Why I hate not living in a United Ireland

[Nanor]

Living in Northern Ireland means I'm living in the UK. Subject to UK laws and have the Crown Forces to police us. Now I'm sure in England the Crown Forces to a spiffing job, but the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) are complete cretins.

A bit of background knowledge: On Friday night a man walking home from his daughters 18th from a pub, a mile from me, to his estate, half a mile from me, was stabbed, his wife ran over, his son shot with a crossbow and two bystanders ran over. Twice. Link.

I'd like to point out from that news story:

Earlier, residents told the BBC that the people whom they believe murdered the father-of-three have been holding the estate to ransom for years.

"Oh, Nanor! You paddy fool. What has this to do with the crown forces?"

Weeelll... the reason the people in question were allowed to hold the estate ransom for years without question was because they were feeding the police information. Yes, that's right, these men should have been behind bars ages ago but instead were allowed to do this.

Back in the day when the IRA was active a team would have been sent out and the men in question would be dead by now. However now we're in more civilized times with the pot calling the kettle black up in Stormont we've put full power in the police who, quite frankly, couldn't give a crap if we eat each other as long as we stay on the reservation.

I think a vigilante police service is quite frankly needed here as the pitiful excuse for a police service we have at the minute don't want to be associated with the RUC (As in heavy handed) and so don't do anything and rely on hoods to give them information so they don't get their hands dirty, and in return they receive a get out of jail free card. In fairness they're not getting out of jail this time, although they'll probably get 10 years for manslaughter the way this judicial system works. I digress.

The point I'm trying to make here is while we have idiots in Stormont trying to come to some sort of agreement we're being robbed of security by a Police Force who couldn't catch a cold.

Thoughts?

 

[thatbloke]

The fuckup with the WHOLE justice system across all of Europe can be summed up in three little words:

Human Rights Act.

 

[DocBot]

Rabble, rabble.

Is it the loss of the death penalty that irates you? Because it demonstrably has no great effect on crime rates, iirc. Otherwise, please specify (it IS the soap box, you know )

hugs and kisses.

 

[Dragon]

I think this is truly the polices fault.

It is not a bad idea to let criminals live in "freedom" when they give vital information on catching other, maybe even more dangerous, criminals, but you should keep them under surveillance.

I think that if they had kept an eye on them, this bloodshed could have been prevented.

Still I don't know if a police corps under Irish control would have done anything differently. (no offence here)

 

[Nanor]

It is not a bad idea to let criminals live in "freedom" when they give vital information on catching other, maybe even more dangerous, criminals, but you should keep them under surveillance.

It's a horrible idea. You can't let criminals live free because you're too lazy to find the information yourself.

Still I don't know if a police corps under Irish control would have done anything differently. (no offence here)

I'd like to think they would have found the information themselves and not be afraid to actually patrol the streets.

 

[decky101]

My 2 Cents on the situation with NI: As I myself am also from NI, I can associate with all that nanor has said, and it's completely true that acts like this are absolutely incredulous. I mean, to let criminals rule parts of our society just because they can provide useful information is no better than letting a paedophile run free in a children's playground just because he's really great at menial tasks around the school. Get a grip on this kind of crap, PSNI, please!

To use criminals as your sources of information is just stupid, I would not be surprised if the head of the PSNI has the IQ of a peanut. How could a criminal's information be considered completely trustworthy? I find myself asking the question is the loss of human life in horrible incidents such as those described by Nanor really the price we have to pay for dodgy info that could easily be completely false? To value the safety of citizens of Northern Ireland less than the value of some "possibly viable" information is beyond stupidity and goes completely against the purpose of the police force.

Now, to broaden the topic somewhat, since the thread name is "why I hate not living in a united Ireland," I must say that I do infact prefer the pound to the Euro, I have no idea why, but it's true, maybe it's because I'm used to it. Also, would the economy not completely change if Ireland was to become unified? For example, In the South, you must also pay addition tax when buying a car called VRT (Vehicle Registration Tax) and to change the economy of so many people would clearly cause pay changes here, there and everywhere as people struggle to pay as all prices rise. To my mind, The Republic is a lot more expensive than NI, so I'm gonna say that I'd like Ireland to stay where it is at the minute, only that the travesty that is called the PSNI is fixed, problems like those described above weeded out, and Power sharing is moved along a bit more quickly.

 

[thatbloke]

Is it the loss of the death penalty that irates you? Because it demonstrably has no great effect on crime rates, iirc. Otherwise, please specify (it IS the soap box, you know )

hugs and kisses.

Ok, let me put it this way: The Human Rights Act should be completely ripped up. Why? Because in numerous cases the Human Rights Act is being exploited by criminals and their lawyers as an excuse to grant the criminal more freedoms, while at the same time putting fear into the victims of crime that the criminal could walk round their house with a baseball bat and run riot.

While I can understand the motive behind the Act, the fact that it is being exploited in such a way means that there is something wrong with it.

This brings me right back to the Tony Martin case in the UK. A guy has intruders in his house and was convicted for shooting them.

Load of bollocks if you ask me. They were fair game, and shouldn't have been on his property.

 

[Nanor]

Now, to broaden the topic somewhat, since the thread name is "why I hate not living in a united Ireland," I must say that I do infact prefer the pound to the Euro, I have no idea why, but it's true, maybe it's because I'm used to it.

Well it's going to come into effect in the UK sooner or later.

Also, would the economy not completely change if Ireland was to become unified? For example, In the South, you must also pay addition tax when buying a car called VRT (Vehicle Registration Tax) and to change the economy of so many people would clearly cause pay changes here, there and everywhere as people struggle to pay as all prices rise.

Well it shouldn't be about money. I don't like being ruled by a foreign government. I am an Irish citizen and have the right to an Irish government.

Also being in a United Ireland you won't get tied into any crap that Westminster dictates.

 

[decky101]

I completely agree that it shouldn't be about money, but I don't see a united Ireland any time soon. Sure, I would love a United Ireland if some of the things I mentioned didn't happen (And btw, the pound shall live foreva' the queen wouldn't stand for it being changed ) But there are quite a few hundred thousand Unionists as it were who wouldn't stand for such a thing to happen, and besides, who says that the UK wants to relinquish it's grip on another piece of landmass? It loves that feeling of power it holds over us. The United Kingdom continued to pump all the food grain out of Ireland during the famine, allowing people to starve, who says they've changed? . Unionism is the sole reason why there isn't a united Ireland today, and is the sole reason why this problem is unlikely to change.

 

[Nanor]

Westminster want rid of the North. If the majority in the North (I'm talking 80%) wanted a United Ireland they'd give it to the Free State as soon as possible. The only reason they don't do it know as they don't want to abandon their Unionist counterparts and the reason they didn't do it earlier as the world would see it as the IRA had beaten them.

 

[Huung]

...and we love the feeling of power we hold over you

 

[Nanor]

Oh yes and:

Because it demonstrably has no great effect on crime rates, iirc.

Yes an IIRC the sky is green and pigs can fly!

 

[Taffy]

Everything he said

Couldn't agree more. The HRA has been a disaster for the UK judicial system. furthermore, it wasn't even needed. It's not like our rights aren't protected by Europe; it was just pure showboating by Tonyt Blair who wanted to be seen doing something about Human rights.

 

[DocBot]

Yes an IIRC the sky is green and pigs can fly!

Perhaps you should then either a) take up mnemonics or b) read up. Or, of course, the other option with the sky and pigs. Or counter these few arguments below

Murder rates in states with D.P., compared to states without. (roughly 40% higher in states with capital punishment)

The Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate (Stanford Law Review)

A Death Penalty Puzzle - A Washington Post op-ed from June this year, basically saying there's no evidence for (or indeed, against) deterrence.

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence: In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility."

 

[Taffy]

I think the death penalty should be used only in extreme circumstances (for example a mass rapist, a serial killer or a peadophile who goes around sexually assaulting kids as a repeat offender) Not so much as a deterrent, but more the idea that 'why the hell should I pay for those scumbags food, clothes, bedding, warmth and shelter?'

 

[Nanor]

Perhaps you should then either a) take up mnemonics or b) read up.

Or perhaps you should cite sources instead of sending other people off to verify your claims. Source.

 

[Taffy]

Or perhaps you should cite sources instead of sending other people off to verify your claims. Source.

roflwaffles.

 

[DocBot]

What, you mean the one article that I didn't summarize for you?

Alright then:

Aggregating over all of our estimates, it is entirely unclear even whether the preponderance of evidence suggests that the death penalty causes more or less murder.

Also, Ad Hominem arguments counts as foul if you don't also provide valid ones

[edited for clarity]

 

[Nanor]

What, you mean the one article that I didn't summarize for you?

I didn't ask you to summarize, I asked you to cite sources rather than us just take your word for it.

Also, Ad Hominem arguments counts as foul if you don't also provide valid ones

What do you mean? Which of my arguments aren't valid?

 

[DocBot]

I didn't ask you to summarize, I asked you to cite sources rather than us just take your word for it.

Um, okay? As is rather clearly stated;

The first source is from U.S. Census estimates (yes, you would have to click the link to see that. In that case _that_ would be the one where I didn't name the source in the post itself)

The second is from Stanford Law Review, rather clearly expressed imho.

The third; Washington Post

The Fourth; The Economist's voice

and The fifth; a Hart Research Associates' Poll made in '95 (no, I don't know any more about the poll, though I guess I could find out)

In what way did I not cite sources? Or maybe you meant the first post? You compared my argument with flying pigs and green skies, so I don't think I overstepped the line when I rather cheekily said "You're wrong". Or in other words, you started it

(and with the "read up" bit I followed it with just the kind of reading that could be, er, upped.)

What do you mean? Which of my arguments aren't valid?

Well, regarding this particular subjects you haven't made any arguments, other than the pigs&sky one and the Ad Hominem one in the post thereafter.