Ahem. Warning on new anti-knife powers
Now, after you read it, read it again but substitute 'knives' with 'weed', and refer back to the posts I made a month ago regarding the anti-Democratic cannabis ruling slipped through recently. Or don't.
BBC wrote:
New laws to crack down on knife crime could cause increased hostility among young people, the Children's Commissioner for England has said.
Now, after you read it, read it again but substitute 'knives' with 'weed', and refer back to the posts I made a month ago regarding the anti-Democratic cannabis ruling slipped through recently. Or don't.
ban weed and knives ftw
I've never heard of 'weed crime'.
Send teh hoodies tombstoning.
Cut their hoods off!
Unless they're jewish, as that would've already been done.
Unless they're jewish, as that would've already been done.
I wonder if legalising extending batons would help with the number of stabbings going on. A baton would be a preferable weapon to carry around, as it's got significantly more reach than a knife, and while you could still give someone a severe beating, it'd be a lot harder to actually kill someone with a baton than with a knife.
as someone who lives outside london, i am more concerned with getting beaten to death than stabbed
ban hands
ban hands
Quote:
"That is not aimed at victimising young people; it's aimed at keeping them safe."
Why not ask 'young people' how they feel about it, then? Is it because you nknow the sesponse would be an overwhelming "Fuck off, you insidious, patronising cunts"?
Christ.
I'm young.
I'm glad of this.
Arrest all the suspicious little cunts and strip search them.
Also, I don't imagine that they know what the words "insidious", "patronising" or "off" mean either.
I'm glad of this.
Arrest all the suspicious little cunts and strip search them.
Also, I don't imagine that they know what the words "insidious", "patronising" or "off" mean either.
Craster wrote:
I wonder if legalising extending batons would help with the number of stabbings going on. A baton would be a preferable weapon to carry around, as it's got significantly more reach than a knife, and while you could still give someone a severe beating, it'd be a lot harder to actually kill someone with a baton than with a knife.
Until you get a gang of baton-carrying youths who, realizing they can't really kill you, give you an extremely painful beating.
MetalAngel wrote:
Craster wrote:
I wonder if legalising extending batons would help with the number of stabbings going on. A baton would be a preferable weapon to carry around, as it's got significantly more reach than a knife, and while you could still give someone a severe beating, it'd be a lot harder to actually kill someone with a baton than with a knife.
Until you get a gang of baton-carrying youths who, realizing they can't really kill you, give you an extremely painful beating.
Not dead though, are you - which is rather the point.
One of the telescopic batons the police use could *easily* kill someone. You look at it as it's being handed to you and think "What good can that possib... oh!"; they've crammed a truly impressive amount of mass into them. I have absolutely no desire to ever be on the wrong end of one, even being used in the most restrained manner possible.
To retract them, you slam them tip-first onto a surface no softer than concrete as hard as you can; the lock-out has to be that stiff because of the forces involved in normal operation.
Oddly enough, the PSD (riot) batons are much less imposing. Possibly because there's more chance of half a dozen being applied to one person, or increased chance of belting a colleague in the face on the swing-back.
To retract them, you slam them tip-first onto a surface no softer than concrete as hard as you can; the lock-out has to be that stiff because of the forces involved in normal operation.
Oddly enough, the PSD (riot) batons are much less imposing. Possibly because there's more chance of half a dozen being applied to one person, or increased chance of belting a colleague in the face on the swing-back.
after i've seen my country in 7th place in the Global peace index and after seeing posts like this, i don't think i'll leave the country in the near future.
The last Eurovision festival also helps, mind.
The last Eurovision festival also helps, mind.
Hutton wrote:
I have worked in Brazil, Colombia and the Gaza Strip, but the only place I have been that is more violent than England is Scotland. A Hamas member or Colombian guerrilla is much more amenable to reason than a British Chav with eight pints inside him.
It's only gettting/going to get worse with the resolute insistence of government, its advisors and paid-for studies simply blaming it on the booze.
I can drink extremely excessively and won't, without serious provocation, suffer violent urges. Not being a cunt, they remain urges. The same goes for every single one of my friends and family. All booze does is, as centuries of knowledge tell us, relax inhibitions and so let existing behaviour display more fully. Cunts stay cunty, excellent people stay excellent. With outside influence, cunts get violent, excellent people get upset.
So maybe the focus should be on figuring out why there are apparently so many cunts in our society and fixing that, instead of just raising the background level of discontent.
I can drink extremely excessively and won't, without serious provocation, suffer violent urges. Not being a cunt, they remain urges. The same goes for every single one of my friends and family. All booze does is, as centuries of knowledge tell us, relax inhibitions and so let existing behaviour display more fully. Cunts stay cunty, excellent people stay excellent. With outside influence, cunts get violent, excellent people get upset.
So maybe the focus should be on figuring out why there are apparently so many cunts in our society and fixing that, instead of just raising the background level of discontent.
BikNorton wrote:
It's only gettting/going to get worse with the resolute insistence of government, its advisors and paid-for studies simply blaming it on the booze.
I can drink extremely excessively and won't, without serious provocation, suffer violent urges. Not being a cunt, they remain urges. The same goes for every single one of my friends and family. All booze does is, as centuries of knowledge tell us, relax inhibitions and so let existing behaviour display more fully. Cunts stay cunty, excellent people stay excellent. With outside influence, cunts get violent, excellent people get upset.
So maybe the focus should be on figuring out why there are apparently so many cunts in our society and fixing that, instead of just raising the background level of discontent.
I can drink extremely excessively and won't, without serious provocation, suffer violent urges. Not being a cunt, they remain urges. The same goes for every single one of my friends and family. All booze does is, as centuries of knowledge tell us, relax inhibitions and so let existing behaviour display more fully. Cunts stay cunty, excellent people stay excellent. With outside influence, cunts get violent, excellent people get upset.
So maybe the focus should be on figuring out why there are apparently so many cunts in our society and fixing that, instead of just raising the background level of discontent.
Or figuring out why so many people get so utterly shitfaced all the time. I know we've always been a nation of drinkers, but people really are drinking more and more and deliberately getting fucked off their faces non-stop as their only source of entertainment. And not just teenagers, who might be forgiven as to them it's still new and hard. It suggests serious psychological problems, but the typical meeja response is 'lol kool'.
Drinking is cool.
Lol.
Lol.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen the adverts that sem to come up ocasionally on tv now, which are basically scenes of people pretending to drink and then pretending to have to sleep in a bush or wake up hung over?
How fucking pathetic are they? "If you drink, you will get drunk and have a hangover"? Who in the name of Satan's jubblies is that going to change? "Oh, heavens! Sorry chaps, I can't come out to the crown and get shitfaced again tonight - apparently, this 'alcohol' will get me drunk!" I don't bloody think so. It almost makes me want to go out and get shitfaced just to spite the patronising cunts.
I mean, for fuck's sake. What next? Adverts where people chang pies and years later become fat bastards? Christ.
How fucking pathetic are they? "If you drink, you will get drunk and have a hangover"? Who in the name of Satan's jubblies is that going to change? "Oh, heavens! Sorry chaps, I can't come out to the crown and get shitfaced again tonight - apparently, this 'alcohol' will get me drunk!" I don't bloody think so. It almost makes me want to go out and get shitfaced just to spite the patronising cunts.
I mean, for fuck's sake. What next? Adverts where people chang pies and years later become fat bastards? Christ.
It can get to fuck. I have occasionally woken up in a hedge. Better that than be a boring cunt who counts cocking units.
SteONorDar wrote:
It can get to fuck. I have occasionally woken up in a hedge. Better that than be a boring cunt who counts cocking units.
This is just it. Encouraging people to drink less (at least, a lot of people, who really do drink stupid amounts on a stupidly regular basis) is all well and good, but adverts like that are just idiotic. They depict only mildly unpleasant nights and hangovers that people in their 50s will still succumb to once in a while. I can guarantee you those ads have done literally no good at all for anyone bar the actors and editors etc. who made a bit of money off them.
I rarely drink, almost never get stupidly drunk, and think WAHEEY LOL drunkeness for its own sake is thoroughly cretinous, but even I've still had a few rough nights and slept on a train station's platform rather than crawl home. It's that sort of thing that people talk and joke about the week later, and everyone knows they'll be hung over. If they're trying to dissuade people, they should show people getting shitfaced and getting bottled by some aggro prick or raped by a bouncer, or choking on their own vomit while their mates kick their shoes onto a Portakabin roof. Bah.
sinister agent wrote:
I rarely drink, almost never get stupidly drunk, and think WAHEEY LOL drunkeness for its own sake is thoroughly cretinous, but even I've still had a few rough nights and slept on a train station's platform rather than crawl home. It's that sort of thing that people talk and joke about the week later, and everyone knows they'll be hung over. If they're trying to dissuade people, they should show people getting shitfaced and getting bottled by some aggro prick or raped by a bouncer, or choking on their own vomit while their mates kick their shoes onto a Portakabin roof. Bah.
This. Oh, so this. And it shouldn't matter about being graphic, as only people who can drink legally anyway are over 18, so just show it after say 11PM. In the end, though, a lot of drinking related things comes down to your peers. My friends were responsible adults, even when we were underage. The type who'd nick your car keys from your pocket if he thought you were even considering driving drunk.
It needs more than an ad hitting an individual at the time, it needs a cultural change, so it's not "the done thing" any more, such as how smoking has become rapidly less "accepted" in recent years.
Always thought this to be the best article ever on binge drinking.
Meh, Government telling kids how to behave. Like it worked before.
MaliA wrote:
Meh, Government telling kids how to behave. Like it worked before.
It's not aimed at kids. The people in it all look older than I am. Plus the ads don't have hideous grunge or shitty bass played over them, nor are they shot with thirty-eight cameras and edited by an epileptic gibbon, so it shows no signs of being aimed at anyone but people who are more than old enough to know what a hangover is.
These low-brow adverts might be an insult to your intelligence SA, and indeed, they might even be well off the mark, but bear in mind they're aimed at people who *are* that stupid. Anything more subtle than 'ALCOHOL GETS YOU DRUNK K' probably won't be comprehended by the majority of the slackjawed.
Since I'm all about the schadenfreude, I watch Booze Britain which is usually on Bravo, because somehow I enjoy watching people get so wasted that they can't stand/think/talk and end up going to hospital and/or fall over in their own vomit/blood.
I think the adverts are missing one vital thing, it's not that people don't know the risks, it's that they do and purposefully ignore them. They want to drink themselves into a near-coma so they can boast about it the next day, otherwise what's the point?
Since I'm all about the schadenfreude, I watch Booze Britain which is usually on Bravo, because somehow I enjoy watching people get so wasted that they can't stand/think/talk and end up going to hospital and/or fall over in their own vomit/blood.
I think the adverts are missing one vital thing, it's not that people don't know the risks, it's that they do and purposefully ignore them. They want to drink themselves into a near-coma so they can boast about it the next day, otherwise what's the point?
sinister agent wrote:
SteONorDar wrote:
It can get to fuck. I have occasionally woken up in a hedge. Better that than be a boring cunt who counts cocking units.
This is just it. Encouraging people to drink less (at least, a lot of people, who really do drink stupid amounts on a stupidly regular basis) is all well and good, but adverts like that are just idiotic. They depict only mildly unpleasant nights and hangovers that people in their 50s will still succumb to once in a while. I can guarantee you those ads have done literally no good at all for anyone bar the actors and editors etc. who made a bit of money off them.
Which I think is very deliberate. They're not government ads, they're a way for Diageo to advertise their brands (Johnnie Walker, Guinness, Baileys, Captain Morgan, Archers et al) while APPEARING to be responsible yet actually not making people drink less.
Genius in a way...
Quote:
Meh, Government telling kids how to behave. Like it worked before.
Like I say, government had zero to do with it.
http://www.diageo.com
sinister agent wrote:
Quote:
"That is not aimed at victimising young people; it's aimed at keeping them safe."
Why not ask 'young people' how they feel about it, then? Is it because you nknow the sesponse would be an overwhelming "Fuck off, you insidious, patronising cunts"?
Really? Heavens. Our nation's youth is getting a better education than we've been led to believe, then, if they'd bandy around words like "insidious".
Plissken wrote:
Always thought this to be the best article ever on binge drinking.
I disagree with this quite strongly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the articles is a complete nonsense.
Curiosity wrote:
Plissken wrote:
Always thought this to be the best article ever on binge drinking.
I disagree with this quite strongly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the articles is a complete nonsense.
Mm. It would have had a point ten years ago, but all the underaged drinkers I know and knew started on wine or beer, or vodka. The first time I got drunk was on wine, and after that it was neat vodka. Those alcopops were nice now and then if you fancied something sweet (although by about 19 I couldn't stand them, too sweet) and light, but that's all. Anecdotal, perhaps, but I doubt there are many teenagers who wouldn't drink alcohol if it weren't served with sugar.
Kids don't drink alcohol because it's like lemonade. Kids drink alcohol because they want to drink alcohol. Okay, I doubt the sweet booze helps, but I wouldn't say removing it would change much.
Ecstasy doesn't taste like shit, but I've still no interest in taking it, and even if you served it with cheesecake I still wouldn't want to. Although I would eat the cheesecake.
Dudley wrote:
http://www.diageo.com
Aren't they by "drinkaware" (whoever the are)? Genuine question - I thought they were.
Mr. Chris wrote:
Our nation's youth is getting a better education than we've been led to believe then, if they'd bandy around words like "insidious".
Well, that's what will happen if you bunk off and read a book instead. In fact, thinking about it, the brightest and most ace teenagers I know never seem to do any work or pay attention to school. Hmm.
ComicalGnomes wrote:
bear in mind they're aimed at people who *are* that stupid. Anything more subtle than 'ALCOHOL GETS YOU DRUNK K' probably won't be comprehended by the majority of the slackjawed.
True, but they're also so stupid that being told in plain terms won't work either - they'll have heard it all before. Hell, they'll have experienced it all before. No, to truly put off a significant number of young boozers, they should show a trendy twentysomething prick get shitfaced, go to the pub, drink some more, and then be taken advantage of by an extremely campy homosexual in front of all his mates and their cameras.
No offence meant to any of our gay denizens, obviously, but you know what these trendy twentysomething pricks are like. Using their own homophobia against them is merely being resourceful.
The government should melt down all the knives and give everyone safety scissors and Sporks.
It's the only logical thing to do.
It's the only logical thing to do.
Zardoz wrote:
The government should get down all the night and give everyone Scissor Scissors and Sparks CDs.
How's That Gonna Help?-FTFY.
sinister agent wrote:
Aren't they by "drinkaware" (whoever the are)? Genuine question - I thought they were.
These days every alc ad has that address, I don't believe they actually make ads though and the last screen of the ad is pure Diageo.
That Batman anti-binge advert was the best. One of the few adverts that not only do I remember what it contains and what it was "advertising", but also how I felt the first few times I saw it.
Compare the recent behaviour of football fans in Russia with football fans in this country - actually having a real threat of proper deterrent really does encourage people to behave.
What we need is gulags for violent drunks and knife carriers.
It's the twitching.
What we need is gulags for violent drunks and knife carriers.
BikNorton wrote:
That Batman anti-binge advert was the best. One of the few adverts that not only do I remember what it contains and what it was "advertising", but also how I felt the first few times I saw it.
It's the twitching.
BikNorton wrote:
That Batman anti-binge advert was the best. One of the few adverts that not only do I remember what it contains and what it was "advertising", but also how I felt the first few times I saw it.
You were thinking "Man. I want a costume like that."
I always rememberd that ad fondly as a moralistic tale of "DON'T BE BATMAN."
Unless you are Batman.
Or Bruce Wayne.
Or a cheap robocop.
Zardoz wrote:
Or a cheap robocop.
Roboslag?
Robo Community Support Officer.
MrD wrote:
Robo Community Support Officer.
9/4.
Craster wrote:
MrD wrote:
Robo Community Support Officer.
25 seconds left to comply out of 30
FTFY
sinister agent wrote:
Kids don't drink alcohol because it's like lemonade. Kids drink alcohol because they want to drink alcohol. Okay, I doubt the sweet booze helps, but I wouldn't say removing it would change much.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Rum, vodka and so on taste pretty horrible - the description about the first reaction to a whisky being a grimace is spot on. But now the stuff is hidden away inside something else and it is very, very easy to get drunk without ever noticing the alcohol. Hell, at 5.2%, Mikes Hard Lemonade is stronger than most beers and some ciders!
MrD wrote:
BikNorton wrote:
That Batman anti-binge advert was the best. One of the few adverts that not only do I remember what it contains and what it was "advertising", but also how I felt the first few times I saw it.
You were thinking "Man. I want a costume like that."
"Hahahooooh fuck."
Plissken wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
Kids don't drink alcohol because it's like lemonade. Kids drink alcohol because they want to drink alcohol. Okay, I doubt the sweet booze helps, but I wouldn't say removing it would change much.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Rum, vodka and so on taste pretty horrible - the description about the first reaction to a whisky being a grimace is spot on. But now the stuff is hidden away inside something else and it is very, very easy to get drunk without ever noticing the alcohol. Hell, at 5.2%, Mikes Hard Lemonade is stronger than most beers and some ciders!
True, but when I was a lad, the kids just got tanked up on White Lightning, Ace and the like. They tasted like pure crap, but they were cheap and strong. I mean, like, 7.5% alcohol in a three litre bottle for a few quid. That's 22.5 units of alcoholic evil.
Once we were old enough to get served regularly in places other than my local, everyone moved on to lager/beer/etc. Now, admittedly I had struggled one too many times with hellish cider and detest beer in all its incarnations, so the creation of alcopops was a blessing for me, but had they not come about (ah, bless you, Hooch) I would still have found something to drink. These days I mostly just drink wine, with the odd Smirnoff Ice or vodka/JD and coke. The missus dislikes all beers too, so drinks 'girly' drinks all the time (or steals my wine).
It's a complete misnomer to say that:
1 - Only kids drink 'sweet' booze (cocktail bars, anyone?), or
2 - 'Sweet' booze is to blame for kids getting wasted
Bacardi Breezer >>> White Lightning
Page 1 of 1 [ 46 posts ]