Changes to the law

[Regal Beagle]

Murder doesn't have to be premeditated folks

 

The unlawful killing of a human being under the queens peace with malice aforethought.

 

Malice aforethought refers to the mental element of the crime, which in this country is - intent to kill or cause serious harm - You can form intent in the split second you grab a knife and swing it. It doesn't have to be premeditated.

 

In the US, premeditation is basically the different between 1st and 2nd degree murder.

[Andyregs]

No one has suggested that until now... how far would you go?... birds? mammals? insects? reptiles? invertebrates? arachnids? everything?

 

It has been suggested that it was made illegal.

 

And if on purpose, yes.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Murder doesn't have to be premeditated folks

 

The unlawful killing of a human being under the queens peace with malice aforethought.

 

Malice aforethought refers to the mental element of the crime, which in this country is - intent to kill or cause serious harm - You can form intent in the split second you grab a knife and swing it. It doesn't have to be premeditated.

 

In the US, premeditation is basically the different between 1st and 2nd degree murder.

 

Fairynuff for me pre-meditated just means you intended to kill as opposed to having 'planned' it in advance but whatever...the key is the law says it has to involve the killing of a human being by a human being

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Sooo..if you're home is infested with ants or something should it be murder if you exterminate them? I suppose there might be other means to drive them out..but if they don't work then the house shouldl be left to them until they leave of their own accord, die of natural causes or collectively decide they can't go on any more?

 

Again an extreme example maybe but as with any dramatic change to the law it's the extreme situations that provide the issues.

[geosname]

It has been suggested that it was made illegal.

 

And if on purpose, yes.

 

It was suggested that the killing be made illegal not that killing the animal should be made murder.

If you dont kill the rats where do people live, if you dont control mosquitoes malaria spreads... or do we leave it to chance?... I dont have a problem with killing for a purpose eg food, pest control, containment of disease, destruction of a different species etc

[Bea Smith]

What kind of person compares the killing of ants infesting a house with someone making a special trip to Africa, paying £50,000 to face no danger themselves but kill a proud, native animal that is no danger, no problem and living its life, then thinks themselves worthy of a 'trophy' for this deed ?

 

As said, the animal was wounded and in severe distress from an arrow wound for no less than 40 hours before this American decided to finish his heroic deed.

 

 

It's hard to know what is worse - the person who did this, or those on here who muse unemotionally about the use of words to describe it and then provoke and ban people by removing a post that I am informed did not abuse anyone, did not name anyone and contained no swear words (and I believe it).

[geosname]

What kind of person compares the killing of ants infesting a house with someone making a special trip to Africa, paying £50,000 to face no danger themselves but kill a proud, native animal that is no danger, no problem and living its life, then thinks themselves worthy of a 'trophy' for this deed ?

 

As said, the animal was wounded and in severe distress from an arrow wound for no less than 40 hours before this American decided to finish his heroic deed.

 

 

It's hard to know what is worse - the person who did this, or those on here who muse unemotionally about the use of words to describe it and then provoke and ban people by removing a post that I am informed did not abuse anyone, did not name anyone and contained no swear words (and I believe it).

 

Changing the law, which is what the thread is about, usually has wider implications than one specific act.

I dont kill any animals unless I feel there is a need to, the snakes that wander into the garden, the scorpions that live in the garden, the geckos and spiders that live in the house are all quite safe on the simple principal that if they dont bother me I wont bother them.

Not everyone shares emotional ties to animals. Some see them simply as a food source, as here where almost everything is eaten. Snakes, rats, ants and their eggs, worms of various sorts, frogs, insects and a lot more are a food source.

 

As to the last point... people have different views and opinions but I wouldnt wish them or their families harm because they disagreed with my views

[Bea Smith]

Most vegetarians will not become angry, or fail to respect the fact that people eat animals and other live creatures for food.

 

I think the point at issue here, having missed part of this debate but it's easy to see the problem, is the completely unnecessary need for PAYING, for bloodlust, to take life away - not for food, not for pest control, not for ANY good reason except the same reason that drove people like Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rose West and mass murderers of people.

 

Whether the word used is murder or not doesn't matter and arguing on that is deliberately distracting and diverting the issue,

 

It is evil to kill for the bloodlust of killing, some people get a deviant sexual pleasure from it and are sadists. Trophy Hunters of aninals have no purpose in this world or excuse of any sort - when your remove their excuses they are no different from people like Jimmy Savile.

 

Incidentally, earlier this evening I spoke to david who you banned, and he tells me that his post did not wish harm on people who disagreed, but on those who mocked the post. I'm not getting into an argument about words again, but there does seem a difference to me.

 

It's not my argument, but I will say that both you and other admins have let things 100 times worse pass, and if it was as stated the last paragraph of the post, why could that paragraph just not have been edited out to avoid the intense and what looks like deliberate provocation that the removal seems to have caused ?

 

It is obvious that such lack of even-handedness gives great pleasure to the 'belittling' elements on here, and you consistently side with some (not all) of them politically.

These few- who don't seem to have much interest in Port Vale itself - take great pleasure in provoking and mocking people when you ban them, but never get banned for equally personally abusive posts themselves.

 

That's all I have to say on it.

[geosname]

Most vegetarians will not become angry, or fail to respect the fact that people eat animals and other live creatures for food.

 

I think the point at issue here, having missed part of this debate but it's easy to see the problem, is the completely unnecessary need for PAYING, for bloodlust, to take life away - not for food, not for pest control, not for ANY good reason except the same reason that drove people like Peter Sutcliffe, Fred and Rose West and mass murderers of people.

 

Whether the word used is murder or not doesn't matter and arguing on that is deliberately distracting and diverting the issue,

 

It is evil to kill for the bloodlust of killing, some people get a deviant sexual pleasure from it and are sadists. Trophy Hunters of aninals have no purpose in this world or excuse of any sort - when your remove their excuses they are no different from people like Jimmy Savile.

 

Incidentally, earlier this evening I spoke to david who you banned, and he tells me that his post did not wish harm on people who disagreed, but on those who mocked the post. I'm not getting into an argument about words again, but there does seem a difference to me.

 

It's not my argument, but I will say that both you and other admins have let things 100 times worse pass, and if it was as stated the last paragraph of the post, why could that paragraph just not have been edited out to avoid the intense and what looks like deliberate provocation that the removal seems to have caused ?

 

It is obvious that such lack of even-handedness gives great pleasure to the 'belittling' elements on here, and you consistently side with some (not all) of them politically.

These few- who don't seem to have much interest in Port Vale itself - take great pleasure in provoking and mocking people when you ban them, but never get banned for equally personally abusive posts themselves.

 

That's all I have to say on it.

 

I dont disagree with much of the first part of your post.

The second part... I dont usually edit posts, I either comment on them or simply delete them completely on the principal why should I waste time rectifying blatant abuse of the forum rules...

 

Murder can only be committed by one human on another... I asked if killing an animal was murder and if an animal killing a human was murder by consequence... and again by consequence if killing any animal was acceptable/murder... isnt that what debate is?

 

I dont side with people, I give my own opinion, if that agrees with or disagrees with other opinions is immaterial.

[Aussie Rules]

The simplest solution would be to restrict vehicles from exceeding speed limits.

 

Back in the 1950s many commercial vehicles were fitted with 'governor devices' to prevent speeding over 30mph, but it was technology easily disabled away from the depots.

 

Then in later years such technology was modified to cut the engine when exceeding the 'governed limit'. Again, easily tampered with.

 

Now the talk is of driverless vehicles, but will that include commercial vehicles such as road-train transports?

[RailwayRowdy]

On the subject of driverless cars, how will this effect insurance ? As no one will be driving, who will be held accountable for the accidents that will undoubtedly occur ? If no one is accountable, why do you need insurance etc etc. ? So many scenario's as yet not discussed.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

[geosname]

On the subject of driverless cars, how will this effect insurance ? As no one will be driving, who will be held accountable for the accidents that will undoubtedly occur ? If no one is accountable, why do you need insurance etc etc. ? So many scenario's as yet not discussed.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

 

Just insure the car as they do in some countries?

[RailwayRowdy]

Just insure the car as they do in some countries?

What ? As in not at all do you mean ? Or am I missing your point ?

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

[JOHNNYAITCH]

On the subject of driverless cars, how will this effect insurance ? As no one will be driving, who will be held accountable for the accidents that will undoubtedly occur ? If no one is accountable, why do you need insurance etc etc. ? So many scenario's as yet not discussed.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

 

Is it any different to an incident caused by manufacture or design faults or shoddy work by a garage? Not the drivers fault so will the manufacturer be responsible if a driverless car is found to be at fault? I guess so.

[RailwayRowdy]

Is it any different to an incident caused by manufacture or design faults or shoddy work by a garage? Not the drivers fault so will the manufacturer be responsible if a driverless car is found to be at fault? I guess so.

But it still has to come off ONE of the drivers insurances, whether it is faulty workmanship or not. Ford, for example, arn't going to fork out for an accident between two independent parties are they ?

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app