The Irony Thread

1235711

Posts

  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    Middle class doing drugs being a victimless crime.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310
    edited 30 August
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,073
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Wait. Are you saying he asked for a shoeing?
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Ben6899 wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Wait. Are you saying he asked for a shoeing?

    I have re read my post several times and if that is what you think I am saying you have totally misunderstood.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    So how do criminals commit crimes against the general public while they are in prison?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    So how do criminals commit crimes against the general public while they are in prison?

    Let's suppose the prisoner has a family. Lock up the breadwinner and you get feral kids.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Robert88 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    So how do criminals commit crimes against the general public while they are in prison?

    Let's suppose the prisoner has a family. Lock up the breadwinner and you get feral kids.

    Yeah, people guilty of violent crimes are such good role models.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    Robert88 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    So how do criminals commit crimes against the general public while they are in prison?

    Let's suppose the prisoner has a family. Lock up the breadwinner and you get feral kids.
    So you think people should get a free pass for violent crime because they have kids? Might cause a tiny bit of dysfunctional behaviour.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    There is a comment btl which seems to sum it up.

    What middle-class lefties often forget though is that violent crime disproportionately affects the working class, hence the call for tougher sentences, for example, for carrying a knife from working-class voters. It's all well and good to call it class war when it doesn't affect you.

    Perhaps OJ has a greater understanding now.

    Is there any evidence that 'tougher sentences' (whatever those are) make the slightest difference to crime rates? I don't have much time for Jones and he might be a bit off target with that article, but it's not much of a stretch to suggest that Johnson's 'pledge' - a word that now seems to mean a promise that will not be fulfilled - is just a bit of campaigning aimed at his core vote. It's not even a new commitment: Liz Truss promised the same increase in prison accommodation back when she was justice secretary and it's still just a promise.
    If you're banged up in jail then it's a bit difficult to commit crimes against the public at large. So I would say it does work, unless other criminals commit more crime to keep the average up.


    Your theory has been implemented in the US and shown to be wrong. They lock up far more people for far longer and violent crime rates are still far higher. Criminals need to be caught, tried and convicted before sentencing comes into it. The promise of extra police - which still only gets us back to where we were in 2010 - only addresses the first bit. There is no corresponding pledge for the courts system. Courts sitting empty is already an issue.

    The promised expansion of prisons just about keeps up with the existing overcrowding and the last round of sentencing review. Even if it comes to pass - as I say the last promise of expansion is still unfulfilled 5 years later - it won't materially increase capacity for longer sentences.

    It's good campaign material but a sentencing review will make no difference to incidence of crime.
    So how do criminals commit crimes against the general public while they are in prison?

    Let's suppose the prisoner has a family. Lock up the breadwinner and you get feral kids.
    So you think people should get a free pass for violent crime because they have kids? Might cause a tiny bit of dysfunctional behaviour.


    Prison is not the only way that crime can be punished. It is very archaic.

    Maybe we should go down the Chinese route whereby citizenship wins Brownie points and bad behaviour sees them taken away.

    In a sense we already do that through credit-scoring, there is an advertisement that explains how it works and if you are low on points you end up living in squalor (probably Sunderland) driving a cr4ppy old Ford Escort instead of maybe a shiny new Jaguar?

    Whaddaya say?
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    Robert88 wrote:
    Prison is not the only way that crime can be punished. It is very archaic.

    Maybe we should go down the Chinese route whereby citizenship wins Brownie points and bad behaviour sees them taken away.

    In a sense we already do that through credit-scoring, there is an advertisement that explains how it works and if you are low on points you end up living in squalor (probably Sunderland) driving a cr4ppy old Ford Escort instead of maybe a shiny new Jaguar?

    Whaddaya say?
    Agree that prison is not the only way but where we are talking violent crime and potential risk to the public then it most likely is the most apprpriate way.

    As for your idea, the citizenship idea sounds like something that could fit in neatly with Brexit. Mention it to Boris.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • john80john80 Posts: 637
    Reducing crime is solved by the carrot and the stick. Do serious crime and you get a long sentence as a punishment. During the sentence we educate and rehabilitate to minimise the reoffending rates. We currently do the stick but the carrot is missing until the hang them and flog them brigade get the picture that this has a long track history of not working.

    Sending people to jail for a week is pointless.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    After 50 years, Blue Mink's song promoting racial harmony is banned for being racist.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blue ... -82kpk7jht
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    "Returning power to Westminster".
    Only for Westminster to shut down.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    The super woke Justin Trudeau being outed as the Al Jolson of politics.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310
    ballysmate wrote:
    The super woke Justin Trudeau being outed as the Al Jolson of politics.
    Anyone who had looked into him in any detail knew he was not quite what he seemed.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    The super woke Justin Trudeau being outed as the Al Jolson of politics.
    Anyone who had looked into him in any detail knew he was not quite what he seemed.
    In what way? (I haven't paid too much attention to him tbh).

    In any event, more than a little embarrassing. Imagine the forum activity this would generate if it was BoJo or Trump.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,310
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    The super woke Justin Trudeau being outed as the Al Jolson of politics.
    Anyone who had looked into him in any detail knew he was not quite what he seemed.
    In what way? (I haven't paid too much attention to him tbh).

    In any event, more than a little embarrassing. Imagine the forum activity this would generate if it was BoJo or Trump.

    Saying all the right things about climate change then signing off on tar sands exploitation. Plus he's been tangled up in a corruption case.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,079
    Is going in fancy dress as someone with different colour skin automatically racist or would you need it to be done in a demeaning way (although from the photos of Trudeau it looked like a comedy attempt which would suggest it could be demeaning)? I'm just thinking if the theme was sporting greats and a white person chose to go as Ali, complete with darkened skin, would that necessarily be racist?
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,742
    Pross wrote:
    Is going in fancy dress as someone with different colour skin automatically racist or would you need it to be done in a demeaning way (although from the photos of Trudeau it looked like a comedy attempt which would suggest it could be demeaning)? I'm just thinking if the theme was sporting greats and a white person chose to go as Ali, complete with darkened skin, would that necessarily be racist?

    I thought this, a friend of mine once came to 6th form as Obama in full makeup. He wasn't doing a gollywog show or anything, just looked a hell of a lot like Obama.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    I guess we won't be getting re-runs of 'It ain't half hot, Mum' on Sky Gold any time soon.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,846
    I am old enough to remember The Black and White Minstrel Show being thought of as the best thing on British TV. And it doesn't seem that long ago. Although it is.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 3,874
    pblakeney wrote:
    I am old enough to remember The Black and White Minstrel Show being thought of as the best thing on British TV. And it doesn't seem that long ago. Although it is.
    If I tell my pupils that this passed for mainstream 'wholesome' family entertainment when I was their age (well, and beyond that), I don't think they can believe/imagine it...
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,896
    In fairness I can't believe it - I missed the overt racism on TV luckily

    I bet if you went back and rewatched tv even from the early 2000s it wouldn't be allowed today or at least frowned upon
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • Pross wrote:
    Is going in fancy dress as someone with different colour skin automatically racist or would you need it to be done in a demeaning way (although from the photos of Trudeau it looked like a comedy attempt which would suggest it could be demeaning)? I'm just thinking if the theme was sporting greats and a white person chose to go as Ali, complete with darkened skin, would that necessarily be racist?

    Discussing this with my daughters yesterday morning. The consensus from them was dressing up as a specific person is acceptable but dressing up as a generic race isn't. Applying skin colouring is not acceptable in either case.
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 3,874
    diplodicus wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Is going in fancy dress as someone with different colour skin automatically racist or would you need it to be done in a demeaning way (although from the photos of Trudeau it looked like a comedy attempt which would suggest it could be demeaning)? I'm just thinking if the theme was sporting greats and a white person chose to go as Ali, complete with darkened skin, would that necessarily be racist?

    Discussing this with my daughters yesterday morning. The consensus from them was dressing up as a specific person is acceptable but dressing up as a generic race isn't. Applying skin colouring is not acceptable in either case.
    Oh dear...

    MV5BOGEzOTcyMDAtYmFkMC00NWJiLThmODYtNzljY2RhMmJjNjUwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUyNDk2ODc@._V1_.jpg
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 13,026
    Would this not be allowed either?

    MV5BNjJmNTFjMWMtMjFhMy00NzQxLTgwOTQtNGY4Yzg4YmQyMjA3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjgyNTk4NTY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,746,1000_AL_.jpg

    Nor this?

    John%20Laurie%20%20The%20Four%20Feathers%20(1939).jpg

    Will a host of classic films be deemed no longer suitable for screening?
    What a loadabollox!
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    diplodicus wrote:
    Applying skin colouring is not acceptable in either case.
    A lot of women who use fake tan might disagree. Unless you don't count Oompah-Loompahs as a race.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,428
    ballysmate wrote:
    Would this not be allowed either?

    MV5BNjJmNTFjMWMtMjFhMy00NzQxLTgwOTQtNGY4Yzg4YmQyMjA3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjgyNTk4NTY@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,746,1000_AL_.jpg

    Nor this?

    John%20Laurie%20%20The%20Four%20Feathers%20(1939).jpg

    Will a host of classic films be deemed no longer suitable for screening?
    What a loadabollox!
    Or in the world of music...

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMSqdNQUrihE65g0amfPZSRd303a5Icl-bLS06_i6ml4jelbk6
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
Sign In or Register to comment.