Lilith's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Lilith

Over 90 days ago

Bisexual Female, 43

UK

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

19 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
As you have so eloquently described
"The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts."
Very legalese ....but that still says to me that the European Convection on Human Rights is now under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and is not English Law.

No. The Human Rights Act 1998 is UK law, because it is a statute passed through the Parliamentary process in this jurisdiction. So, it categorically is UK law. What I said was that the purpose of legislating on human rights within UK law was so that our courts are able to hear human rights cases and pass judgements on the basis of our own legislation. If we didn't have the Human Rights Act 1998, we would still (as a nation) have signed up to the Convention, so the protocols would still apply. But, the difference would be that people in the UK who have a complaint based on human rights violations would have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to have their case heard.
What we have is UK law that was based on a European Convention. But it is, no matter whether or not you like it, quite absolutely our legislation.
And, I'm not a pedant... I just like to get things right! :giggle:

19 Oct 2012

What I don't understand is how the Officer could possibly have got to a point where he felt an imminent threat from the man such that a taser was the appropriate response!! Surely if he had shouted "Police, on your knees" or something, the poor blind man would have been likely to have complied.
I doubt an Officer would fire a gun as readily as a taser. Having said that, we are all only human and Police Officers, like everyone else, make mistakes too. At least a mistake with a taser is less dangerous than a mistake with a gun.
I think that if we ever do arm the police, it should be in specific areas only, where gun crime is a serious problem. For the most part, we don't have a need for armed Officers, in my opinion.

19 Oct 2012

loosely around his

19 Oct 2012

Quote by anais
Hi,
I was just wondering if I'm being dumb. I just uploaded a non-porny pic to use as my profile pic. I assume it's been approved as it's now visible on my profile, but the website won't let me set it as a profile pic. Am I doing something wrong?
John

Only approved, public, non adult photos can be your profile picture.
Hope that solves it for you :-)
I've occasionally had photos approved as "adult", when I didn't think they should be. When that happened, I asked a Mod to check the photo and, if they agreed with me, they re-designated the photo as non-adult, so I could use it as my profile pic. I understand that naked boobies are fine, but cocks and pussy shots are not!
If you cannot set it as your profile pic, then it has been designated as "adult". But, if you think your photo should be non-adult, ask a Mod to check it for you (having checked your profile, I think the latest photo you uploaded should be non-adult, so I would definitely get a Mod to help if I were you).
Xx

17 Oct 2012

Quote by Playnwatch
He is a bit kinky so thanks for ideas altho tried some of them. He is also ok with a little pain so anything a little more wild?

You could try the Gates of Hell... dunno

dunno

17 Oct 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
When was the last time the US extradited saomeone to the UK on our request?

The extradition treaty is not entirely reciprocal... rolleyes

rolleyes

17 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Just don't ask for people's opinions though eh?

Come on, Star - you've got a thicker skin than that. I like your opinions - they're colourful, and always get people talking. (And you know they'd all miss you if you left ;-) )
Cheer up passionkiss

passionkiss

17 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Thanks for your reply. :notes:

This is completely off topic, but I've noticed that you take a lot of notes, Star ( :notes: )... you must have written a whole book by now?? :giggle:
kiss

kiss

17 Oct 2012

Ok - I've now read the whole thread. Quite unsurprisingly, it went off topic pretty quickly! I thought the original question was about the use of human rights law, rather than a discussion on aspergers dunno

dunno

Personally, I'm bloody impressed that McKinnon managed to hack NASA. I agree with a couple of threads earlier saying: (a) he is clearly way too clever to lose; and (b) if I were NASA, I'd be saying "thank you very much for pointing out the big gaping holes in our security system, as it would have been so much worse if someone with malicious intent had found them first".
Give him a pat on the back and a job in MI6!!
:bounce:

17 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
Star ...
Any attempts that people make to explain to you that many of your links do not actually support your views fall on deaf ears

I think I may have got him to accept that he was wrong on a couple of occasions innocent

innocent

But he may have just been flirting with me, 'cos I'm a girl
:giggle:

17 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
But now that is not going to happen then the next order is for him to stand trial over here. There are three ways of dealing with this. Send him to the US to stand trial, and that is now not going to happen. Make him stand trial in the UK for his crimes, or if that is not going to happen then to drop all charges. My views have always been to extradite him to the US to face the charges, but then Ms May stopped that extradition. The next steps are to either get him to stand trial here or drop the charges, of which I do not want to see happen. As you are well aware my comments were a before the extradition had been stopped and my comments after. Obviously it seems you are not grasping the basics here GnV. Is that possibly a bit clearer for you?

It is not all that straightforward, Star. The UK courts may not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Also - do you really think it is in our interests to spend UK taxpayers' money on prosecuting a man for offences that are alleged under US law? dunno

dunno

17 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
Cos I think English law should be able to stop injustice ...

Right, before I say anything, I'm just letting you all know that I've not read the whole thread yet. I'm a bit behind on all of your bickerings, so need to catch up ;-)
But... I thought I would point out at this stage that Human Rights law is English law. The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts. This is why people are able to raise human rights issues within the UK legal system (rather than having to go to the ECHR).
If you're interested in the wider picture... The UK has signed up to a number of international (UN) treaties on human rights, but none of these form part of domestic law (so you cannot bring a claim in the UK courts under any of those treaties). In addition, the UK has signed up to the European Convention (which is regional law, rather than international law). The Convention was implemented by the Council of Europe (which is not the same thing as the European Union) following WWII in order to safeguard and defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law. (And, in answer to your original question, flower - given the atrocities committed in WWII that form the backdrop to the Convention, I think it is most definitely a good thing). The UK was very instrumental in drafting the Convention, and (as I have already said), since 1998 we have had our own UK legislation to make human rights law a part of our domestic law. In fact, given that we have domestic law on human rights, the European Court will only hear a case once all domestic avenues have been exhausted.
As a general point, it may be helpful to explain that when people talk about "European law", this means a lot of different things. If we are talking about European law within the EU, then (without going into all of the details) there are different types of European legislation (all of which must have a legal basis in one of the Treaties). Key types include:
1. Directives - These do not have direct effect. They set out a particular result that each member state needs to achieve, but each state can determine how best to achieve that result. This means that each member state has some flexibility, but it is necessary to pass implementing legislation to give effect to the directive.
2. Regulations - These have direct effect, so do not require implementing legislation within each member state. This means that there is no fleixibility as to the means of achieving the result.
But, as I have explained above, the UK's Human Rights Act is underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights, not by EU law.

17 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

That is an interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. I will ponder that and come back with a proper reply later.
Ok... now for a more reasoned response!
I think it is difficult to know entirely where the drivers really come from within any industry. The obvious thought may be that the consumer drives what the supplier does, and that is certainly true to a certain extent (i.e. what is the point of producing something that nobody wants?) But, consumers are also subjected to a huge amount of marketing and other methods to make brands and products desirable. We are effectively told what we want. There is also a "group mentality" effect with a lot of consumer products/services - the more popular something becomes, the more people want it, and so on. So, I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here: do producers make things because consumers want them, or do consumers want things because producers use clever marketing to make them want those things? There are certainly a lot of products out there that nobody really needs in any real sense of the word, and there are also a lot of products that nobody would have even thought to want until somebody made them.
In addition to the above thoughts, none of what I have said so far actually addresses methods of production. All of the above only really applies to the types of products and services that are available. I think it is far less easy to draw a connection between consumer demands and ethics in methods of production. Consumers usually weigh up a variety of factors when making a decision about what to buy (although, this is usually subconscious). But, they can only weigh up factors of which they are aware. It is therefore necessary for consumers to be aware of ethical issues in order to factor them into their decision-making process about what to purchase. Otherwise, purchasing decisions tend to boil down to quality and cost - i.e. looking for the lowest common denominator. Once unethical methods of production become publicised (or, alternatively, once long-standing methods of production become viewed as unethical based on the prevailing majority morality), the extent to which consumers will factor those concerns into decisions depends on a host of other factors: how bad are the methods perceived to be (blood diamonds being an extreme example)?; how difficult is it to source the product in a more ethical way?; how expensive is the ethical version of that product?, etc.
Apologies for the slight pun, given my comment above that drivers in industry is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation... The best recent example I can think of is Jamie Oliver's expose of the chicken and egg farming industry and the resultant impact that his efforts have had on the increased use of free-range eggs in products. Even McDonalds use free-range eggs these days!! However, although the expose has had a big impact on egg production, it has not had the same sort of impact on chicken consumption. It is still very rare to find free-range chicken on the menu at restaurants. Why? Because the cost differential is significantly greater. There is also another message that I don't think has really hit home yes - the message to "eat less meat". That is more of an environmental issue than a question of ethics in farming, but, if there were less demand, it would be easier to farm in a less intensive manner.
Right - this is getting a bit long now, so I will stop there. innocent

innocent

17 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

This is a very interesting question, but is totally off-topic. Perhaps we should start a new thread on morals and the law... I have a lot of thoughts on this, but am about to go to bed, so will write them another time! :-)

We being you? lol

lol

I await your new thread with great interest.
:lol: - Sure, I'll start a thread on this at some point. I need to figure out how best to phrase the topic though, as some people have criticised my thread titles in the past innocent

innocent

;-)

15 Oct 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

That is an interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. I will ponder that and come back with a proper reply later.

15 Oct 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Ah, now that's a more interesting question. Is that always the case? If the law is unjust, do not citizens of good conscience have a duty to see that it is repealed, sometimes even by breaking the law to highlight its absurdity? I could cite Rosa Parks here perhaps. I'm not going to suggest the right to take drugs is a civil rights issue of that kind so noone need take me to task for doing so, but things are not always as black and white as you've made out, are they?

This is a very interesting question, but is totally off-topic. Perhaps we should start a new thread on morals and the law... I have a lot of thoughts on this, but am about to go to bed, so will write them another time! :-)

14 Oct 2012

that it makes

12 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Ask a silly question, and ye shall get a silly answer.

It wasn't a question the first time though, was it? I said: "I assume you know what I'm talking about, as everyone knows what we wear poppies for each year."
I think you're just being intentionally argumentative!! ;-)

12 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

I think you may have missed my point here. I said that I don't really care about whether we commemorate on the anniversary of the start of the war or otherwise. All that matters is that it's done for the right reasons.

Yes you did say that but left out the most important bit highlighted. Now that does make a difference.
I think you'll find that I did make that point already:

Quote by Lilith
To "commemorate" simply means to remember and show respect for something. I don't think it matters which dates we commemorate, as long as what we are doing is remembering and showing respect for those men and women who lost their lives in WWI.

Quote by starlightcouple
:doh: Sorry Lilith, it obviously passed me by.
I did read somewhere about it. Is this what you are referring too?

Oh yes now I remember. :giggle:

So, what was this all about, then...???

Quote by starlightcouple
Here's a good example of commemorating the end of something: Remembrance Day. I assume you know what I'm talking about, as everyone knows what we wear poppies for each year. But, just in case... Remembrance Day is about commemorating the end of World War I. The reason it's always on 11 November is because the fighting ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" in 1918 in accordance with the Armistice (although, the war didn't officially end until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919). In 1919, King George V dedicated 11 November as a day of remembrance for members of the armed forces who were killed during World War I.

No sorry Lilth have not got a single clue. But I take your point.
Honestly!!! :roll:

12 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

But will these 'celebrations' not detract from what, in Europe, we have been doing for generations - since the end of The Great War, celebrating the end of war?

I like the way you have put commas there GnV, very clever. wink

wink

I think you mean apostrophes, not commas... innocent

innocent

12 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Well unfortunately as much as you would like to, you do not make the decisions of this nation. So the Prime ministers address is quoted above if you do not like the start date that the British Government have decided on. YOU can actually think what you like as we all can, but the start date for the commemoration will be 28 July 2014.

I think you may have missed my point here. I said that I don't really care about whether we commemorate on the anniversary of the start of the war or otherwise. All that matters is that it's done for the right reasons.

Quote by starlightcouple
Of course if you would like to start your own commemoration on the 11 November 2018, that of course will be your own prerogative to do just that. The rest of the nation will have started a bit before that. :notes:

Regardless of any other commemoration in 2014, there is always a commemoration every year on 11 November. People buy and wear red poppies and there's a minute's silence at 11am. Surely you know what I'm talking about?! It's not just me that observes Remembrance Day; it's a national day of commemoration, which is observed every year!! How can this possibly have passed you by? Red poppies are on sale everywhere and every single person on any TV show wears a red poppy during that period!! I'm genuinely baffled that you don't know what I'm referring to!! You do live in this country, right?? :confused:

12 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
If you commemorate something when do you commemorate the middle or the end of it, over the beginning?

Here's a good example of commemorating the end of something: Remembrance Day. I assume you know what I'm talking about, as everyone knows what we wear poppies for each year. But, just in case... Remembrance Day is about commemorating the end of World War I. The reason it's always on 11 November is because the fighting ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" in 1918 in accordance with the Armistice (although, the war didn't officially end until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919). In 1919, King George V dedicated 11 November as a day of remembrance for members of the armed forces who were killed during World War I.
To "commemorate" simply means to remember and show respect for something. I don't think it matters which dates we commemorate, as long as what we are doing is remembering and showing respect for those men and women who lost their lives in WWI.

11 Oct 2012

Surely there are still school buses around? I'm not that old and I travelled to school by bus when I was a child. Hang on... That was probably 15-20 years ago, so perhaps I'm more out of date than I thought!! redface

redface

Well, in any case, it worked very well, so I entirely agree that school buses are a good idea.

10 Oct 2012

Quote by Fliff
sometimes ... I question my sanity :doh:

Does it answer...? rotflmao

rotflmao

All the time ..... lol

lol

Wish I could question mine... But, I can't seem to find it just now!! rolleyes

rolleyes

10 Oct 2012

Quote by Flower411
Just looks like a bunch words to me and they can`t do any harm ....can they ?

rotflmao

10 Oct 2012

Quote by Fliff
sometimes ... I question my sanity :doh:

Does it answer...? rotflmao

rotflmao

10 Oct 2012

Quote by Too Hot
So we have the "odd" suicidal flier, a couple of water intoxicated E users - anything more?
Meanwhile, in our local town this week-end, one man was killed and another has life changing injuries are a result of two separate violent incidents in the early hours of Sunday morning. The deceased was assualted outside a nightclub and the injured man was beaten in a pub. Alcohol is directly and indirectly complacent in the death and serious injury of tens of thousands of people around this country every year.

That is not an argument for legalising drugs; if anything, it is an argument that we shouldn't be making more substances legally available...

9 Oct 2012

Star and Meat - do I have to come and smack your bottoms to get you to stop squabbling...??? smackbottom

smackbottom

9 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
Yeah well bite me :moon:

Sure... As long as you don't need your soul any longer... evil

evil

:giggle:

9 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
<<<< is wondering whether her previous post was too long for others to bother reading!!

Nah ....it was fine ....it`s a kinda initiation thing ......ignore the new guy every so often lol

lol

See if they bite .....
I only bite on request... innocent

innocent