More bad news for the Home Office!

[Tinky]

Get real!. I if I was stopped by the police and told them my address was 'in the woods' or 'in a tent', would they take me seriously? How on earth have they managed to lose track of 322 sex offenders, and more to the point, where are they now?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/28012007/32...me-office.html

[Delta Whiskey]

Perhaps if these people don't have a fixed address they should be locked up.
Ah, um. That could be a bit of a problem though. Could we designate them as illegal immigrants and deport them. That could be awkward too.

Maybe the whole Government isn't fit for purpose?

DW

[NitroNutter]

I bet they would find them all in an hour if they asked to log onto tesco's database.

Originally Posted by Delta Whiskey

Perhaps if these people don't have a fixed address they should be locked up.
Ah, um. That could be a bit of a problem though. Could we designate them as illegal immigrants and deport them. That could be awkward too.

Maybe the whole Government isn't fit for purpose?

DW

This is what happens when you spend lots of money on killing brown people instead of building new prisons hospitals and schools to name a few.

We need new prisons asp and before the usual suspects come along and say would you have one near you the answer is yes and i have.

[Delta Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Bill C

This is what happens when you spend lots of money on killing brown people instead of building new prisons hospitals and schools to name a few.

We need new prisons asp and before the usual suspects come along and say would you have one near you the answer is yes and i have.

I'm against killing anyone, unless they're trying to kill me or mine of course.
What we need are places for the people who are in prison because there isn't anywhere else for them to go.

BTW, It's always amused be that they built the new County Hall opposite the prison, not so far to take the politicians.

DW

[BBKing]

This is what happens when you spend lots of money on killing brown people instead of building new prisons hospitals and schools to name a few.

Quite agree. On the other hand, it looks like we'll be bombing Iran by April, still in Iraq to cover the US line of retreat when the Iranians retaliate and voting to spent billions on Trident replacement, so let's have you all out on the streets come 24/2/2007 to protest.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/_Current/24Feb07Demo.htm

before the usual suspects come along

Which usual suspects? Who complains about building new prisons? Don't beat about the bush, you obviously have real posters in mind unless you're hallucinating, so who are they?

It could also be a good idea not to have such a high reoffending rate, however. That would reduce the need for prison places in the first place. Even David Davis has worked out that locking up lots of drug addicts for stealing to fund their habits is a really, really stupid thing to do. Not as stupid as doing that while burning opium crops and forcing Afghan farmers into the arms of the Taliban while there's an opiate shortage, however. There's a fairly simple, joined up solution to this - can you spot it?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Quite agree. On the other hand, it looks like we'll be bombing Iran by April, still in Iraq to cover the US line of retreat when the Iranians retaliate and voting to spent billions on Trident replacement, so let's have you all out on the streets come 24/2/2007 to protest.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/_Current/24Feb07Demo.htm

Oh look, not content with a "keep Saddam in power" march, now there's going to be a "let the Iraqi's get on and slaughter each other and eventually live under an extremist theocratic regime like the Taliban and plot more attacks against the West" march.
What lovely people these protesters are.

[BBKing]

let the Iraqi's get on and slaughter each other and eventually live under an extremist theocratic regime like the Taliban and plot more attacks against the West

Funny man. It was predictable (and widely predicted) that overthrowing Saddam would lead to a theocratic regime (unlike the Taliban, actually, but possibly a bit like Iran), so tough. You could have Saddam, who was no threat to us and at least predictable, or a bunch of theocratic terrorists who are unpredictable, have international links and, now, a Cause. You chose the latter, so don't lecture me on rights and wrongs. After all, I chose not to believe Bush and Blair and it turned out they lied. I think this makes me right and you wrong.

The Iraqis, in case you hadn't noticed, are slaughtering each other, and we're joining in - yesterday's action in Najaf appears to have been a mad cult attempting to murder Shia pilgrims (many Iranians included) put down with extreme prejudice by *the US in alliance with the Iranian backed Iraqi government forces*. We're holding on, just, as long as Iran wants us to. Given that an attack on Iran is likely in the next three months (Israel having got its F-16Is nicely warmed up now, which I remember predicting a couple of years ago was a pre-requisite) how long will that last?

There are no good sides in Iraq. There is no government in Iraq. There is a civil war. There are 3.7m people displaced. There is no education system. There is little electricity. There are years of criminality and sectarian slaughter to come whatever happens and all we'll be able to do if we don't pull out is pick a militia we want to help win (currently the Iranian backed ones, as it happens).

Unless we protest, the people who unleashed this will retire rich and unrepentent. That's why I'm marching - nothing I can do will save Iraq from the fate we condemned it to in 2003, but we can try and stop the death-cult ideology of war and destruction that we export engulfing more of the world and making more people hate the West, democracy and all that I hold dear, and thus risking the rise of fascists and demagogues everywhere. How can I argue in favour of liberal democracy and the rule of law against that background, if we can't hold the mass-murderers who run our countries to account?

Don't you dare smear me as a Saddam supporter.

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oh look, not content with a "keep Saddam in power" march, now there's going to be a "let the Iraqi's get on and slaughter each other and eventually live under an extremist theocratic regime like the Taliban and plot more attacks against the West" march. What lovely people these protesters are.

Xaccers, you seem to be suggesting a very simplistic polarised view, that if someone is against the war, they must be for Taliban and the terrorists. By that yardstick, if someone is not against the war, does that mean they support everything that the UK and US governments, led by Tony Blair and George W Bush, have done?

Or is it possible that perhaps it's a little more complicated than that?

Calling people terrorist supporters isn't very nice, and to say that if you disagree with your government you must be a supporter of Saddam Hussein brings to mind a certain US politician of the 1950's, Joe McCarthy. Like him, you appear to be confusing dissent with disloyalty.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Funny man. It was predictable (and widely predicted) that overthrowing Saddam would lead to a theocratic regime (unlike the Taliban, actually, but possibly a bit like Iran), so tough. You could have Saddam, who was no threat to us and at least predictable, or a bunch of theocratic terrorists who are unpredictable, have international links and, now, a Cause. You chose the latter, so don't lecture me on rights and wrongs. After all, I chose not to believe Bush and Blair and it turned out they lied. I think this makes me right and you wrong.

I certainly didn't believe that WMD's would be found nor were a threat to the UK, but I did believe that Saddam and his "colleagues" were sadistic low lifes who thought nothing of ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men and children to try and wipe a group out, nor be repentant about gassing viliagers.
I also don't believe that it is right that the world not only ignored what was going on, but in the case of France and Russia were so unphased by it they wanted to continue trading arms with Saddam.
So you may be happy to have had Saddam remain in power, continuing the raping and murdering, then handing over to his sons to continue while France and Russia supply the arms to be used against civilians, but personally, as with other countries where diplomacy cannot work and the locals have no one to defend them against a tyranical leader, I feel it is the civilised nations' responsibility to get off their backsides and remove the tyrants from power.
Perhaps if countries like France, Russia and Germany hadn't put their own financial interests ahead of what would have been the right thing to do we wouldn't be in this mess, especially with the relationship France and Russia have with Syria, but hey, much easier to bash Bush than admit if the march against the war had been successful Saddam would have remained in power free to use French and Russian weapons against Iraqi's.

Originally Posted by BBKing

The Iraqis, in case you hadn't noticed, are slaughtering each other, and we're joining in - yesterday's action in Najaf appears to have been a mad cult attempting to murder Shia pilgrims (many Iranians included) put down with extreme prejudice by *the US in alliance with the Iranian backed Iraqi government forces*. We're holding on, just, as long as Iran wants us to. Given that an attack on Iran is likely in the next three months (Israel having got its F-16Is nicely warmed up now, which I remember predicting a couple of years ago was a pre-requisite) how long will that last?

A damn sight longer than if you lot have your way and we abandon Iraq, but hey, being happy to have them remain under Saddam with his mass graves is what you've said you'd prefer.

Originally Posted by BBKing

There are no good sides in Iraq. There is no government in Iraq. There is a civil war. There are 3.7m people displaced. There is no education system. There is little electricity. There are years of criminality and sectarian slaughter to come whatever happens and all we'll be able to do if we don't pull out is pick a militia we want to help win (currently the Iranian backed ones, as it happens).

I think the members of the Iraqi goverment would have something to say about your claims, as would the majority who actually voted for them.
I just find it absolutely inhumane to suggest we should just pull out and let them fall into a civil war with total chaos and further revolutions down the road, along with the increased possibility of attacks on the West, is that really what you want?

Originally Posted by BBKing

Unless we protest, the people who unleashed this will retire rich and unrepentent. That's why I'm marching - nothing I can do will save Iraq from the fate we condemned it to in 2003, but we can try and stop the death-cult ideology of war and destruction that we export engulfing more of the world and making more people hate the West, democracy and all that I hold dear, and thus risking the rise of fascists and demagogues everywhere. How can I argue in favour of liberal democracy and the rule of law against that background, if we can't hold the mass-murderers who run our countries to account?

If your march is successful, will you be able to live with the outcome of all foreign troops leaving?
I know I couldn't.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Don't you dare smear me as a Saddam supporter.

Pray do tell how your stop the war march would have removed Saddam if it had been successful?

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:01 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Xaccers, you seem to be suggesting a very simplistic polarised view, that if someone is against the war, they must be for Taliban and the terrorists. By that yardstick, if someone is not against the war, does that mean they support everything that the UK and US governments, led by Tony Blair and George W Bush, have done?

Or is it possible that perhaps it's a little more complicated than that?

Calling people terrorist supporters isn't very nice, and to say that if you disagree with your government you must be a supporter of Saddam Hussein brings to mind a certain US politician of the 1950's, Joe McCarthy. Like him, you appear to be confusing dissent with disloyalty.

Perhaps you can explain how if the anti-war march had been successful it would have removed Saddam from power?
You may not have wished for Saddam to remain in power, but by marching to prevent the action which would have removed him you'd be supporting his position as leader in Iraq.
I'm sure it's a hard pill to swallow, but no matter how you protest the fact, it still remains, if you refuse to take the action to remove someone from power, you are giving support for that person to remain in power.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Xaccers, you seem to be suggesting a very simplistic polarised view, that if someone is against the war, they must be for Taliban and the terrorists. By that yardstick, if someone is not against the war, does that mean they support everything that the UK and US governments, led by Tony Blair and George W Bush, have done?

Or is it possible that perhaps it's a little more complicated than that?

Calling people terrorist supporters isn't very nice, and to say that if you disagree with your government you must be a supporter of Saddam Hussein brings to mind a certain US politician of the 1950's, Joe McCarthy. Like him, you appear to be confusing dissent with disloyalty.

Indeed i hate this government for taking us into a war on a lie. However i do not agree with terrorists and they should be shot on sight as far as i am concerned.

[Mr Angry]

All this talk of French, Russian and German weapons yet nothing about the fact that the Americans manufactured, and in some cases knowingly supplied, the nerve agents and chemicals?

Let's at least have a fair playing field.

[Xaccers]

French and Russian weapons, as they were the main arms suppliers for Saddam and wanted to continue their trade knowing Saddam's taste for using them against Iraqi civilians.
The US under Reagan sold Saddam nerve agents (one of the reasons they knew Saddam had WMDs, they still had the reciepts for them! Course they're now probably in Syria) back in the 80's, that's over 20 years ago, to help in the war against Iran which the US feared would be won by Iran and destabalise the middle east and therefore the world's economy, the French and Russians wanted to sell weapons with the sole purpose of being used against Iraqi civilians right now.
To me there is a huge difference between what a country's previous goverment did 20 years, that is sell weapons to be used against another nations army during a war, and the actions and responsibilities of it's current goverment.
For instance, I wouldn't hold our goverment responsible for the Suez fiasco, or the Winter of Discontent, likewise it would be rediculous to hold the current US administration responsible for the sale of arms to Iraq under Reagan.

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Xaccers, you seem to be suggesting a very simplistic polarised view, that if someone is against the war, they must be for Taliban and the terrorists. By that yardstick, if someone is not against the war, does that mean they support everything that the UK and US governments, led by Tony Blair and George W Bush, have done?

Or is it possible that perhaps it's a little more complicated than that?

Calling people terrorist supporters isn't very nice, and to say that if you disagree with your government you must be a supporter of Saddam Hussein brings to mind a certain US politician of the 1950's, Joe McCarthy. Like him, you appear to be confusing dissent with disloyalty.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

...snip.....
Perhaps you can explain how if the anti-war march had been successful it would have removed Saddam from power?
You may not have wished for Saddam to remain in power, but by marching to prevent the action which would have removed him you'd be supporting his position as leader in Iraq.
I'm sure it's a hard pill to swallow, but no matter how you protest the fact, it still remains, if you refuse to take the action to remove someone from power, you are giving support for that person to remain in power.

Thank you for not answering my question

btw, by your reasoning (last paragraph of your post), what action did you take to remove Saddam from power?

btw, I initially supported going to war (so I wasn't a marcher, so your Saddam-supporter smear is without foundation), but when I learnt, over time, that there were no WMD, no links between Saddam and Al-Quaeda, and that our (and the US) government had misled us over these facts, and that our troops were in combat with insufficient/inappropriate equipment, my viewpoint changed.

I am anti-terrorist, but I am also anti our government going to war over false pretenses, then changing the reasons after they were caught out.

And if you say regime-change was a good enough reason, why wasn't/isn't it a good enough reason in Indonesia, Cuba, various African states, China, to name but a few?

Two quotes from Joseph Goebbels - one is about governments, and one is about the way individuals use certain tactics on this forum.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

[me283]

Could this be a record for the fastest movement by a thread into completely OT territory??!!

Anyway, back to the subject. This is clearly a total farce, and yet again shows that for all their tough words, the Home Office would struggle to distinguish their ar*e from their elbow. When will people realise that sex offenders are exactly that - OFFENDERS. As such, how far would you trust them? This example shows that in many cases, give them an inch and they'll take a whole lot more than the proverbial yard. There should be no opportunities handed to these people to take the p*** in the first place. But presumably, it's all a part of trying to rehabilitate them. And now look what's happened.