Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Effective Firing Squad?
Rather inflammatory and irresponsible IMO.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EdmundD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Edmund - // My objection was to the use of the term "effective firing squad". British armed police are not firing squads and I thought use of the term was irresponsible and potentially inflammatory (IMO) as (IMO) it conveyed a misleading impression of how the armed police approach a situation.
The Police Federation of England and Wales lodged a formal complaint about the wording with ITV News today who then subsequently amended the wording but with no apology. //
Fine - but as I pointed out, you made no mention of ITV News in your OP - you simply linked the report.
If you don't tell people you object to the phrasing, and crucially, where yo saw it, no-one is going to know what you are talking about.
The Police Federation of England and Wales lodged a formal complaint about the wording with ITV News today who then subsequently amended the wording but with no apology. //
Fine - but as I pointed out, you made no mention of ITV News in your OP - you simply linked the report.
If you don't tell people you object to the phrasing, and crucially, where yo saw it, no-one is going to know what you are talking about.
The link Edmund posted did have the words “effective firing squad”, but I see those words are no longer there (merely as a ‘by the way’ I had no idea a posted link could be changed), so perhaps this is the confusion.
The words were there, at least when I opened the link, because I saw them, but they no longer are.
The words were there, at least when I opened the link, because I saw them, but they no longer are.
-- answer removed --
Atheist, // The people here who sound off about 'the b***d deserved to die' are in the wrong, because they are calling for summary execution without trial,//
I disagree. No trial necessary. He was a *** and he did deserve to die. Your self-righteous attitude aligns with that of those who, in their dubious wisdom, allowed him the opportunity to do what he did. Doubtless once again 'lessons will be learnt'', but when?
I disagree. No trial necessary. He was a *** and he did deserve to die. Your self-righteous attitude aligns with that of those who, in their dubious wisdom, allowed him the opportunity to do what he did. Doubtless once again 'lessons will be learnt'', but when?
Atheist, // The people here who sound off about 'the b***d deserved to die' are in the wrong, because they are calling for summary execution without trial,//
Oddly people in the uk prefer to see terrorists with a suicide vest strapped to themselves summarily executed before the device is activated
Or would Athesist prefer it to be used thereby leaving everyone in no doubt as to the wearers intentions ?
Oddly people in the uk prefer to see terrorists with a suicide vest strapped to themselves summarily executed before the device is activated
Or would Athesist prefer it to be used thereby leaving everyone in no doubt as to the wearers intentions ?
//as criminal history confirms, it's not actually possible to identify a ciminal of any sort until they actually commit a crime.//
Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions.
... and identification in this case is surplus to requirements. He was a convicted criminal.
Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions.
... and identification in this case is surplus to requirements. He was a convicted criminal.
naomi - // //as criminal history confirms, it's not actually possible to identify a ciminal of any sort until they actually commit a crime.//
Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions. //
That does not negate my point.
If someone is convicted of a crime, then they are a convicted criminal, with a criminal record.
But no-one becomes a criminal until they are tried and convicted - first, you have to be caught.
Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions. //
That does not negate my point.
If someone is convicted of a crime, then they are a convicted criminal, with a criminal record.
But no-one becomes a criminal until they are tried and convicted - first, you have to be caught.
He certainly was a criminal.
https:/
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.