nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

the baby bull elephant

jacothelad wrote: »

e.g. Chauvin clearly caused the death of the poor victim but the question asked here would have been one charge only. He clearly also didn't set out that day to murder Floyd. If he had just been charged with murder - as here - he may well have been declared not guilty according to law. In the UK and Ireland there is not really a notion of justice in our courts. There is only the law and what that leads too. The US system is also based on 'English' common law but - as in Ireland - it has developed and evolved.

I may have to re-examine my criminal law textbooks but I don't think you're correct there certainly in relation to the Irish jurisdiction.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

Is the governing statute on murder. There would probably be some argument around whether he intended to cause serious injury or kill George Floyd in fairness but a murder charge failing doesn't mean that manslaughter is impossible to bring. In fact several of the defences to murder merely bring it down to a manslaughter charge if proven.

jacothelad

hold my beer wrote: »

What you mean by this jaco?

Justice has little to do with the outcomes produced by the law. People often think of 'justice' being done ..or not....according to their views of morality. The blindfold, a symbol of blind justice, represents equality. Justice sees no difference between the parties involved.The law often seems to make a mockery of the western concept of justice and how we bind it up with morality. The meaning of justice has been considered over the centuries by successive philosophers, academics and lawyers, and there are many different theories. Major breaches of a moral code are also likely to be against the law. Criminal law provides the obvious example of where morality and law often merge. The issue of whether law should be involved in enforcing a moral code in matters that concern the personal lives of people, such as their sexuality, has long been a controversial issue, as was demonstrated in the Wolfenden Report in the 1950s.
The problem with using moral concepts to produce 'justice' may punish behaviour that may not have proved harmful to another person and the exercise of free choice by individuals is a moral value with which it is wrong to interfere. Consider some issues that face modern society and the law. Separating conjoined twins which will lead to the death of one. Where is the Sword of justice to fall in this matter.......? Nowhere. It is a matter of law.
Consider turning off life support...again it is a matter of law. The right to end one's life....assisted suicide etc are all matters of law v. what one might see as the antithesis of justice.

Sorry for being so long winded but it's a long time since I opened a law book....1987 I think

jacothelad

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

I may have to re-examine my criminal law textbooks but I don't think you're correct there certainly in relation to the Irish jurisdiction.

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

Is the governing statute on murder. There would probably be some argument around whether he intended to cause serious injury or kill George Floyd in fairness but a murder charge failing doesn't mean that manslaughter is impossible to bring. In fact several of the defences to murder merely bring it down to a manslaughter charge if proven.

I studied U.K. law in the 1980s, I'm not au fait with any of it these days.

Dubinusa

Very good Jaco! Good read.

The Inbetween is mine

Dubinusa wrote: »

Very good Jaco! Good read.

We'll have to rename him Rumpole of the Bailey!

Neil3030

jacothelad wrote: »

Justice has little to do with the outcomes produced by the law. People often think of 'justice' being done ..or not....according to their views of morality. The blindfold, a symbol of blind justice, represents equality. Justice sees no difference between the parties involved.The law often seems to make a mockery of the western concept of justice and how we bind it up with morality. The meaning of justice has been considered over the centuries by successive philosophers, academics and lawyers, and there are many different theories. Major breaches of a moral code are also likely to be against the law. Criminal law provides the obvious example of where morality and law often merge. The issue of whether law should be involved in enforcing a moral code in matters that concern the personal lives of people, such as their sexuality, has long been a controversial issue, as was demonstrated in the Wolfenden Report in the 1950s.
The problem with using moral concepts to produce 'justice' may punish behaviour that may not have proved harmful to another person and the exercise of free choice by individuals is a moral value with which it is wrong to interfere. Consider some issues that face modern society and the law. Separating conjoined twins which will lead to the death of one. Where is the Sword of justice to fall in this matter.......? Nowhere. It is a matter of law.
Consider turning off life support...again it is a matter of law. The right to end one's life....assisted suicide etc are all matters of law v. what one might see as the antithesis of justice.

Sorry for being so long winded but it's a long time since I opened a law book....1987 I think

Way too philosophical for us socially inept quants.

Can you express this in some kind of formula please?

jacothelad

Neil3030 wrote: »

Way too philosophical for us socially inept quants.

Can you express this in some kind of formula please?

Two chemists go into a restaurant. The first chemist says, "I'll have H2O." The second chemist says, "I'll have an H2O too."... and he died.

Q: What did the scientist say when he found 2 isotopes of helium?
A: HeHe

Helium walks into a bar,
The bar tender says "We don't serve noble gasses in here."
Helium doesn't react.

After years of hard work, Angie took her first vacation on a luxury cruise ship. While sitting in a deck chair, she recognised a former school classmate, a long-lost friend from her old town. She crossed the deck and shook hands with her friend and said: “Hello, Angela. I haven’t seen you in years. What are you doing these days?”
“I’m a lawyer,” whispered Angela. “But don’t tell my mother. She still thinks I’m a prostitute.”

Apologies...

CatFromHue

Neil3030 wrote: »

Can you express this in some kind of formula please?

The law is an ass, the only justice is Chuck Norris

Neil3030

So law is a state transition function with a high degree of both systematic bias and stochastic variance. An alternative model that reduces both classes of error is Chuck Norris kicking humans in the face?

And the the whore state has higher normalized value than the lawyer state, at least in the first-degree familial context?

Jesus lads, why do you have to complicate this?

aloooof

This doesn't seem especially surprising, considering all that went on:

https://twitter.com/DeutschJill/status/1385108239877017602

thomond2006

The amount of scam ads on YouTube is ridiculous.

kuang1

thomond2006 wrote: »

The amount of scam ads on YouTube is ridiculous.

Bought a new chrome book 3 months ago, and was pleasantly surprised when I started it up to find it included 3 months free membership to YouTube premium.

Haven't seen an ad on YouTube for 12 weeks now, and have decided that I'll subscribe (€11.99 monthly) once the free trial is up.

Have made it my music platform too.

b.gud

kuang1 wrote: »

Bought a new chrome book 3 months ago, and was pleasantly surprised when I started it up to find it included 3 months free membership to YouTube premium.

Haven't seen an ad on YouTube for 12 weeks now, and have decided that I'll subscribe (€11.99 monthly) once the free trial is up.

Have made it my music platform too.

If you happen to sign up while in India you could get a family membership for around €2.15 a month. I haven't seen a Youtube ad in about 6 months, it's great

Dave_The_Sheep

Between Adblock plus, Disconnect and uBlock Origin browser addons, I haven't seen a Youtube ad in years (on my PC).

No need to pay a thing.

b.gud

The main problem for me was the Android TV we have which gets a lot of use, particularly with the young ones. Plus it lets you download videos for offline use which was handy when we needed something to buys us a few minutes out an about with sketchy internet

Teferi

Adblock means I cannot remember the last time I’ve seen an ad on YouTube on my laptop. I always get momentarily confused when an ad plays on my wife’s laptop if she has YouTube up.

thomond2006

https://adblockplus.org

This one?

Dave_The_Sheep

That's the one.

The Inbetween is mine

Back to the Superleague.... surprised to see today that Woodward left United because he wouldn't support the Glazers move to the new league.... didn't expect that..

Squidgy Black

The Inbetween is mine wrote: »

Back to the Superleague.... surprised to see today that Woodward left United because he wouldn't support the Glazers move to the new league.... didn't expect that..

Sounds like a load of BS from Woodward to be honest.

He would've known about the club joining the ESL way before this week, and only stood down after all of the backlash.

The Inbetween is mine

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Sounds like a load of BS from Woodward to be honest.

He would've known about the club joining the ESL way before this week, and only stood down after all of the backlash.

This is something that can be easily confirmed or rubbished though, so I'm not so sure it is tbh

Neil3030

Who signed the letter of intent? Owners or chairmen?

Squidgy Black

The Inbetween is mine wrote: »

This is something that can be easily confirmed or rubbished though, so I'm not so sure it is tbh

Easily confirmed by who though, United's original statement was that he had planned to stand down at the end of the year anyways before all this.

The Inbetween is mine

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Easily confirmed by who though, United's original statement was that he had planned to stand down at the end of the year anyways before all this.

Ah if he's lying, you'll know by the end of the day...The Glazers wouldn't let that slide, esp if they are trying to apportion blame.

[Deleted User]

thomond2006 wrote: »

The amount of scam ads on YouTube is ridiculous.

YouTube premium or whatever it's called is actually worth it. Removes all ads amongst a few other things.

hold my beer

This guy had the ESL document back in January. There's no way Woodword didn't known about it for months before that even. He's a snake.

https://twitter.com/james_corbett/status/1352652214272217088?s=19

jacothelad

The Jenner Institute which developed the AZ vaccine have successfully developed an anti-malaria vaccine. 74% efficacy at low dose and 77% at high dose. 400,000 children a year die from this. My late father contracted it during WW2 and had periodic quite severe episodes of it for many years afterwards. It is a horrible disease. Other interventions have reduced the death toll from over 2,000,000 per year in the 1960s and they will need to continue but it does open up the faint possibility of eradicating this scourge.

Interestingly in terms of climate changes, during the Romano period in England, malaria was present in the southern parts of the country and vineyards were common.

jacothelad

jacothelad wrote: »

The Jenner Institute which developed the AZ vaccine have successfully developed an anti-malaria vaccine. 74% efficacy at low dose and 77% at high dose. 400,000 children a year die from this.

Co-incidentally:

Resistance to malaria drugs in Africa may be starting to take hold, according to a study that maps changes similar to those seen a decade ago when drug resistance spread in south-east Asia.
In Cambodia and neighbouring countries, the artemisinin drug compounds widely used against malaria are no longer always effective. The falciparum malaria parasites have developed genetic mutations that allow them to evade the drugs. There has been great concern that drug resistance could spread to Africa, which has the highest burden of cases of this type of malaria – and the highest toll of child deaths from it.

Let's hope....... The deaths of so many children is heart rending.

Larbre34

The Euro2020 matches scheduled for Dublin have been moved to St Petersburg Russia and Wembley (Round of 16)

The ignominy of moving games to Russia which is riddled.

Our Government have missed a major opportunity here. 12,500 vaccinated persons could easily have attended each match, perhaps healthcare and frontline workers could have been funded to go, as a thank you from a grateful nation?

What a beacon of optimism that would have been as things improve. But no, total lack of ambition and b0ll0x from our elected representatives as per.

Former Former Former

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Euro2020 matches scheduled for Dublin have been moved to St Petersburg Russia and Wembley (Round of 16)

The ignominy of moving games to Russia which is riddled.

Our Government have missed a major opportunity here. 12,500 vaccinated persons could easily have attended each match, perhaps healthcare and frontline workers could have been funded to go, as a thank you from a grateful nation?

What a beacon of optimism that would have been as things improve. But no, total lack of ambition and b0ll0x from our elected representatives as per.

The tickets do not belong to the government and thus are not theirs to give away. The match would have been attended by people who bought them in the UEFA lotteries over the last couple of years, presumably a good number of whom would be coming into the country.

We have absolutely no idea if these matches can be held safely or not. None of the host cities do. Personally, I would rather we focus on getting wider society back on track at a reasonable and controlled pace than risking a giant super-spreader event that could derail things massively.

I'm extremely glad we didn't cave to UEFA. We need a government who can make the right decisions, not the popular ones. We paid the price for this in January and hundreds of people died needlessly because of the exact logic that you're now demanding we follow again.

And for a soccer game that Ireland isn't even playing in? No, f**k that.