tinfoilhat Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Proof of what exactly? ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 21:49 ---------- 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. The government (cant remember which) brought a load of laws to restrict knives and it made next to no difference on knife crime. it did make a lot of law abiding people would-be criminals in the eyes of the law. And without knowing (and you havent a clue, lets be honest) which acids did what, where and how they bought, you, the author of said article, the government havent a clue how to stop it, not properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 The government (cant remember which) brought a load of laws to restrict knives and it made next to no difference on knife crime. it did make a lot of law abiding people would-be criminals in the eyes of the law. And without knowing (and you havent a clue, lets be honest) which acids did what, where and how they bought, you, the author of said article, the government havent a clue how to stop it, not properly. None of that is any excuse for lack of action, and if that action prevents one or just a handful of people enduring a lifetime of suffering there's no excuse not to revert the legislation. It matters not that we don't know how various substances for various attacks were obtained. The fact is if a legislative mistake has been made and it increases risk then it should be reversed. Super simple. After all the original decision was not evidence based - expert advice and warnings were ignored. In the light of recent events and a rapidly escalating problem it seem bonkers to be seeking specific evidence before acting to protect the public. Take action, err on the side of caution, refine later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 None of that is any excuse for lack of action, and if that action prevents one or just a handful of people enduring a lifetime of suffering there's no excuse not to revert the legislation. It matters not that we don't know how various substances for various attacks were obtained. The fact is if a legislative mistake has been made and it increases risk then it should be reversed. Super simple. After all the original decision was not evidence based - expert advice and warnings were ignored. In the light of recent events and a rapidly escalating problem it seem bonkers to be seeking specific evidence before acting to protect the public. Take action, err on the side of caution, refine later. Why stop with acid then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 None of that is any excuse for lack of action, and if that action prevents one or just a handful of people enduring a lifetime of suffering there's no excuse not to revert the legislation. It matters not that we don't know how various substances for various attacks were obtained. The fact is if a legislative mistake has been made and it increases risk then it should be reversed. Super simple. After all the original decision was not evidence based - expert advice and warnings were ignored. In the light of recent events and a rapidly escalating problem it seem bonkers to be seeking specific evidence before acting to protect the public. Take action, err on the side of caution, refine later. Must have skipped over all that in your opening post eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Must have skipped over all that in your opening post eh? yes because the op was an obvious attack on the tories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Must have skipped over all that in your opening post eh? Exactly - that would have been a much more coherent argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 31, 2017 Author Share Posted July 31, 2017 Why stop with acid then? What else did you have in mind? ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 22:44 ---------- Must have skipped over all that in your opening post eh? Nope, all I said in my op was that the Tories are out of touch. They clearly were on this. ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 22:46 ---------- yes because the op was an obvious attack on the tories Or course it was. For being out of touch with the real world. I've never met such a bunch of precious people, vigorously defending actions that put the public at risk. Little thought for the victims, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Nope, all I said in my op was that the Tories are out of touch. They clearly were on this. No. no, no. People are fed up of experts: the referendum proved that, and the government ignored the experts in line with Will, of the People. ergo, they are entirely in touch... Ain't democracy grand: the vast majority are not very intelligent, so let us have them make important decisions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 What else did you have in mind? . Im not ban things sort of person. Given their use in targeted attacks surely it should be harder to buy a car? Legeslation was put in place about 12 or so months ago to make sure car hire companies had the latest licence details of the people who were hiring them - fat lot of good thats done. As it happens the insurance industry is stepping in on this one - alot of small hire compaines are hitting the buffers because they cant get cover. I expect a big one to go in the next 12 months. That must be good though right? Less oppotunity to injure people using a legal, everyday product that people use every day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentP Posted July 31, 2017 Share Posted July 31, 2017 As (for example) sulphuric was already obtainable in household products in high concentration before they deregulated, which of the previously regulated corrosives concerns you most now? ---------- Post added 31-07-2017 at 22:57 ---------- No. no, no. People are fed up of experts: the referendum proved that, and the government ignored the experts in line with Will, of the People. ergo, they are entirely in touch... Ain't democracy grand: the vast majority are not very intelligent, so let us have them make important decisions... They had experts during the referendum? 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