Acid attacks: Tories deregulated sale of dangerous substances

[I1L2T3]

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

 

Haha, I'm simply asking other posters to read my post and the article.

 

It's clear relaxing the regulation is a mistake.

[hackey lad]

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

 

foolish post . clutching at straws to apportion blame

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

That's such a weak argument against reintroducing the regulation. Yes people can get a gun if they want to shoot someone. Yes they can get a knife if they want to stab someone. Yes you can probably buy serious chemicals in Sainsbury's if you want to throw them in somebody's face.

 

But in any of those cases you absolutely do not do anything to make things even easier. That's the point. It's really simple.

 

The regulation relaxation was a mistake. In hindsight that couldn't be clearer. Ministers make mistakes, but they also have the chance the rectify those mistakes.

 

There is a chance to act now and look at it in these simple terms: if return of the regulation saves one person from lifetime disfigurement then it has to be worth it. I'm sure you'll agree.

Edited July 30, 2017 by I1L2T3

[ECCOnoob]

Nice change of subject there. Not going to bother with any clarification or explanation of your opening post then?

 

Well since your ask, if legislation is fit for purpose then yes of course I would be in agreement for it to be reintroduced.

 

However, since there is NO proof that removing it was the cause of the increase in attacks;

NO proof that the acid substances used in the recent attacks was subject to any restricted list within the former legislation;

NO proof that the purchasers of the substance used in the attacks would have been restricted by the former legislation; and

NO proof that bringing back exactly same legislation back would change the number or extent of the attacks there is little point.

 

I ask again what mistake has the government done? What catastrophic event has happened as a direct influence of its removal?

Nothing has been proven. You are just speculating time and time again.

 

Yes of course the government has an opportunity to do something about it and they are. However, I have said multiple times now that further investigation is required into the OTHER factors involved in the attacks before considering the best form of control and preventative legislation which will be of any use. Availability of the product itself is not the sole issue.

Edited July 30, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[silentP]

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.

 

Sentencing has been a problem as many of the victims have refused to help the police for fear of reprisal.

Reading back on past attacks, a simple falling out at work led one girl to douse a colleague with acid, difficult to predict motive in this instant and there have been a few with similar stories. They aren't all gang related, many it would seem are almost random. If a disagreement between a couple can lead the woman to spray the face of her sleeping partner what hope is there of discovering motive.

 

These are one off attacks committed by people with no history of violence so sentencing however strong isn't going to deter those who's background/culture is one of violence.

How do you focus on random?

[I1L2T3]

foolish post . clutching at straws to apportion blame

 

Apportion blame for what exactly?

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2017 at 19:56 ----------

 

Nice change of subject there. Not going to bother with any clarification or explanation of your opening post then?

 

Well since your ask, if legislation is fit for purpose then yes of course I would be in agreement for it to be reintroduced.

 

However, since there is NO proof that removing it was the cause of the increase in attacks;

NO proof that the acid substances used in the recent attacks was subject to any restricted list within the former legislation;

NO proof that the purchasers of the substance used in the attacks would have been restricted by the former legislation; and

NO proof that bringing back exactly same legislation back would change the number or extent of the attacks there is little point.

 

I ask again what mistake has the government done? What catastrophic event has happened as a direct influence of its removal?

Nothing has been proven. You are just speculating time and time again.

 

Yes of course the government has an opportunity to do something about it and they are. However, I have said multiple times now that further investigation is required into the OTHER factors involved in the attacks before considering the best form of control and preventative legislation which will be of any use. Availability of the product itself is not the sole issue.

 

I haven't changed the subject. People have leaped to the conclusion that I'm blaming ministers for the attacks. That isn't the case.

 

I'm arguing they made a mistake. And I'm arguing they should correct it. I also stand by the point that they don't understand the real world. Which a lot of them clearly don't.

 

There are other factors of course. Relaxation of stop and search perhaps being another mistake.

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2017 at 20:03 ----------

 

Sentencing has been a problem as many of the victims have refused to help the police for fear of reprisal.

Reading back on past attacks, a simple falling out at work led one girl to douse a colleague with acid, difficult to predict motive in this instant and there have been a few with similar stories. They aren't all gang related, many it would seem are almost random. If a disagreement between a couple can lead the woman to spray the face of her sleeping partner what hope is there of discovering motive.

 

These are one off attacks committed by people with no history of violence so sentencing however strong isn't going to deter those who's background/culture is one of violence.

How do you focus on random?

 

A lot of the recent attacks have been by criminals, not as a result of personal or domestic disputes.

 

The thing to do now is to shut off as much of the supply of these chemicals as possible, and to make sentencing guidelines more punative.

 

I wonder how much the relaxation of the regulation really saved. If you look at it in the following terms then maybe nothing has been saved: consider the cost of caring for a burns victim for life, the loss in taxation revenue over a lifetime if they can't work, and the cost of imprisoning the perpetrators. A million pounds, maybe a lot lot more!!

 

It's this lack of joined-up thinking that haunts the Tories time after time.

Edited July 30, 2017 by I1L2T3

[mickey finn]

Outed

[cgksheff]

Can anyone show me the part of the 2015 act that has, somehow, facilitated the purchase of harmful chemicals?

 

Can anyone list the actual chemicals used in each of the "acid attacks" of 2017?

[melthebell]

 

Can anyone list the actual chemicals used in each of the "acid attacks" of 2017?

 

fruit shoots?

[cgksheff]

fruit shoots?

 

C'mon ... 50th anniversary and all that!