Hey, good news Tyyr! You discovered today that words might have more than one definition.Tyyr wrote:You skipped right over the first and primary definition you dumbass.SolkaTruesilver wrote:Yes it is
Amazing, isn't it?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6fd54/6fd54a0f557164f1141f83a24c7da41441b99af4" alt="angel1 :angel1:"
Hey, good news Tyyr! You discovered today that words might have more than one definition.Tyyr wrote:You skipped right over the first and primary definition you dumbass.SolkaTruesilver wrote:Yes it is
Your murder rate is through the roof - hence the comparison I used.Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the US has its issues. Our murder rate is higher
Which I specifically admitted.the UK isn't exactly a shining paragon of law and order.
LinkyProof please.your police forces are ridden with low-level corruption and don't even realise it,
Actually, it is.the executions of 30 to 40 people per year convicted of heinous crimes isn't exactly enough cause to demote someone to third world status.
Which changes my point, how, exactly?It's called democracy. People are allowed to vote as they please and for whatever reason they please or even no reason at all over here.and the degree of control religion seems to have over politics is downright scary.
I consider KS as much a reliable primary source on your average US police department as I do Kendall on the Canadian Forces or you on the USMC.Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, I don't think SDN counts as a reliable source. Do you have any primary sources by chance?
I'm thankful for the compliment, but it seems KS is largely speaking against the talk of corruption. So I have to admit that I'm missing what you're trying to point out.Captain Seafort wrote:I consider KS as much a reliable primary source on your average US police department as I do Kendall on the Canadian Forces or you on the USMC.Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, I don't think SDN counts as a reliable source. Do you have any primary sources by chance?
Wait - you specifically said "that aspect of U.S. politics" is backwards, and then when I said it's not the political mechanism you say you're agreed 100%? WTF?SolkaTruesilver wrote:Agreed 100%. It's not the process I dislike, it's the culture that has been created in the U.S. by these religious cults.Mikey wrote:Wrong from our POV? Absolutely. Backward in their way of thinking to my mind? Sure. But "backward" in the mechanism? Absolutely not.
Like I said, low-level corruption, but corruption nonetheless. You laugh about it if you want to, but I'll add it to my list of reasons to steer clear.Mikey wrote:@ Seafort - You're basing your allegations of widespread corruption on the usage of FOP cards?That's like calling a country "disease-ridden" because there's a higher-than-average incidence of the common cold or allergic rhinitis. Yes, it's technically correct, but it hardly speaks to anything with any impact.
I'd've though that the analogy I used would make the nature of the criminality I objected to obvious - Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s.BTW, you're right - you didn't mention poverty and homelessness in your original comment, but neither did you mention crime or murder specifically. Interestingly, you say it was murder of which you spoke, but you only said that after seeing the figures that demonstrated some higher crime rates in the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. than in the U.S.
Fair enough. I trust you'll do HMQ the similar honour of using her full title when referring to her.BTW, based on your request for accuracy in naming your nation, I've taken to using the acronym "U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I.," which is the initials of the proper name of your nation according to the United Nations, rather than the incorrectly-abbreviated term "United Kingdom."
He didn't provide evidence that I saw so much as his views on the topic. Even then he pointed out that real corruption is rather limited as the issues involved are often minor offenses that remain up to the Officers to decide on vs being sent to court. KS is speaking against what you're saying, not for it.Captain Seafort wrote:He argued against the description of it as corruption, but that was why I stated that it isn't recognised. He nonetheless provides solid evidence that US police routinely let off their family members and those of colleagues from speeding tickets purely because of their relationship, to the extent that cards get given out, seemingly willy-nilly, that can be produced in the expectation of being let off. That is corrupt.
You misunderstand. I laugh not because it isn't technically corruption - which it is - but because it's such a benign sort of corruption as to make it an example of practically nothing. It's akin to saying that a particular locality is rife with crime because it has lots of speeding tickets issued, but no felonies.Captain Seafort wrote:Like I said, low-level corruption, but corruption nonetheless. You laugh about it if you want to, but I'll add it to my list of reasons to steer clear.
I suppose you would, but even I'm not old enough to have been travelling abroad in the early 70's. I don't even know in which country Londonderry is; and I know nothing of the organic crime rate of Belfast at that time - only of the guerilla/terroristic violence which has plagued that area, and which I would hardly count as being part of the organic crime rate of a municipality.Captain Seafort wrote:I'd've though that the analogy I used would make the nature of the criminality I objected to obvious - Londonderry and Belfast in the early 70s.
Captain Seafort wrote:Fair enough. I trust you'll do HMQ the similar honour of using her full title when referring to her.