Britain - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

I think it's a fair ruling, but anyone caught doing so should receive treatment and the authorities should keep a very close eye on them.

 

[andrea]

#dead

 

[Robin]

Speaking of Russia, we are sending Boris over there... first foreign minister to visit in 5 years.

He will sort everything out!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Speaking of Russia, we are sending Boris over there... first foreign minister to visit in 5 years.

He will sort everything out!

Breeeeeck!

 

[DK]

Breeeeeck!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Breeeeeck!

I see that instead of trying to put a square peg into a round hole, Boris has put the round hole into a square peg.

 

[Robin]

The chancellor is expected to announce a new Diesel car scrappage scheme in todays budget to reduce the number of them on the roads.

This, like the previous scrappage scheme all those years ago, could inadvertently lead to good modern and reasonably environmentally friendly vehicles will a lot of life left in them being tossed out.

I can imagine it will also be a death sentence for new Diesel car sales.

 

[TheCracker]

I blame the French for the rise in diesel popularity. Don't know why. Some sort of tax loop-hole maybe? They were popular there before anywhere, for cars as opposed to commercial vehicles, before spreading around the rest of continental Europe and eventually the UK. I don't think that trend ever really gained that level of popularity on other continents?

Good riddance i say. Even though i've owned a few, i've always hated it, the sound, the smell, the low revving nature. The only upside was huge globs of low-down torque, but with narrow powerbands it's a short-lived party trick unless it's coupled with an 8-speed auto. Turbo petrols and hybrids almost match or beat them on economy, so it doesn't even have that going for it any more.

 

[DK]

I would have thought that it was because they earned a reputation off delivering relatively low CO2 emissions (and thus low fuel consumption) for the amount of power/torque they produced...and then it turned out they spewed out far more toxic emissions which contributed to smog.

 

[Lizard]

It used to be believed that diesel was better for the environment. Now everyone realises that it's actually worse.

 

[BobK]

It used to be believed that diesel was better for the environment. Now everyone realises believes that it's actually worse.

FTFY

 

[TenEightyOne]

FTFY

Well... not really. You surely can't agree that NO2 is good for anyone and you surely can't agree that diesels continue to pump it out? I don't think diesels can/should be completely eradicated but I do believe that in the future they should be limited to agricultural and some haulage uses.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The sad story of another Brit made jobless by Brexit, struggling to survive. Tough times.

 

[Robin]

Supervillain laugh...

 

[Tired Tyres]

The chancellor is expected to announce a new Diesel car scrappage scheme in todays budget to reduce the number of them on the roads.

This, like the previous scrappage scheme all those years ago, could inadvertently lead to good modern and reasonably environmentally friendly vehicles will a lot of life left in them being tossed out.

I can imagine it will also be a death sentence for new Diesel car sales.

Significantly better than them being a death sentence for people though.

 

[DG_Silva]

Turbo petrols and hybrids almost match or beat them on economy, so it doesn't even have that going for it any more.

This is true, especially the newer range of tiny turbo engines. However, there are times when only a diesel will do, such as when my brother needs it for work - can you imagine a 1.2l FI engine trying to shift a 200Kg laden with 1 tonne of equipment? Diesels have their place, but agree for city driving it is not needed, which brings me to...

I would have thought that it was because they earned a reputation off delivering relatively low CO2 emissions (and thus low fuel consumption) for the amount of power/torque they produced...and then it turned out they spewed out far more toxic emissions which contributed to smog.

I completely agree, and this is down to the obsession at the time that CO2 was the only cause of the greenhouse effect. While it is a contributor, it's not the biggest - NO2 and methane are the biggest man-made issues, not to mention the increase in solar flare activity (but that's another discussion for another thread) - it goes to show that when one person creates a model which fits into a government's need for greed, all common sense goes out of the window. The increase in diesels being used for short journeys has massively increased, and it's these which cause the greater harm.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4315456/Judge-won-t-send-student-jail-lady.html

Me and a friend actually saw this (please don't judge us for being at the Arts club). As the article says she was completely off her face.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Just seen this episode on TV by accident.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/critically-ill-two-year-old-6842131

These guys are scum. Go into a house and evict a family with a kid on a ventilator, and the family were just 3 days away from a council house. Kid had to go back into hospital, his brother sent elsewhere.

Landlord, scum. But these 2 really are something else.

Turbo petrols and hybrids almost match or beat them on economy, so it doesn't even have that going for it any more.

Only if they are PHEV. On a motorway run a good hybrid will only just meet the MPG of a 10 yr old Turbo Diesel.

 

[TenEightyOne]

These guys are scum. Go into a house and evict a family with a kid on a ventilator, and the family were just 3 days away from a council house. Kid had to go back into hospital, his brother sent elsewhere.

Landlord, scum. But these 2 really are something else.

A court order is a court order, it's the judgement that was wrong. That's what really sucks in this case, a landlord who didn't believe them and a lack of proper legal representation. If the family had been represented properly then the High Court would surely have acted differently.

Of all the "enforcement" programmes on the TV I think the guys in that one tread the most sensible line - but the order is the order*. If they hadn't acted then the police would have had to.

* Even as I write that I'm aware that it's close to a Nuremberg defence

 

[jake2013guy]

I was having a look at the MRAUK website and their main points. One which really struck out to me regarding rape. I'll quote it here as well.

In English law, rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis, hence women cannot rape. No element of force is required. Rape hinges upon consent. It is no defence against an accusation of rape to claim that the penetrated party gave no sign of lack of consent. The onus is on the man to pro-actively obtain explicit consent. The mere absence of any indication to the contrary is not sufficient to avert the crime of rape. Advice on the interpretation of the law has been given by the Crown Prosecution Service, “the Law imposes an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence that the complainant consented“. This effectively means that every man is a rapist on every sexual encounter since such evidence is never available in practice. Sex is therefore not legally advisable for men – at all, ever, even in marriage – unless extreme precautions are taken such as video evidence of verbal consent or a signed contract. Even these would be legally challengeable. There is much talk of better sex education in schools. The most important fact that boys should be told is that sex for men can become rape simply because the woman chooses to regard it as such – perhaps 40 years later. Rape has become a crime which is not objectively verifiable, even if expert witnesses were present throughout. This is how the law now stands, incredible though that seems.

So I went and had a look at the Sexual Offences Law of 2003 Section 1 and it's completely true. I'll quote their definition below.

1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

More specifically, part a means penetration of the vagina anus or mouth of another person. Nowhere does it state that rape can happen in any other context seeing as women can force themselves onto men and find a loophole using this and technically it is legal under that part. Also, b states that the penetrated person doesn't consent to the penetration. What if the person who penetrates doesn't consent? Slightly concerning.

 

[Famine]

it's completely true

Well, not completely. It is entirely true that UK law defines rape as non-consensual penetration with a penis (everything else is sexual assault), but women can rape under joint enterprise laws. It's rare, but it happens.

I'm not sure of the details surrounding this case, but it's highly unusual.

 

[jake2013guy]

I had not known of Joint Enterprise laws so had a quick Google. I wouldn't say that's rape directly as the article just outlines how she was pinned down by the victim, punched her in the face and ripped off her top. Yes, that's a conviction under Joint Enterprise laws but not a rape at all, because (from the article) she didn't rape..

That other case has a trial in December so we won't know much about it at this stage. Although, we might hear something about that case in December or their review hearing in September.

 

[Sick Cylinder]

I don't know the details of this current case. The only case of rape by a woman of a man that I can (vaguely) remember involved a female US Army Officer raping a male subordinate.

 

[Famine]

I had not known of Joint Enterprise laws so had a quick Google. I wouldn't say that's rape directly as the article just outlines how she was pinned down by the victim, punched her in the face and ripped off her top. Yes, that's a conviction under Joint Enterprise laws but not a rape at all, because (from the article) she didn't rape..

Her conviction was for the offence of rape, because she was an active participant in the woman's rape, which is why it's relevant - women can legally rape in the UK, even though they don't have penises to satisfy the standard conditions of the offence of rape.

 

[BobK]

So I gather that the only way a woman can be convicted of rape is if she aids and abets a male in committing rape, correct?

Although, the pending case is a woman raping a man and no third parties involved (or mentioned, anyway).
Forcible penetration of herself, with her applying the force?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So I gather that the only way a woman can be convicted of rape is if she aids and abets a male in committing rape, correct?

That's correct. Up until:

Although, the pending case is a woman raping a man and no third parties involved (or mentioned, anyway).

The details of the charge(s) remain sub-judice and, given the highly unusual premise of the case, are unlikely to be known until during (or maybe after) hearing. The only scenario where I can imagine an actual rape being proven is if the definition of "penis" is successfully tested to include "devices intended to act as a penis during sexual acts".

Forcible penetration of herself, with her applying the force?

She's either consenting to that (and thereby not breaking the law) or is self-harming (and thereby mentally incompetent to garner or issue permission, not a case in the public interest).

 

[Liquid]

Martin McGuinness is dead.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Martin McGuinness is dead.

One less terrorist in the world. A death is always sad for those that loved the deceased, no doubt about that, I just find it hard to think that he'll be missed overall. His victims didn't get to enjoy their lives.

 

[Dotini]

BBC radio was talking about him overnight. Apparently he had something to do with the peace process as well as being a bad guy for a number of years.

 

[UKMikey]

I wish I could say rest in peace...