• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Words fail me

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
**** me he manages to make UKIP seem not quite so bad after all

Boris Johnson has said he wants the reportedly British jihadist who beheaded American journalist James Foley to be killed in a bomb attack.

The Mayor of London said Britain must take on Islamic State (IS) and "try to close it down now", warning that doing nothing would mean a "tide of terror will eventually lap at our own front door".

Mr Johnson, who has overall responsibility for the Metropolitan Police and is planning to return to parliament next year, called for new laws that would mean anyone visiting Iraq and Syria would be automatically presumed to be terrorists unless they had notified the authorities in advance.

Mr Johnson added: "Young men such as this killer are famously told that if they die in 'battle' they will be welcomed in heaven by the ***ual ministrations of 72 virgins.

"Many of them believe it - even though scholars have suggested that the reference to 'black-eyed virgins' is in fact a promise of 72 raisins.

"I suspect most of us don't give a monkey's what happens to this prat in heaven, whether he meets virgins or raisins - we just want someone to come along with a bunker buster and effect an introduction as fast as possible."
 

watson

Banned
Never mind the overly emotional hyperbole, Boris is probably right on two of his recommendations;

Boris Johnson has called for the presumption of innocence to be reversed in cases where Britons travel to Iraq or Syria and said he wants the jihadist who beheaded an American journalist to be killed in a bomb attack.

The Mayor of London, who has overall responsibility for the Metropolitan Police, said legislation should be introduced so that anyone visiting those countries would be automatically presumed to be terrorists unless they had notified the authorities in advance, and joined growing calls for Britons fighting abroad to be stripped of their citizenship.

Johnson calls for 'guilty until proven innocent' for suspected terrorists | Politics | theguardian.com
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Never mind the overly emotional hyperbole, Boris is probably right on two of his recommendations;
Hey lawyers. Make yourself useful.

I can't make rational arguments against someone who refuses to take the presumption of innocence as one of the basics for civilization.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
By my reckoning what our exported rapper did to James Foley is an act of terrorism, and treating a whole load of people to a "bunker buster" just to kill one individual amounts to the same and therefore gives some sort of tacit approval to such atrocities

So thing about it Bobo you prize plonker and get those two brain cells of yours bouncing off each other - what we do here is we try to nip in and capture these people and put them on trial - we do that because we are better than they are, well at least some of us are
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
I find the psycholgical questions surrounding Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary facinating - the British rapper that beheaded James Foley

British rapper a suspect in ISIS beheading | New York Post

1. Is he a 'born' psychopath and therefore the act of decapitation is merely incidental to his religious 'brainwashing'?
2. Is he a normal person made delusional and psychopathic by religious 'brainwashing'?
3. Is he a borderline psychopath and therefore easily exploited by religious 'brainwashing'?

From a justice point of view I think that they are worth asking. That is, should psychopathology and/or religious 'brainwashing' make an individual less deserved of punishment?
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
Hey lawyers. Make yourself useful.

I can't make rational arguments against someone who refuses to take the presumption of innocence as one of the basics for civilization.
Obviously in the context of conventional law there must be the presumption of innocence. However, during 'times of war' is the presumption of innocence always wise? After all, the first duty of the government is the safety and protection of it's citizens.

I think that all this confusion arises because no one is quite sure whether Western governments are formally 'at war' with 'militant Islam'. Things need to be spelt out more clearly so a formal policy can be formulated, agreed upon, and carried out.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's classic nasty party rhetoric, really, isn't it? Appealing to the Tory heartlands. Tough on that beastly Johnny Muslim and to hell with wishy-washy concerns like human rights.

Davey Cameron is probably preparing himself for a knife between his shoulders from his old Bullingdon mate soon.

I increasingly find it hard to believe Johnson is an actual person; every day he seems more and more like a heavy-handy satirist's caricature. I have visions of Chris Morris or Stewart Lee saying "I think we're stretching credulity a bit too far this time, chaps. The public won't buy it" in script meetings when BoJo's latest bout of ****headedness is mooted. & yet...
 

Pothas

Hall of Fame Member
Haha yeah but this is why he is so much more dangerous than Farage.

I am still fairly confident the party will not let him become leader, never thought I would be in the position of wanting Gideon or May to be a potential prime minister but if that is going to be the choice...
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Obviously in the context of conventional law there must be the presumption of innocence. However, during 'times of war' is the presumption of innocence always wise? After all, the first duty of the government is the safety and protection of it's citizens.

I think that all this confusion arises because no one is quite sure whether Western governments are formally 'at war' with 'militant Islam'. Things need to be spelt out more clearly so a formal policy can be formulated, agreed upon, and carried out.
All civilised legal systems have the means of locking people up first and asking questions afterwards - there is no need to front load the capital punishment element
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Obviously in the context of conventional law there must be the presumption of innocence. However, during 'times of war' is the presumption of innocence always wise? After all, the first duty of the government is the safety and protection of it's citizens.

I think that all this confusion arises because no one is quite sure whether Western governments are formally 'at war' with 'militant Islam'. Things need to be spelt out more clearly so a formal policy can be formulated, agreed upon, and carried out.
An American non-combatant was (likely) murdered by a British national nowhere near either of those two countries whilst loosely representing a cobbled-together multi-national group of vicious, genocidal (and probably apocalyptic) thugs whose ambitions seem to be limited to re-defining the Syria-Iraq border and just in general raging against the dying of their collective light. Find legal and policy clarity In that and you'll be ahead of the best minds working the problem.

This is why there's so much hesitation with these maniacs. Letting them go means lots of people die, even if they flame out in a year when neighbouring countries take them seriously. Bombing the **** out of them lends them legitimacy which will likely lead to more trouble later and honestly won't stop the violence anyway.
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
All civilised legal systems have the means of locking people up first and asking questions afterwards - there is no need to front load the capital punishment element
I don't think that even Boris was promoting the idea of ad hoc capital punishment. He was just letting off a load of frustrated emotional nonsense. Not actually formulating a government policy whereby a 'bunker busting' missile is shot up the defendants arse as a matter of course.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think that even Boris was promoting the idea of ad hoc capital punishment. He was just letting off a load of frustrated emotional nonsense. Not actually formulating a government policy whereby a 'bunker busting' missile is shot up the defendants arse as a matter of course.
The best you can say for him is that its a cynical device calculated to win a few votes
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I find the psycholgical questions surrounding Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary facinating - the British rapper that beheaded James Foley

British rapper a suspect in ISIS beheading | New York Post

1. Is he a 'born' psychopath and therefore the act of decapitation is merely incidental to his religious 'brainwashing'?
2. Is he a normal person made delusional and psychopathic by religious 'brainwashing'?
3. Is he a borderline psychopath and therefore easily exploited by religious 'brainwashing'?

From a justice point of view I think that they are worth asking. That is, should psychopathology and/or religious 'brainwashing' make an individual less deserved of punishment?
Can we stop with the religion and psychology talk please. He's a terrorist. It's extremely unlikely that he's clinically insane and no he hasn't been brainwashed by religion. He's made a decision for which he should face the consequences. Simple as that.

The only psychological explanation I'd put on this is that having your father as a terrorist isn't exactly the best male role model one can have. But that's not heading towards the realms of clinical insanity and he's a grown man who has made his own choices.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
By my reckoning what our exported rapper did to James Foley is an act of terrorism, and treating a whole load of people to a "bunker buster" just to kill one individual amounts to the same and therefore gives some sort of tacit approval to such atrocities
Although in fairness I don't imagine he's currently sharing a bunker with a friendly gathering of nuns.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
I don't particularly care about the savage in question, but the idea of the Mayor of one of the worlds biggest cities thinking that the foundation of modern justice can be changed at the drop of a hat is quite frankly more terrifying than ISIS.
 

Top