Bashar Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 But as I say, the police should enforce zero tolerance on vagrants within town and city centres (and no, that isn't victimising them, it's holding them to the same standards as anyone else). Â Well.....it is only holding them to the same standards as anyone else if zero tolerance is being enforced on everyone, in which case saying that the police should enforce zero tolerance on vagrants seems redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 But as I say, the police should enforce zero tolerance on vagrants within town and city centres (and no, that isn't victimising them, it's holding them to the same standards as anyone else). Â Well.....it is only holding them to the same standards as anyone else if zero tolerance is being enforced on everyone, in which case saying that the police should enforce zero tolerance on vagrants seems redundant. Zero tolerance should be enforced on everyone. At the moment vagrants are simply ignored because it's more trouble than it's worth to arrest them. They'll just be out doing the same thing the day after because what can the police threaten them with? Prison? A nice warm jail cell with 3 square meals a day, plus all the other niceties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted March 5, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 5, 2011 So your point is that the police should focus on everyone, including people by which there is absolutely no point in targeting. Â Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 So your point is that the police should focus on everyone, including people by which there is absolutely no point in targeting. Genius. Why is there "no point in targetting" them?  Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 They can't afford fines, it's impossible for them to pay them. And a night in the cells, with food, would be an improvement. How exactly would you suggest the police enforce this zero tolerance? Could it be time for death squads to respond to the dropping of cigeratte ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633240  Just to carry on what I was saying yesterday. The BBC lead headline on their site is "US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher" then in the article near the end it says  The United States and Israel have led an international campaign to halt Iran's nuclear programme, however there is no hard evidence to link either country to the creation of Stuxnet.  The rest of the article makes it clear they're guilty. Pro-Israel indeed. Evidence matters, not opinions. Edited March 5, 2011 by Yoghurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mervyn King says that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633240 Just to carry on what I was saying yesterday. The BBC lead headline on their site is "US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher" then in the article near the end it says  The United States and Israel have led an international campaign to halt Iran's nuclear programme, however there is no hard evidence to link either country to the creation of Stuxnet.  The rest of the article makes it clear they're guilty. Pro-Israel indeed. Evidence matters, not opinions.  I don't get your point here at all. The headline makes it clear it's one man's opinion (admittedly a security expert), then they include the line above reiterating that there's no hard evidence. A biased report of this story would have excluded both those things.  It's an interesting story, and worth reporting. So I don't understand your problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Britain's biggest bank plans to quit London and move to Hong Kong due to taxes and red tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 This would be infinitely more damaging than civil service cuts. This is a proper company, raking in million upon millions driven out by ridiculous anti-bank rhetoric. Does not bode well for the future, banks are needed in this country much more then unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Isn't HSBC like the only bank that wasn't bailed out by the Government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Barclays wasn't, and neither was the Co-operative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Barclays wasn't, and neither was the Co-operative. Â He meant real banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 The problem is there will be an exodus once one of the big stable banks ups and leaves. Which is a huge problem as they generate billions upon billions in revenue. The cuts as necessary as they are are really, really small time in comparison, this is the biggest financial concern as it would be absolutely devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashar Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 The system was bailed out, all banks benefitted. These kind of threats are not really new, we'll see what comes of it. My prediction: nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts