Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 09-02-2014, 06:22 PM   #64961
I.O.T.M
Welcome to Jackass.
 
I.O.T.M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
In Dover there are a lot of people always complaining about street lights being switched off too early. It's a council decision and not something the local MP can really do anything about. It may be worth contacting a local councillor?
__________________
CHELSEA FC

"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" - Albert Camus

I.O.T.M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 06:28 PM   #64962
EndTheRapture51
Feminism ruined The Pit
 
EndTheRapture51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
He didn't say anything in the letter to me that said he wasn't able to control the policy or had a lack of jurisdiction over it, in fact he says he is "broadly in support of it". If it wasn't his problem I'm sure he'd tell me straight away.

I replied with this #madbantz

Quote:
Dear MP,

Firstly I am very shocked and insulted that you cannot even be bothered to get my name correct on the return letter to me, referring to me as "Luke", it shows a lack of respect and care that a MP should show to his constituents.

Secondly, do you not realise that the entire point of streetlights is to light the streets during periods of darkness? I cannot believe a man as educated as you could let such basic logic pass him by.

Thirdly, I feel like this is indicative of the general Tory policy of prioritising cuts and saving money over the welfare of people, as shown by various policies and taxes your government as introduced. Sadly I cannot offer you my support at the next general election as I find firstly the lack of care to which you have addressed me disturbing, as well as this policy being a microcosm for the entire party you are a part of.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
__________________
#WengerOut

#FREENEO #FREETROWZAA #FREEPHIL
EndTheRapture51 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 06:32 PM   #64963
I.O.T.M
Welcome to Jackass.
 
I.O.T.M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Do you honestly believe MPs waste their time setting street lighting policies for their local areas? MPs legislate on national concerns as a representative of their constituents. Perhaps he could bring it up in Parliament but that's all. These decisions are delegated to local councils.

You've made a massive deal over him getting your name wrong. You do realise it could be an auto-correct error?

Edit: I don't know if you still live in Norwich, but the Norwich council website has loads of information about this. It's to cut CO2 emissions.

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_an...hting/NCC153074
__________________
CHELSEA FC

"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" - Albert Camus


Last edited by I.O.T.M : 09-02-2014 at 06:38 PM.
I.O.T.M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 08:00 AM   #64964
EndTheRapture51
Feminism ruined The Pit
 
EndTheRapture51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
I don't live in Norwich any more, I live in Billericay. I was aware Norwich did it but the roads they chose to light were reasonable and lights in my estate were turned off at a reasonable time, like 2am.

Either way, if it wasn't his problem, he wouldn't have replied to me and would've simply said "contact your Councillor instead".

The addressed envelope to me was hand-written and my name was wrong. There's a minimum amount of effort that should be taken by either him or his secretary and he hasn't lived up to that.
__________________
#WengerOut

#FREENEO #FREETROWZAA #FREEPHIL
EndTheRapture51 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 10:02 AM   #64965
JackWhiteIsButts
Hard Boyled
 
JackWhiteIsButts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: [Rick] Nash-ville
A cat was looking at a King, as permitted by the proverb. "Well," said the monarch, observing her inspection of the royal person, "how do you like me?" "I can imagine a King," said the Cat, "whom I should like better."

"For example?"

"The King of the Mice."

The sovereign was so pleased with the wit of the reply that he gave her permission to scratch his Prime Minister's eyes out.
__________________
Hail to the King



JackWhiteIsButts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2014, 06:15 PM   #64966
meh!
Doin' DAT FUNKY DANCE
 
meh!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Perth/Glasgow - Scotland
So.

51% Yes, 49% no.

And all the arguments I've had about Scottish independence in the past where people dismiss it, don't care and basically thought it could never happen. Whatever happens now, the union is over.

Ruk labour better sort themselves out otherwise England is so ****ed. Though I'd like it if we could send every shower of shite, scumbag, team-Tory, Scottish labour msp down to London for good ... I suppose we won't be able to get them past milbands mad border control. Lol.
__________________
On vacation from modding = don't pm me with your pish
meh! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:05 PM   #64967
Arthur Curry
yabba dabba doo
 
Arthur Curry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the living room
about to watch obama monger more fear and war
__________________
a steak pun is a rare medium well done
Arthur Curry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:06 PM   #64968
Arthur Curry
yabba dabba doo
 
Arthur Curry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the living room
any takers???
__________________
a steak pun is a rare medium well done
Arthur Curry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:07 PM   #64969
Dreadnought
Star-Splitter
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
ISIL is a pretty big deal
__________________
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2014, 09:56 PM   #64970
Rossenrot
of Prison and Palace
 
Rossenrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Swerve City
The speech seemed equal parts him defending his inaction while simultaneously making a call to action. Regardless, it's somewhat nice to hear his tone grow stronger. I only wish he would clearly enumerate our goals regarding ISIS rather than do a victory lap about job creation during a speech about terrorism.
__________________
Rossenrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 02:29 PM   #64971
Arthur Curry
yabba dabba doo
 
Arthur Curry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the living room
I agree it's a pretty big deal. 9/11 was also a pretty big deal. And when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, their operation funded and overseen by Saudi officials, we for some reason found ourselves invading, destroying, and occupying Iraq for the next decade or so.

Let's think rationally this time. Let's not let emotions get the best of us. Think about what allowed this evil to take form so as not to repeat the same mistakes. I for one would not be willing to give the executive branch free reign in yet another open-ended war in Iraq and the Levant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossenrot
I only wish he would clearly enumerate our goals regarding ISIS rather than do a victory lap about job creation during a speech about terrorism.


Elite donors of American allies in the Persian Gulf region have poured an immense amount of resources into rebel groups like IS in efforts to advance on three general goals: opposing Iran, its ally Bashar Assad and his government in Syria, and fomenting the Sunni-Shia divides in the region.
__________________
a steak pun is a rare medium well done

Last edited by Arthur Curry : 09-11-2014 at 02:32 PM.
Arthur Curry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 03:59 PM   #64972
I.O.T.M
Welcome to Jackass.
 
I.O.T.M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Some crazy guy has been arrested after claiming he had a bomb on a train at London Bridge station.
__________________
CHELSEA FC

"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" - Albert Camus

I.O.T.M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2014, 05:19 PM   #64973
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Uggh.

So here in October there is going to be a plebiscite to drop the age of imputability from 18 to 16 (age in which a person's actions can be judged as a "grown up", in terms of crime).
Right now the imputability age (or whatever is called in english) is 18, same as the civic/voting age. But over the recent (a few years) wave of underage crimes that end in murder, armed robbery, etc, this constitutional reform has been proposed.

I'm not sure what to think about it, mainly because it's so cluster****. The plebiscite itself just talks about the drop of the age of imputability from 18 to 16, and nothing more. But the political party that is endorsing this plebiscite (there are elections over here 1 month from now), is saying that, along with this constitution reform, they want to create a new rehabilitation center for those 16-17 year olds that are affected by this, so, if they commit these kind of crimes (murder, etc), they go to this rehabilitation center.

Up until now, ALL people under the age of 18 would go to the same "child center" called INAU. This center is designed to treat all children and teenagers, if they have problems with the law, etc. But recently, this center kind of "failed" with certain teenagers, in the sense that there are teenagers that commit crimes, go to the INAU, but (because of some reasons) escape pretty easily and commit the crimes again.
People over here are angry at this incompetence, since it makes them think that the "system" basically allows teenagers to commit any kind of crime they want. After all, they'll go to INAU for some weeks and then escape, or just go to INAU for a couple of months, be released, and commit the crimes again. So this plebiscite is basically fueled by that frustration.

So, the political party that endorses this plebiscite says that, if they go into power, they'll construct this rehabilitation center, so the 16-17 year olds go to this center and not to prison.
But the opposition is opposing the plebiscite because they say that teenagers under 18 shouldn't go to prison with the adults (over 18).

It's a cluster**** because I am not sure what the criticism is about, if about the plebiscite by itself, or if about the plebiscite AND the political party's plan (of the rehabilitation center and whatnot).
But from what I gather, it's entirely possible that the plebiscite gets approved, but the political party that endorses it isn't elected. In this case, the constitution would allow 16-17 year olds to be processed as adults (when they commit crime), but the rehabilitation center and all those things the other political party were talking about won't be done (if the party that gets elected doesn't do anything about it), right?
If that's the case, I haven't seen anything from the other political parties about what they'd do if the plebiscite gets approved. It seems that they won't do anything and are just content with rallying against it.

So yeah, have no ****ing idea what to vote about it, specially if voting for or against it ENTAILS having to vote for a particular political party or not.


So how does your "age of imputability" work in your countries? What happens to 15-16-17 year olds who commit rape/murder/armed robbery/etc in your country?
Is there something my country is doing wrong and we might risk going down the "wrong" path, or is this just a harmless democratic election that's not that important?
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2014, 05:22 PM   #64974
eGraham
Fishing's not that hard
 
eGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
Depending on the crime and the nature of the crime, some underaged people can be tried as adults. It all sort of hinges on how clear the motives, or lack thereof, are.

I've seen cases of a 17 year old killing his brother and getting tried as an adult. Or a local case where three teenaged girls conspired to commit and eventually committed murder and they were tried as adults.

But if there seems to be no motive, most people under 18 will be tried as juveniles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.




October 23, 2014
eGraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 10:51 AM   #64975
Swamp ash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
I just finished reading all the posts in this thread... I still think Dewey won!
Swamp ash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2014, 02:24 AM   #64976
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by eGraham
Depending on the crime and the nature of the crime, some underaged people can be tried as adults. It all sort of hinges on how clear the motives, or lack thereof, are.

I've seen cases of a 17 year old killing his brother and getting tried as an adult. Or a local case where three teenaged girls conspired to commit and eventually committed murder and they were tried as adults.

But if there seems to be no motive, most people under 18 will be tried as juveniles.


I know in the US, UK and stuff you guys have a more "radical" approach, and like put 10 year olds to prison or whatever.

Here in Latin America the thing is more "kid-friendly". At least over here, up until 13 years old (I think) you are totally inimputable, but your parents would be responsible, and maybe you'd get restrained in a youth center or something (I forget).
From 13 to 18 you are also inimputable in a way, like I said before.
It was like this since quite some time, and changing the age of crime responsibility to 16 has riled up quite a lot of people.

The saddest thing is how there seem to be only 2 extreme approaches, and they are all laughable.
One approach says that we shouldn't lower that age barrier, because kids will go to prison and will be raped. Prison will teach them to be thugs and they will come out as hardass criminals and their life will be ruined. This is laughable since the constitutional reform explicitly says they WONT go to prison, but to a new rehabilitation center where they'll spend their years with psychologists and more attentive care. As long as they serve the time the judicial system gave them, they'll still be there, not in adult prison.
The other extreme is the usual "right-wing" dudes, crying for the death penalty, putting them all in jail and let them rot there, or whatever. Some may not be that extreme, but do just say stuff like "I don't care about them, put them in jail and not in the INAU which is highly ineffective. We want clean safe streets!".

There's no middle ground basically.

Personally I think I'll vote for it. There are things I'm not really sure though. This is a constitution reform, and has lots of items. One which makes sense is to NOT allow the criminal record to be wiped clean at 18. If someone murders 1000 people when he's 17 years old, then there should be some kind of record of that 10 days later when he gets 18.
The other one is this rehabilitation thing, where a specific center will be created for 16-18 year olds who commit serious crimes (armed robbery, homicide, etc). Up until now, they would go to the same center called INAU, where other teenagers are also there (13 year olds an the like). I think they are still separated in different centers, depending on age and severity of crime, but the administration is still the same. I think making a focused effort on them is a better choice.

What I'm not really sure is on the execution of it. Maybe the reform will be approved, and then politicians won't give a flying **** about this and do it the in the lousiest way possible. Maybe they neglect this new rehabilitation center and make those teenagers be in awful conditions, and just let them wreck havoc and don't do anything. Or let them escape it easily, or make the justice system fail and like not give them the correct sentences (either too much or too little) or something. Since in this country at times we have a lot of incompetence in these kind of stuff, that's what I fear the most.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2014, 03:03 AM   #64977
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Oh also. Tomorrow we vote in our new elections, and many of the candidates have explicitly said they'd try to remove the marijuana legislation you all guys seem to love.


There are some candidates with good ideas, but damn when it comes to the marijuana legalization approved by the last government....they seem so Bill O Reilly-esque it's not funny, kind of makes me just want NOT to vote them based on that.

I think one candidates approves self-plantation of marijuana, but disapproves of the "state sells and regulates it" part and will try to remove it, but will later try to approve a new self-plantation one. This isn't so bad, but still feels like a step in the wrong direction.
Another candidate just wants both self-plantation and state commerce banned, using as justification that "we need drugs off the street" and "this encourages people to smoke and it goes against efforts to increase the health of the population".

The funny thing is that nobody tries to argue with the ONLY reason this thing was passed, which was to remove the market from drug dealers in a way to combat it. That's like...THE reason this thing is being passed (it's not to "let it be legal to have a good time!" or anything). So if you want to ban marijuana, at the very least put forward a plan that will be an effective combat against drug trafficking.....and not any "war on drugs" shit like what's been going on for like 100 years or whatever.


Then again, the current law seems incomplete still. In the current law, there will be mj plantations lead by the state, and they will be sold in pharmacies. Most people right now seem opposed to sell them in pharmacies, saying that it would go against them selling stuff to improve people's health, and they will be a focus of drug barons (to rob, to burn, to destroy, etc). Since these measures were made to combat drug trafficking, then drug dealers will try to fight back, and will do so in the "endpoints" of it, mainly attacking the pharmacies, threatening the employees, etc.
To be honest, I agree with this. I think they should be sold not in pharmacies, but either in specialized stores, or in just regular stores. Also I didn't see any plans for huge police defense of pharmacies and plantations, and having contingency plans in case things go wrong there. That's worrying and should be carefully planned, and I agree with the opposition here (though there are even critics inside the same government team).

But that's a reason to reformulate the law and discuss it further, not to revoke it and wash your hands and not do anything else. That angers me, because it seems to show the same lack of critical analysis towards the fight against drug dealing that those right-wing guys in USA have. Also, this doesn't even touch the whole "people should be free to use drugs in recreation" stuff.


I really want this to go through. Not only does it give positive light to our nation (maybe people will give a damn about us from now on), but it also is like the legitimate way to combat drug dealing.....if done carefully and right. So we should focus more on it, reformulating it, trying to come to agreements, etc, not take a step backwards.
There is only 1 candidate which will keep the law. It's also the guy that was against pharmacies selling it, but he agrees with the law (he's from the same party Mujica is in). I don't want to vote a candidate ONLY because of his stance on this law.......but the other candidates sure as hell make it harder to vote for them by spouting stupid shit.

EDIT: Oh, also this candidate (he's the president we had back in 2005, and is trying to get elected again) said he's all for regularizing cocaine as well. I.e legalize it but only allow selling it under strict conditions in strict places.
I doubt many people over here will approve of that haha

Last edited by gonzaw : 10-26-2014 at 05:02 AM.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2014, 04:04 AM   #64978
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
The biggest complaints against the "lower age of criminal responsibility" thing where:
1)You are giving the teenager more civil obligations (by being trialed by an adult penal code at 16), but don't give him more rights (like the right to vote, to drink, to drive, etc)
2)They won't be able to get an education and will come out illiterate or socially handicapped, etc.

For (1)....I am not really sure how it applies. If you are 17 years old and you murder someone, do you really expect to be given the right to vote/drive/drink if they decide to give you a "harsher" criminal sentence, and put you in a different place?
Also, if you have a 16 rapist, murderer, the least of things you want to give him is the ability to drive a car, to legally drink alcohol, and maybe even vote and have a say in the future of your country . At least not until he's hopefully rehabilitated.

For (2) I fully agree. But he SHOULD get education in that new center. That new center should be aimed to deal specifically with him and his situation, give him the necessary support and education to come out of whatever horrible situation he is in (either out of necessity, or psychological, etc). Ideally of course (which is one of my fears of this going through).
Though it's not like a teenager who murders and rapes, who goes to the INAU, gets any better. (2) is not a criticism, in the sense that it's not even happening now, so if it isn't happening in the future at least it's not getting worse (and thus can only get better)
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.