Acid attacks: Tories deregulated sale of dangerous substances

[Broakham]

Of course the real reason for this acid type attack is quite obviously Brexit and not the Conservatives.

 

But back in the real world, it's no ones fault, it's down to some sick individual's desire to throw a caustic substance into someones face to try to disfigure them.

 

The law and subsequent sentencing here should reflect the hideous result of this kind of attack on an innocent person. The disfigurement will last a lifetime, so should the time in jail, 25 years - to be served.

 

Angel1.

 

I don't think that disfigurement is the primary intent in most of these attacks.The attackers use these substances because they can be used beyond 'knife range' and they are instantly disorientating, the disfigurement is an evil side-effect.

Also, as long as the substance is widely available and in its original container, it is not illegal to be in possession. This puts the burden of proof that it is to be used to commit crime in the hands of the police and/or prosecution.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Broakham
spellcheck

[silentP]

If the attacks were on the increase already then why make the weapons easier to obtain?

 

And again, why do so against professional advice?

 

There can't be any excuses. This is a screw-up driven through for ideological reasons.

 

 

How hard do you think it was, not very if it was growing in popularity.

 

 

 

I don't think that disfigurement is the primary intent is most of these attacks.The attackers use these substances because they can be used beyond 'knife range' and they are instantly disorientating, the disfigurement is an evil side-effect.

Also, as long as the substance is widely available and in its original container, it is not illegal to be in possession. This puts the burden of proof that it is to be used to commit crime in the hands of the police and/or prosecution.

 

The reported reason is indeed to disfigure and maim and as many attacks are drug related and or retaliatory answers for petty disputes, it's intent is to send a lasting message.

Edited July 30, 2017 by nikki-red
fixed the quote

[ECCOnoob]

This is what happens when out of touch toffs don't understand the real world.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-acids-acid-attacks-deregulation-act-conservatives-poisons-board-a7856041.html

 

An important sentence from the quoted "exclusive" article.

 

"...While it is impossible to link the rise in attacks to the change in law, ministers are likely to face questions as to why they removed the registration of sellers..."

 

So its impossible to specifically link the law to a rise in attcks and ministers are "likely" to be questioned. So no proven link exists and minsisters.... you know might be, well we dont know but suppose they could maybe face questions. Very clear.

 

Ah well, any excuse for a good old tory bashing. Get it published.

 

These big scary words of "acid" and "corrosive substance" can and is used to cover a whole spectrum of substances ranging from mere washing up liquid, washing powder, household cleaners and toiletries. It then moves into the more severe products such as toilet cleaners, disinfectants, bleaches up to the industrial level sulphric products, paint thinners and chemical sprays.

 

Its just not feesible to regulate and restrict household essentials which can and will be picked up in every supermarket and corner shop.

 

Think about it, technically if I bought a giant plastic lemon filled with lemon juice and shot it in someone's face that COULD be deemed an offensive weapon. But my crime and use of it as a weapon, shouldn't automatically mean that everyone goes OTT and every pancake day people have to apply for a licence in order to buy one.

 

This is not an original story.

 

There is plenty of newsprint that confirms that these sort of attacks goes back as far as the Victorians.

 

More recently, look at the yoyo patterns of attacks during the 80s then stats which show another rise and fall during 2005/2006 through to 2011. These regulations were in place then, but still a three told incresae according to some reports. Why would that be if these regulations are so vital to stopping it??

 

Read some of the narrative about similar attacks taking place in other countries around the world and lets look at the specific communities, locations, racial profile and alleged motives where the biggest increases were. Lets try and figure out why there was a significnat drop in numbers after this time and most importantly why the figures are rising now.

 

That is the real issue that needs tackling not just banning the availability of a bottle of 50p bleach or a tub of paint thinners. The Product itself is not the whole answer and not even the biggest issue.

 

To take some simplistic broad brush approach that a change of Tory policy is the primary cause of these attacks is just nonsense.

Edited July 30, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Jim Hardie]

Lol, there's always one wants to shift the blame. I blame Thatcher, me.

[I1L2T3]

So your argument is based on speculation and a deep desire to blame anything and everything on a Conservative government. Enough said.

 

No it's based on common sense.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2017 at 16:29 ----------

 

An important sentence from the quoted "exclusive" article.

 

"...While it is impossible to link the rise in attacks to the change in law, ministers are likely to face questions as to why they removed the registration of sellers..."

 

So its impossible to specifically link the law to a rise in attcks and ministers are "likely" to be questioned. So no proven link exists and minsisters.... you know might be, well we dont know but suppose they could maybe face questions. Very clear.

 

Ah well, any excuse for a good old tory bashing. Get it published.

 

These big scary words of "acid" and "corrosive substance" can and is used to cover a whole spectrum of substances ranging from mere washing up liquid, washing powder, household cleaners and toiletries. It then moves into the more severe products such as toilet cleaners, disinfectants, bleaches up to the industrial level sulphric products, paint thinners and chemical sprays.

 

Its just not feesible to regulate and restrict household essentials which can and will be picked up in every supermarket and corner shop.

 

Think about it, technically if I bought a giant plastic lemon filled with lemon juice and shot it in someone's face that COULD be deemed an offensive weapon. But my crime and use of it as a weapon, shouldn't automatically mean that everyone goes OTT and every pancake day people have to apply for a licence in order to buy one.

 

This is not an original story.

 

There is plenty of newsprint that confirms that these sort of attacks goes back as far as the Victorians.

 

More recently, look at the yoyo patterns of attacks during the 80s then stats which show another rise and fall during 2005/2006 through to 2011. These regulations were in place then, but still a three told incresae according to some reports. Why would that be if these regulations are so vital to stopping it??

 

Read some of the narrative about similar attacks taking place in other countries around the world and lets look at the specific communities, locations, racial profile and alleged motives where the biggest increases were. Lets try and figure out why there was a significnat drop in numbers after this time and most importantly why the figures are rising now.

 

That is the real issue that needs tackling not just banning the availability of a bottle of 50p bleach or a tub of paint thinners. The Product itself is not the whole answer and not even the biggest issue.

 

To take some simplistic broad brush approach that a change of Tory policy is the primary cause of these attacks is just nonsense.

 

I never argued that the change in policy was the primary cause. I'm saying that the change in law is a contributing factor.

 

Ministers ignored their own advisors and the advice of experts. They were specifically warned about scenarios that made it easier for criminals to obtain these chemicals.

 

Ok, maybe they made a mistake. It happens. But in light of recent events they now have a chance to correct that mistake. If that saves some lives being ruined it's worth reducing the risk. I'm sure you'd agree.

 

FWIW I know that you know I'm right. Your most spirited defences of the Tories like the one above are when you know they're well and truly cornered.

[Guest makapaka]

No it's based on common sense.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2017 at 16:29 ----------

 

 

I never argued that the change in policy was the primary cause. I'm saying that the change in law is a contributing factor.

 

Ministers ignored their own advisors and the advice of experts. They were specifically warned about scenarios that made it easier for criminals to obtain these chemicals.

 

Ok, maybe they made a mistake. It happens. But in light of recent events they now have a chance to correct that mistake. If that saves some lives being ruined it's worth reducing the risk. I'm sure you'd agree.

 

FWIW I know that you know I'm right. Your most spirited defences of the Tories like the one above are when you know they're well and truly cornered.

 

You didn't say it was a contributory factor. You said it was caused by "toffs" which was a reference to the Tory party.

[I1L2T3]

You didn't say it was a contributory factor. You said it was caused by "toffs" which was a reference to the Tory party.

 

Read my first post again......very carefully

 

And then read the article......very carefully

 

I didn't say the toffs caused it. But if you're honest you'll admit they've made it easier for these attacks to happen. And then you'll be agreeing with me.

[silentP]

Read my first post again......very carefully

 

And then read the article......very carefully

 

I didn't say the toffs caused it. But if you're honest you'll admit they've made it easier for these attacks to happen. And then you'll be agreeing with me.

 

Generally speaking hypnosis works better when you're in the same room.

[Broakham]

 

FWIW I know that you know I'm right.

 

WOW - I never realised this forum supported mind-reading. I wonder if Tinfoilhat has got a spare tinfoil hat that I could borrow.

Edited July 30, 2017 by nikki-red
fixed the quote

[ECCOnoob]

No it's based on common sense.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2017 at 16:29 ----------

 

 

I never argued that the change in policy was the primary cause. I'm saying that the change in law is a contributing factor.

 

Ministers ignored their own advisors and the advice of experts. They were specifically warned about scenarios that made it easier for criminals to obtain these chemicals.

 

Ok, maybe they made a mistake. It happens. But in light of recent events they now have a chance to correct that mistake. If that saves some lives being ruined it's worth reducing the risk. I'm sure you'd agree.

 

FWIW I know that you know I'm right. Your most spirited defences of the Tories like the one above are when you know they're well and truly cornered.

 

Firstly, put your ego away. I certainly do not "know" that you a right. A fact that should be absolutely clear to you by my strongly countering your post.

 

Secondly, why do you actually try reading yourself.

 

Your phrasing of "....This is what happens when...." Is perfectly clear what point you are trying to submit in your post. If it wasnt for the tories changing policy this would not have happened ....right? What other meaning did you intend by your wording exactly. Would you like to take the opportunity to backtrack?

 

Now, lets turn to the article that you choose to post. I have clearly pointed out the important line. There is no proven link between the change of policy and the rise in attacks. So what mistake are you referring to that needs correcting? Advisors can advise what they want. Campaign groups can campaign all they want. Doesn't necessarilly mean they are right not that their suggestions are practical or reasonable. The government's job is to decide what they see fit.

 

Did you not read the rest of my post. "Acid" refers to 1001 substances that we all use every day. So, the government restricts things like bleach, sulphuric acid, industrial paint thinnners and caustic cleanrers then what?

 

"Acid" for use in "Acid attacks" can still be obtained and cause just as many injuries through everyday cleaning products, laundry detergents, toiletries and even some food products. What do you propose - ban it all? Have every 20 something adult stopped and seized because they are carrying around water or pop bottles which COULD contain acid substances? Make little old ladies apply for a licence every time they want to buy some bog cleaner?

 

For the last time, the Product is not the issue here. The attackers will always find a way to get their hands on a substance which COULD potentially be used as a weapon. Banning or restricting certain products will not make that go away. For those who chose to commit such crimes the know that the same devisation and severe Injuries could be caused be something as simple as a bottle of alcohol, acidic food product or a even boiling water.

 

The government focus needs to be on the other issues. The gangs, the targets, the culture, the motives, the convictons and stronger sentencing to deter others.

Edited July 30, 2017 by ECCOnoob