ECCOnoob Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 ...and the counter point is that nobody has proven that there is any link between deregulation and the rise in attacks. Nobody has proven that the specific chemical restrictions which were subject to the regulations were actually in the attacks which have recently taken place. We also dont know whether the restrictions within the regulations would have actually been of any use in stopping the attackers from obtaining such substances. Its all speculation. The article and this thread. The point is the way this thread has been titled and the opening submissions by the OP is a clear dig against posh tories being allegedly out of touch. A submission which is completely nonsense and totally irrelevant to the issue. The OP can backtack all they want. We all know what meaning they were trying to get across by their choice of words and despite no evidence to back it up. Now they have been challenged they have made a u turn so big it can be seen from space. Some people need to realise you can't simply blame everything on those nasty tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Yes, it's just a correlation at the moment. Perhaps the rise in attacks is nothing to do with the fact that you can now buy it with having your ID checked. Things that they actually did though, deregulating the market for caustic chemicals, those you can blame on them, right? Is that okay with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 This conversation is getting very cyclonic. You've managed to contort posts so badly now that it's a fight to get back on track. I'll wait for your thread in praise of conservatives if they shut the door on sales again No. I've been entirely consistent with my argument. It is you and others that are incredibly twitchy about any criticism of the Tories. And yes if they reinstate the regulation then I'll happily support that. ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 14:23 ---------- ...and the counter point is that nobody has proven that there is any link between deregulation and the rise in attacks. Nobody has proven that the specific chemical restrictions which were subject to the regulations were actually in the attacks which have recently taken place. We also dont know whether the restrictions within the regulations would have actually been of any use in stopping the attackers from obtaining such substances. Its all speculation. The article and this thread. The point is the way this thread has been titled and the opening submissions by the OP is a clear dig against posh tories being allegedly out of touch. A submission which is completely nonsense and totally irrelevant to the issue. The OP can backtack all they want. We all know what meaning they were trying to get across by their choice of words and despite no evidence to back it up. Now they have been challenged they have made a u turn so big it can be seen from space. Some people need to realise you can't simply blame everything on those nasty tories. It doesn't have to be proven. The issue is there are rising numbers of attacks, and maybe there will be further copycat attacks. The government has deregulated sale of the very worst chemicals that could be used in such attacks. It makes complete sense to reduce risk and reintroduce controls. I have not u-turned. Not once. Same argument all the way through this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Remember David Cameron's promise to build "a bonfire of regulations"? That worked out well didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentP Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 No. I've been entirely consistent with my argument. It is you and others that are incredibly twitchy about any criticism of the Tories. And yes if they reinstate the regulation then I'll happily support that. . Ok, but again how hard do you think it was to get hold of prior to deregulation. Drain cleaners can be as high as 96% sulphuric. I agree that it was foolhardy to make it easier but the trend was already underway. It's become a favourite very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Can anyone quote the relevant part of the deregulation act? Can anyone list the substances used in the recent attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 Can anyone quote the relevant part of the deregulation act? Can anyone list the substances used in the recent attacks? So here in all it's glory is the bonkers defence of the deregulation. Why don't you go and find out if you're so bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 So here in all it's glory is the bonkers defence of the deregulation. Why don't you go and find out if you're so bothered. Whoa, hold on a minute, youve picked up on an article that is at best speculative and pretty light on facts. If youre bothered enough to use it as proof, at least find some facts to back it up (unlike the author). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 So here in all it's glory is the bonkers defence of the deregulation. Why don't you go and find out if you're so bothered. I don't think people are necessarily defending it. It's just that it's not immediately apparent that this has led to more or less people throwing acid into peoples faces. You've drawn that link to attack a political group with the inference that they are contributing to the problem - but you've no evidence of that. Will it help prevent - no. Has it made the issue worse - you don't know. Its clear that prior to this change if someone felt the need to throw acid in someones face they have achieved that objective. You've just read an article and drawn your own correlation - the real issue isn't the legislation - it's the people performing the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 Whoa, hold on a minute, youve picked up on an article that is at best speculative and pretty light on facts. If youre bothered enough to use it as proof, at least find some facts to back it up (unlike the author). Proof of what exactly? ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 21:49 ---------- I don't think people are necessarily defending it. It's just that it's not immediately apparent that this has led to more or less people throwing acid into peoples faces. You've drawn that link to attack a political group with the inference that they are contributing to the problem - but you've no evidence of that. Will it help prevent - no. Has it made the issue worse - you don't know. Its clear that prior to this change if someone felt the need to throw acid in someones face they have achieved that objective. You've just read an article and drawn your own correlation - the real issue isn't the legislation - it's the people performing the act. If acid attacks are on the rise then the most logical thing not to do is to make supply of the most concentrated chemicals less regulated. You also probably better listen to the experts advising against deregulation. That's it in the simplest possible terms In this sort of area it is better to reduce rather than increase risk. Such a basic argument I'm making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now