Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By 61-19 those sampled by YouGov say it should be legal to use

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited April 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By 61-19 those sampled by YouGov say it should be legal to use force to kill in defence of home

Clearly the Hither Green incident has attracted an enormous amount of attention and the news about the background of the person who was killed has also reinforced thinking.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    I don’t know.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    It’ll be harsh if he was charged.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    Bronze medal?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470
    fpt
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Someone in the KGB is going to be sleeping with the fishes.



    They should have followed the playbook MI6 did with David Kelly.

    I think it’s a tribute to the imaginative and caring NHS.

    However, are Mr S and his daughter not foreign nationals? If so, who is paying for their care?
    Treating Nerve agents is actually straightforward, with drugs on any emergency trolley or paramedic:



    The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
    That’s a very useful analysis, which gives a clearer understanding of the biological and medical issues involved - so will be completely ignored by the Twittermobs spouting their usual ignorance, and probably most of the regular media too.
    Thing is, though, anything that Dan knows, so presumably does Russia.

    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    Wasn't there a case where the victim pursued the burglar out into the street carrying on bashing him? That would be more tricky - in this case, as reported it appeared the householder was reasonably i) in fear for his & his wife's life and ii) used proportionate force. I cannot see what public interest would be served by mounting a prosecution....
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063
    I suspect this doesn't reflect how most people would actually react in the event but when they read comments like the below, they're probably happy to 'send a message'.


    "His cousin, who was not identified, told the BBC she was angry Mr Osborn-Brooks had been bailed. "I don't know what happened in that home. But all I do know is that my cousin is dead today," she said.

    "The Henry I know, he was such a loving person, and it's probably something which just went wrong but he shouldn't have died out of it."

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/career-crook-killed-by-pensioner-didnt-deserve-to-die-say-family/ar-AAvwAfB?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145

    Wasn't there a case where the victim pursued the burglar out into the street carrying on bashing him? That would be more tricky - in this case, as reported it appeared the householder was reasonably i) in fear for his & his wife's life and ii) used proportionate force. I cannot see what public interest would be served by mounting a prosecution....

    Or rather, there would be little prospect of conviction.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,775
    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669

    Wasn't there a case where the victim pursued the burglar out into the street carrying on bashing him? That would be more tricky - in this case, as reported it appeared the householder was reasonably i) in fear for his & his wife's life and ii) used proportionate force. I cannot see what public interest would be served by mounting a prosecution....

    Or rather, there would be little prospect of conviction.
    Jury nullification - one of the strengths of common law!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Wasn't there a case where the victim pursued the burglar out into the street carrying on bashing him? That would be more tricky - in this case, as reported it appeared the householder was reasonably i) in fear for his & his wife's life and ii) used proportionate force. I cannot see what public interest would be served by mounting a prosecution....

    The family of the dead man say he was an angel.

    Tributes have been paid to Mr Vincent, said to be a father-of-three girls, by friends and family on social media.

    His uncle Stevie, who lives close to his home in Orpington, said: “We’re in mourning here. We don’t want to talk about what’s been said about Henry. We’ve already had the Old Bill round here. We’re not commenting on anything.”

    His cousin, who was not identified, told the BBC she was angry Mr Osborn-Brooks had been bailed. "I don't know what happened in that home. But all I do know is that my cousin is dead today," she said.

    "The Henry I know, he was such a loving person, and it's probably something which just went wrong but he shouldn't have died out of it."


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/05/burglar-killed-pensioners-home-wanted-previous-robbery/

    Which led to trolling.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5989604/richard-osborn-brooks-stabbed-burglar-south-london-family-trolled/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731
    JonathanD said:

    I suspect this doesn't reflect how most people would actually react in the event but when they read comments like the below, they're probably happy to 'send a message'.


    "His cousin, who was not identified, told the BBC she was angry Mr Osborn-Brooks had been bailed. "I don't know what happened in that home. But all I do know is that my cousin is dead today," she said.

    "The Henry I know, he was such a loving person, and it's probably something which just went wrong but he shouldn't have died out of it."

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/career-crook-killed-by-pensioner-didnt-deserve-to-die-say-family/ar-AAvwAfB?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

    Hitler’s Mum loved him, didn’t she?

    Slight exaggeration, of course!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,836

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 330
    Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.

    Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    Rhubarb said:

    Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.

    Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.

    Had the question been specifically about Osborn-Brooks I'd expect a much higher level of support.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    I hope I'd be as brave as Mr Osborn Brooks to tackle intuders when I'm 78. The man deserves a medal.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    I think it depends on delivery - inhalation would be rapidly fatal - but transdermal administration might take a lot longer and be mitigated by action of the victims (wiping it off, washing their hands) and slower - giving the medical staff much more time to intervene.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    edited April 6
    And on our favourite subject



    Though interestingly Remainers are less convinced of the legitimacy (+38) than Leavers of the illegitimacy (-63) of MPs voting down Brexit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    Looks like a clear majority for parliament to follow the referendum result.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?

    Shoot to kill.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731
    Rhubarb said:

    Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.

    Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.

    Do we actually yet know the circumstances of the wounding? Turning a sharp weapon on one's assailant during a struggle could very well result in accidental consequences. We don’t, AFAIK, know how big the scredriver was, although quite a short one could do serious damage uif it went between the ribs.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,373
    edited April 6
    I think the current concept of self-defence is appropriate. What is needed is more effective policing and sanctions for burglary, especially involving personal threats against occupants. The violation is a lot higher than for, say, car theft.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?

    Those people are lower than people who eat pineapple on pizza.

    Firstly I'd force those people to walk in that dog shit, then I'd make them clean that mess up with their toothbrushes.
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 330
    Pulpstar said:

    I hope I'd be as brave as Mr Osborn Brooks to tackle intuders when I'm 78. The man deserves a medal.

    He deserves our sympathy for what he had to go through and for having to spend the remainder of his days knowing what it was like to have killed (even if it was the right thing to do).

    Incidentally, it's a shame that YouGov (apparently) didn't query their panel on if they'd either been burgled or mugged themselves. I expect that they'd have been some interesting splits in response.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,219
    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    He talked about long-term effects with regard to survival.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,008
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,570
    The law is much more householder friendly than people think, and this has always been the case.

    The total number of successful prosecutions of householders who beat up / shot / killed burglars ever (as far as I can tell) is incredibly small.

    One, was when Tony Martin shot an unarmed burglar in the back as he was running away.

    Two, was when a householder "laid in wait for a burglar on commercial premises in Cheshire, beat him up, threw him in a pit and set him on fire."

    Even as far back as 2005, the CPS stated the following:

    "As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence"

    "If you are confronted by a burglar in your own home and you fear yourself and members of your family are about to be attacked, you are entitled to take action to incapacitate that burglar. The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor. The law is on the side of the householder. We aim to reassure them if they act honestly and instinctively, this will be the strongest evidence that they have acted lawfully and in self-defence. What are unacceptable, however, are actions that belie premeditation, revenge or malice. Examples of these would be setting a trap to injure or kill an intruder or hurting someone further or killing them after you've already knocked them unconscious."

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    Rhubarb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope I'd be as brave as Mr Osborn Brooks to tackle intuders when I'm 78. The man deserves a medal.

    He deserves our sympathy for what he had to go through and for having to spend the remainder of his days knowing what it was like to have killed (even if it was the right thing to do).

    Incidentally, it's a shame that YouGov (apparently) didn't query their panel on if they'd either been burgled or mugged themselves. I expect that they'd have been some interesting splits in response.
    For sure if Osborn Brooks suffers any PTSD from the incident (Which he may well do) the state should fund all his counciling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    That’s a very convoluted excuse for having a party full of racists.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145
    Maybe I'm just a contrarian.. but this isn't a bad anatomy of an anti-Corbyn story ("smear" of course is a perception)
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,386
    Rhubarb said:
    When you put the pieces together it all becomes clear.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,836
    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    From the Parallel Universe thread: Aye, be surprised if this led to any legal change (although the figures themselves don't surprise me).

    F1: second practice commences in 1 minute.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    Roger said:

    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.

    Who on earth would bet on a darts match with Bristow :o !
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 187
    I find myself in the "Don't Know" camp on this question... but I don't really like the question very much to begin with. I think it depends upon whether the resident feels that their life, or another life, is under threat if they don't use adequate force to kill. I think killing to defend yourself or another person from death or serious injury is a different matter to killing to just defend property... But having said that, in such a heightened situation how can anyone really be expected to make a rational judgement? That brings me right back to my "Don't Know".

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    edited April 6
    Roger said:

    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.

    That sounds similar to Alex Higgins, who spent some of his later days hustling around snooker clubs in disguise. May they both rest in peace.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,386
    Roger said:

    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.

    A friend shared this story on Facebook:

    He earned me a free holiday a few years back when I was working in a pub in Croydon. He was in town to host a darts competition as a promotion for a travel firm, but just wanted to get back to Stoke as soon as he could. He came into my pub and after I'd served him a pint, he asked me if I played darts. I said I could, so he asked if I could get over the road in around an hour and try to hit the treble 15, the spot on the darts board where a free holiday was 'hidden'. I duly went over, and trying not to make it too obvious what I was going for, hit it with the third and final dart. He smiled and rushed over to shake my hand. An eagle-eyed promoter for the travel company asked him 'Was that the guy from the pub earlier?' Bristow replied 'Never seen him before' and gave me a wink.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,222
    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,570

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    The headline makes it clear just what a joke Zerohedge is.

    Let's not forget what made Zerohedge famous: an article on how Goldman Sachs was manipulating markets to make money. (Disclaimer: I am a former Goldman employee.)

    There was only two problems with the article:

    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well. If you want a better - and more in depth one - then you should read Michael Lewis's Flash Boys.)

    2. Goldman was - at best - a peripheral player in this space.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 664
    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.

    Who on earth would bet on a darts match with Bristow :o !
    Toby Young?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357

    From the Parallel Universe thread: Aye, be surprised if this led to any legal change (although the figures themselves don't surprise me).

    F1: second practice commences in 1 minute.

    It’s been on for half an hour! Ferraris looking good.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,836

    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    I think it depends on delivery - inhalation would be rapidly fatal - but transdermal administration might take a lot longer and be mitigated by action of the victims (wiping it off, washing their hands) and slower - giving the medical staff much more time to intervene.
    Didn't the North Koreans do the same to Kim Jong-Un's brother? Dead in minutes I think. It is odd that for whatever reason they got it wrong
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    Obviously had it been a Russian nerve agent it would have killed them. So it can't be a Russian nerve agent, QED
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 330
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    I think it depends on delivery - inhalation would be rapidly fatal - but transdermal administration might take a lot longer and be mitigated by action of the victims (wiping it off, washing their hands) and slower - giving the medical staff much more time to intervene.
    Didn't the North Koreans do the same to Kim Jong-Un's brother? Dead in minutes I think. It is odd that for whatever reason they got it wrong
    Didn't they convince some patsy to stick him with a needle?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,731

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?

    Shoot to kill.
    Dog or owner?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,758
    Rhubarb said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    I think it depends on delivery - inhalation would be rapidly fatal - but transdermal administration might take a lot longer and be mitigated by action of the victims (wiping it off, washing their hands) and slower - giving the medical staff much more time to intervene.
    Didn't the North Koreans do the same to Kim Jong-Un's brother? Dead in minutes I think. It is odd that for whatever reason they got it wrong
    Didn't they convince some patsy to stick him with a needle?
    I think that Korean attack was by inhalation rather than skin contact, which is much less effective.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    F1: Raikkonen currently faster than Vettel. Hmm.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?

    Shoot to kill.
    Dog or owner?
    Or both.....coming soon to the BBC:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-10/westminsters-bizarre-tale-of-downfall-to-hit-tv-screens/9412296
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?


    Flamethrower.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    Nerve agents only really work quickly when they are inhaled. The mechanism of action in the Skripal case appears to be dermal absorption – the agent got into their systems through the skin. This works slowly. Signs and symptoms progress from localised ones at the site of exposure to central ones over a period of hours. In a cold war-era study with goats and the nerve agent Soman, death took up to 48 hours after exposure to the shaved skin. It's not exactly fast.

    Second, if something happened to reduce the intended dose - for instance if the person opening a door handle was wearing gloves - then a possibly quite lethal dose could have been mitigated to a lower one.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,070

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    Err, I expect it depends on the dose, and the treatment, so, no, it doesn't let Corbyn off the hook.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182
    edited April 6
    I note it's useful Putin idiot hour on PB ....

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    Who, to be precise, told you that there was "zero chance of anyone recovering" ?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    rcs1000 said:


    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well

    Isn't that front-running ? http://nihoncassandra.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/clever-dicks.html
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273

    A very open-ended question. Surely the answer must be No, unless some qualifications are added?

    How much force would it be reasonable to use against someone who lets their dog crap in the street?

    Shoot to kill.
    Dog or owner?
    Owner deffo.
    Poor dog's only doing what a dog's gotta do.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    Incest, and how two white people managed to have a brown biological son*

    *This is like Californication.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182
    rcs1000 said:
    A typical Norfolk family ?!?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    Foxy said:

    Rhubarb said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    It is interesting that the inventor of Novichok said it was impossible to survive contact with the poison and now we have three survivors. Do we next expect him to be shuffled off to Siberia?
    I think it depends on delivery - inhalation would be rapidly fatal - but transdermal administration might take a lot longer and be mitigated by action of the victims (wiping it off, washing their hands) and slower - giving the medical staff much more time to intervene.
    Didn't the North Koreans do the same to Kim Jong-Un's brother? Dead in minutes I think. It is odd that for whatever reason they got it wrong
    Didn't they convince some patsy to stick him with a needle?
    I think that Korean attack was by inhalation rather than skin contact, which is much less effective.
    The dupes (who thought they were taking part in a TV game show prank) sprayed what they thought was water on his face - so there was probably both inhalation and skin transmission.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/17/suspect-north-korea-killing-thought-she-was-taking-part-in-tv-prank-indonesia-siti-aisyah-police-kim-jong-nam
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772
    The MP for Lewisham EAst disagrees with OGH about the law having changed.

    Alexander, the MP for Lewisham East, told the Guardian: “Finding someone in your own home in the middle of the night doesn’t bear thinking about, and I think it goes without saying that you should have a right to defend yourself and your family.

    “The law on the extent of that right changed a few years ago following the case of Tony Martin, and while every incident will be different, it seems to me that the legal balance which currently exists is broadly appropriate.

    Source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/05/man-78-bailed-over-fatal-stabbing-of-suspected-burglar
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145
    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:
    A typical Norfolk family ?!?
    Not sure there are many locals called "Fabien".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,570
    edited April 6
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:


    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well

    Isn't that front-running ? http://nihoncassandra.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/clever-dicks.html
    HFT is - effectively - front running. But it was done in a way that was legal*.

    The way it worked was that HFT firms would have small orders on the exchange, say 10 shares of INTC available to buy at $42.0001. When that order was "lifted" (i.e. taken), it would assume it was part of a bigger order (of say 1,000 shares), and it would then buy the next 1,000 shares of INTC at an average price of (say) $42.0008. The HFT firm would then offer to sell said 1,000 shares at $42.0012.

    In other words, they made spreads appear tighter than they were. And when an investor put in an order to buy 1,000 shares of a company they often found the price they paid was marginally higher than they'd expected. Of course, as the difference was a fraction of a percent, it wasn't noticed very often.



    * Traditional front running is when a brokerage firm takes your order for 1,000 shares of INTC, buys themselves 1,000 shares (moving the price), and then offers to sell you the 1,000 shares at the new, higher price.

    HFT is different because it infers the existence of an order for 1,000 shares by its bid being lifted.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,836
    edited April 6

    Roger said:

    OT. I did an ad with Eric Bristow. Nice enough but the one thing that sticks in my mind was that he was the first person I'd met who I thought was a compulsive gambler. He wanted to bet on anything particularly darts. 'See that door over there....£20 for the closest to the wooden hook' A bit disorientating but over the years I'm sure it made him a lot of money.

    A friend shared this story on Facebook:

    He earned me a free holiday a few years back when I was working in a pub in Croydon. He was in town to host a darts competition as a promotion for a travel firm, but just wanted to get back to Stoke as soon as he could. He came into my pub and after I'd served him a pint, he asked me if I played darts. I said I could, so he asked if I could get over the road in around an hour and try to hit the treble 15, the spot on the darts board where a free holiday was 'hidden'. I duly went over, and trying not to make it too obvious what I was going for, hit it with the third and final dart. He smiled and rushed over to shake my hand. An eagle-eyed promoter for the travel company asked him 'Was that the guy from the pub earlier?' Bristow replied 'Never seen him before' and gave me a wink.
    That's a great story and as I remember him. A sort of Del Boy but nice with it. He said that he made his money by challenging anyone to a very short game for '20 quid' and they'd all play him so they could tell their mates they lost £20 to Bristow at darts. He said he could win loads in a very short time. Don't know why he bothered with the ad!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,669
    A useful reminder of how little impact political stories have:

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:
    A typical Norfolk family ?!?
    Not sure there are many locals called "Fabien".
    I think it's a ruse as even in deepest, darkest Norfolk "family relations" might be common but still every so slightly illegal.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,836
    Israel killing and maiming hundreds of anti-semites for setting fire to tyres and allowing the smoke to drift over the border.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772

    It’ll be harsh if he was charged.

    He's been charged - hence the bail.

    Surely there's no reason to charge him. The police can carry out their investigation without charging him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    As expertly predicted, 2/3 of the top drivers in practice one are in the top 3 in practice two. Naturally, the only one who isn't is Ricciardo.

    .....
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772
    edited April 6
    Roger said:

    Israel killing and maiming hundreds of anti-semites for setting fire to tyres and allowing the smoke to drift over the border.

    Are they anti semites or pro palestinian?

    Edit - Ah I see now at second reading.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303

    It’ll be harsh if he was charged.

    He's been charged - hence the bail.

    Surely there's no reason to charge him. The police can carry out their investigation without charging him.

    I think he was just arrested, then released on police bail.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182
    My new candidate for Derbyshire Chief Constable :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-43667111
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    It’ll be harsh if he was charged.

    He's been charged - hence the bail.

    Surely there's no reason to charge him. The police can carry out their investigation without charging him.
    Nope, he's not been charged, lots of people get bailed without ever being charged
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,470
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    The headline makes it clear just what a joke Zerohedge is.

    Let's not forget what made Zerohedge famous: an article on how Goldman Sachs was manipulating markets to make money. (Disclaimer: I am a former Goldman employee.)

    There was only two problems with the article:

    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well. If you want a better - and more in depth one - then you should read Michael Lewis's Flash Boys.)

    2. Goldman was - at best - a peripheral player in this space.
    Seconded re: Flash Boys. Reads like a thriller. Demolished it in a single evening, then felt empty afterwards.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772

    Incest, and how two white people managed to have a brown biological son*

    *This is like Californication.
    The names are more French than Califirnian or Norfolk.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    If Duncan Ferguson, who hardly had an unblemished record, could manage citizen’s arrests in his own home on the two stupidest burglars in Merseyside with them ending up in hospital and without further action being taken, I expect this gent will be alright.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772

    A useful reminder of how little impact political stories have:


    It's the subliminal messages that are the most effective - and they are not noticed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    Ferrari doing a Hass, letting Raikkonen go with three wheels on his wagon :open_mouth:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Incest, and how two white people managed to have a brown biological son*

    *This is like Californication.
    The names are more French than Califirnian or Norfolk.
    Nah, in Californication white chap had a fling with a white woman, she got pregnant, he spent 9 months thinking he was the father, then when the baby was born, the baby turned out to be black.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:


    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well

    Isn't that front-running ? http://nihoncassandra.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/clever-dicks.html
    HFT is - effectively - front running. But it was done in a way that was legal*.

    The way it worked was that HFT firms would have small orders on the exchange, say 10 shares of INTC available to buy at $42.0001. When that order was "lifted" (i.e. taken), it would assume it was part of a bigger order (of say 1,000 shares), and it would then buy the next 1,000 shares of INTC at an average price of (say) $42.0008. The HFT firm would then offer to sell said 1,000 shares at $42.0012.

    In other words, they made spreads appear tighter than they were. And when an investor put in an order to buy 1,000 shares of a company they often found the price they paid was marginally higher than they'd expected. Of course, as the difference was a fraction of a percent, it wasn't noticed very often.



    * Traditional front running is when a brokerage firm takes your order for 1,000 shares of INTC, buys themselves 1,000 shares (moving the price), and then offers to sell you the 1,000 shares at the new, higher price.

    HFT is different because it infers the existence of an order for 1,000 shares by its bid being lifted.
    You use the term HFT as if it is synonymous with front running but as I’m sure you are aware ESMA’s definition of HFT brings in all kinds of other electronic trading modes.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,709
    What a stupid poll question. It already is legal. It's like asking "should it be legal to breathe in enough oxygen to stay alive?".
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,889
    Rhubarb said:

    Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.

    Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.

    Right. Use force to defend your person - already legal. Use force to defend your property - different question.

    Which question were people answering?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470
    edited April 6
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
    Grave > Critical.

    First reports from Paris in 1997 described Princess Diana’s condition as “grave”.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451

    If Duncan Ferguson, who hardly had an unblemished record, could manage citizen’s arrests in his own home on the two stupidest burglars in Merseyside with them ending up in hospital and without further action being taken, I expect this gent will be alright.

    Of course ironically Big Dunc was callously jailed for 12 weeks for "assault" for the merest brushes of forehead on the football pitch with a Raith Rovers player (who won a BAFTA for his reaction).



    As Nazi saluting dogs can testify - Scots law can be daft.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
    Grave > Critical.

    First reports from Paris in 1997 described Princess Diana’s condition as “grave”.
    That was clearly code for “Dead, but we need to make sure we tell the family first”.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - Putinhedge. Apparently boring to tears reciting Alice in Wonderland to the Security Council counts as 'demolition':

    The headline makes it clear just what a joke Zerohedge is.

    Let's not forget what made Zerohedge famous: an article on how Goldman Sachs was manipulating markets to make money. (Disclaimer: I am a former Goldman employee.)

    There was only two problems with the article:

    1. It completely misunderstood how High Frequency Trading works. (If you want an amusing description, Cassandra Does Tokyo describes it well. If you want a better - and more in depth one - then you should read Michael Lewis's Flash Boys.)

    2. Goldman was - at best - a peripheral player in this space.
    Cyber gin and tonic for anyone who finds a Zerohedge article criticising Putin/Russia..
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
    They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470
    edited April 6
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
    Grave > Critical.

    First reports from Paris in 1997 described Princess Diana’s condition as “grave”.
    That was clearly code for “Dead, but we need to make sure we tell the family first”.
    My understanding (Foxy?) is that it means it’s a matter of timing but imminent. I’m sure the royal family knew before us lot.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,070

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
    They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
    Good point.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
    Grave > Critical.

    First reports from Paris in 1997 described Princess Diana’s condition as “grave”.
    That was clearly code for “Dead, but we need to make sure we tell the family first”.
    My understanding (Foxy?) is that it means it’s a matter of timing but imminent. I’m sure the royal family knew before us lot.
    That was the last major news story I first heard about from a newspaper headline (and 9/11 was the first i first heard of from the internet).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,070
    I see that @GOsborneGenius, the artiste formerly known as tim, remains unimpressed by the Corbynista takeover of his once-beloved party.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,193
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    I think the hospital said "critical condition" which is as bad as it gets without actually being dead, and I am inclined to trust hospitals, so I don't think it is a Borisism. I agree the inefficacy of the attack is bizarre, as I thought a teaspoonful of a decent chemical weapon in the right reservoir was meant to be able to wipe out most of London; it's like hearing that someone has nuked Birmingham and this has caused a few road closures and diversions. But I think the most elegant explanation is probably mere incompetence in preparing or administering the dose.
    Grave > Critical.

    First reports from Paris in 1997 described Princess Diana’s condition as “grave”.
    That was clearly code for “Dead, but we need to make sure we tell the family first”.
    My understanding (Foxy?) is that it means it’s a matter of timing but imminent. I’m sure the royal family knew before us lot.
    Reminds me of those SOS messages they used to broadcast on the radio about somebody's close relative who was "dangerously ill" which meant much the same thing I believe.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,470

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
    They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
    That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.

    Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957

    Rhubarb said:

    Martin killed his burglar with a gun he illegally owned and did so at a distance.

    Osborn-Brooks killed at arms length, with a sharpened screwdriver that the robbers brought with them, after being pushed around in his kitchen and with a vulnerable wife in the house. I'd expect public attitudes to him to be far, far more sympathetic.

    Right. Use force to defend your person - already legal. Use force to defend your property - different question.

    Which question were people answering?
    I also think there is a particular level of threat fron just being very old with a young man illegally in your house. I think the legal standard should be that you should be able to use up to whatever force is needed to incapacitate plausible threats to you.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?

    Yes, there's something here that we don't fully understand. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the Russians weren't involved, but we were told immediately after the event that there was zero chance of anyone recovering. It's great that apparently everyone is recovering, but was this a technical mistake (i.e. we know less about the nerve agent than we thought), a hasty exaggeration (a Borisism, to be blunt) or a surprise (it's simply very rare but in these three cases it turned out that the circumstances reduced the impact)?
    "Myth busting: Why didn't the Skripals die on the spot?"

    http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
    But as I said to start with - the Russians know everything that Dan knows.
    They used a theatrical assassination method without giving a copy of the script to the lead. The expectation was probably that the Skripals (assuming poisoning the daughter wasn't a mistake) would die at home without treatment and not wander off on a tour of Salisbury high street where they would collapse in public.
    That’s a lot of knowledge of the situation.

    Occam it is not. What Occam is, that said, I do not know.
    If the delivery method was putting the nerve agent on the front door handle, it's not much of an assumption to think that the victim would be affected while entering their home and be affected there.
This discussion has been closed.