladys I wonder if the UKs actions will have an effect on the UK as an offshore? Many foreign banks are in London, and I wonder if they'll want to keep deposits in the country after this aggressive action?

     

    http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=26946

    Manx radio new today, a UK pension provider seeking reassurances. This looks like a bit of a set up, you can see Treasury pi**ing their pants and agreeing that all deposits shoudl be IOM Government guarenteed, this is going to cost the taxpayer more than anyone yet imagines.

     

    Iffy this. The old 15k would have covered them, but the new 50k one doesn't.

  20. Seems a bit early to be bleating about this. The worst of this crisis is over the last few weeks, any bonuses currently paid will have been agreed months ago. I'll bet bonuses are significantly reduced this time next year.

×
×
  • Create New...