Sentence disgrace

Nick W · 9 Mar 2011

Does anyone else here think that even if the actions of Emdadur Choudhury were entirely wrong, as the court has indeed ruled, a steeper sentence could cause further protesting and division and lead to more harm than good for society?

RailUK Forums

bb21 · 10 Mar 2011

jonmorris0844 said:
What those trains built by foreigners from Italy? We should BURN the trains and send them back immediately!

You sir have totally misunderstood his point. The Italians are white. Instead we should send back everything that is built by someone Turkish, Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese.

Oh dear I have nothing left in my house.

RPM · 10 Mar 2011

Nick W said:
Does anyone else here think that even if the actions of Emdadur Choudhury were entirely wrong, as the court has indeed ruled, a steeper sentence could cause further protesting and division and lead to more harm than good for society?

Yes absolutely. I think it was the right sentence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Deerfold said:
the Union flag is simply the flag of England

Is it? It was the flag of the United Kingdom last time I checked.

Deerfold · 10 Mar 2011

RPM said:
Yes absolutely. I think it was the right sentence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it? It was the flag of the United Kingdom last time I checked.

You are correct. I was overtired when I wrote that - when I realised I thought "well no-one's going to read that far back in the thread now". I was talking about the flag of St George. And making much the same point as LE Greys (I wonder if that has anything to do with our common Irish ancestry?)

4SRKT · 10 Mar 2011

Again I find myself, to my surprise, largely in agreement with ralphchadkirk on this.

<takes good, hard look at self>

The Barlow Boy · 10 Mar 2011

LE Greys said:
Agreed, the British are no more a "race" than the Americans. If asked what race I am, I tend to say Anglo-Celtic (just about accurate, I'm part Irish). Nations are essentially artificial constructs dependent on treaties and how aggressive certain monarchs were. Look at Belgium and Yugoslavia as definitions of nations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What offends me is the way that people with racist agendas have effectively misappropriated the flag, so such an extent that certain people do find it offensive. I usually don't fly the thing, but if I wanted to (for a Test match or the jubilee or whatever) I'd risk being accused of being an extremist, which really annoys me. The flag belongs to the whole nation (artificial construct or not). I, part Irish, have just as much right to fly it as anyone else, so the extremists should give it back.

Be carefull, you're falling into the PC trap of confusing race with nationality and religion.

ralphchadkirk · 10 Mar 2011

4SRKT said:
Again I find myself, to my surprise, largely in agreement with ralphchadkirk on this.

<takes good, hard look at self>

it had to happen one day!

4SRKT · 10 Mar 2011

ralphchadkirk said:
it had to happen one day!

It happened over the rioting students as well.

What I would guess is this, that we are both to some degree or another libertarians. Being a libertarian is not a left/right issue, and indeed helps to bring common cause between left and right. For example, I am very much left leaning, but much of what David Cameron says on social matters holds more appeal to me than anything Blair ever said.

Railjet · 10 Mar 2011

yorkie said:
I have not acted as a moderator in this thread, by the way.

Point of order, m'lud. How are we supposed to know that?

If moderators moderate specific forums, and act as "ordinary" members on other forums, surely the members should be made aware of this allocation?

jon0844 · 10 Mar 2011

I am not aware of many threads being cut/edited/moderated. I think it's okay for a moderator to participate in a thread, as long as s/he isn't then editing and removing posts at the same time.

I don't think a moderator needs to declare any special interest in any thread over another, just act fairly.

Acting fairly would be to implement the rules and only the rules, thus not allowing any personal feelings to be involved.

Mojo · 10 Mar 2011

Railjet said:
Point of order, m'lud. How are we supposed to know that?

Because it's pretty obvious I'd have thought that nothing he has posted could be construed as having been anything other than personal opinion?

Railjet said:
If moderators moderate specific forums, and act as "ordinary" members on other forums, surely the members should be made aware of this allocation?

There is nothing to be made aware of; all forum staff moderate all of the forums.

Pumbaa · 10 Mar 2011

4SRKT said:
What I would guess is this, that we are both to some degree or another libertarians. Being a libertarian is not a left/right issue, and indeed helps to bring common cause between left and right. For example, I am very much left leaning, but much of what David Cameron says on social matters holds more appeal to me than anything Blair ever said.

True - it's a 3D model really where liberalism is concerned, and you have to be careful to differentiate between socially and economically as well. There is a test online which plots you on a 2D grid which is largely ineffective, but you get the gist.

Someone (such as myself) can economically liberal and socially "left-wing", or equally economically left and socially right, ie the Government should have control over who it spends money on, and as long they agree its fine!

yorkie · 10 Mar 2011

4SRKT said:
It happened over the rioting students as well.

What I would guess is this, that we are both to some degree or another libertarians. Being a libertarian is not a left/right issue, and indeed helps to bring common cause between left and right. For example, I am very much left leaning, but much of what David Cameron says on social matters holds more appeal to me than anything Blair ever said.

Indeed, very true. As for you and Ralph, it's no surprise, you probably only really disagree on fares issues where you're pro-customer and he's pro-staff.

Railjet said:
Point of order, m'lud. How are we supposed to know that?

If moderators moderate specific forums, and act as "ordinary" members on other forums, surely the members should be made aware of this allocation?

There isn't an allocation like that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pumbaa said:
True - it's a 3D model really where liberalism is concerned, and you have to be careful to differentiate between socially and economically as well. There is a test online which plots you on a 2D grid which is largely ineffective, but you get the gist.

yeah, you're probably thinking this one: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Railjet · 10 Mar 2011

Mojo said:
Because it's pretty obvious I'd have thought that nothing he has posted could be construed as having been anything other than personal opinion?

Why the aggressive tone? It doesn't mean that he can't be moderating at the same time.

There is nothing to be made aware of; all forum staff moderate all of the forums.

I asked a genuinely curious question - other boards allocate moderators to specific forums. It doesn't preclude them from posting on the same forums, but at least you know who is moderating what.

Simple, polite question - that was all.

MidnightFlyer · 10 Mar 2011

Railjet said:
Why the aggressive tone? It doesn't mean that he can't be moderating at the same time.

I asked a genuinely curious question - other boards allocate moderators to specific forums. It doesn't preclude them from posting on the same forums, but at least you know who is moderating what.

Simple, polite question - that was all.

I think that was the case on here ages back (like in the early years) - i got that impression from old threads on here - I may be wrong though (I'd happily stand corrected)!

I think it can work better on some forums to have staff signed to a particular area, whether its the best for RailUK remains to be seen.

strange6 · 10 Mar 2011

Railjet said:
Why the aggressive tone? It doesn't mean that he can't be moderating at the same time.

I asked a genuinely curious question - other boards allocate moderators to specific forums. It doesn't preclude them from posting on the same forums, but at least you know who is moderating what.

Simple, polite question - that was all.

I don't think Mojo was being aggressive

I certainly don't read it as such

yorkie · 10 Mar 2011

No, he wasn't. Unless constant smileys are used, you can't tell tone from text really. I'm sure we're nearly all 'guilty' of assuming an aggressive tone when there is none present, on some occasions!

strange6 · 10 Mar 2011

yorkie said:
No, he wasn't. Unless constant smileys are used, you can't tell tone from text really. I'm sure we're nearly all 'guilty' of assuming an aggressive tone when there is none present, on some occasions!

I know what you mean my friend! hahaha You wouldn't happen to be refering to accident statistics would you?

LE Greys · 10 Mar 2011

The Barlow Boy said:
Be carefull, you're falling into the PC trap of confusing race with nationality and religion.

Identity can be tricky, can't it.
I usually think that your identity is what you are, your character is who you are, and character is what matters.

Aictos · 10 Mar 2011

Ferret said:
What a lot of froth! Yeah, the sentence was perhaps a tad lenient, given that the rabble rousing twonk Choudhury is going to pay the fines - perhaps a bit of community service would've been more appropriate - but like many have said, all religions have these loons. I wouldn't call for anyone to be deported - I just dismiss them as the idiots they clearly are - anyone has the option to leave a country they do not like and set up elsewhere. If the UK is so bad, then please don't let me stand in your way! Alternatively, if you do wish to stay and behave in an offensive manner such as these people did, don't be entirely surprised to find your picture all over the paper, and lots of people openly deriding you in public and on the internet. It's what you deserve.

Totally agree, in ALL religions you're going to have idiots who kill and cause injury to others simply because of a opposing view of religion - for example let's take the Irish with the Catholics and the Protestants fighting for years against each other etc...

I've yet to read the Koran but as far as I am aware it doesn't encourage mass murder but rather it's the few muslims who get brain washed by Bin Laden and Co who seem to think otherwise.

ainsworth74 · 11 Mar 2011

ajax103 said:
I've yet to read the Koran but as far as I am aware it doesn't encourage mass murder but rather it's the few muslims who get brain washed by Bin Laden and Co who seem to think otherwise.

Much like what can happen with the Bible or the Torah (which I think is the Jewish equivalent not sure on the name). To be honest no one religion is more "evil" than the other as all can be perverted to service the needs of those charismatic individuals with a grudge against others and need an excuse to cause some mayhem and death. Yet for some reason we still have people saying one religion is "better", more "peaceful" or more "right" than any other and those that don't believe must be made to believe or be killed.

I don't get it, really I don't. Why the hell are we killing each other over words written down thousands of years ago by people with an unknown agenda and no known authority on the subject! Seriously what the ****!? Don't we have bigger problems than worrying about what flavour of divine being someone else believes in?

Bah! Religion really gets on my nerves, and with that I bid you all adieu!

jon0844 · 11 Mar 2011

So many things that would have been considered acts of God are things we now know and understand, from earthquakes to thunder and lightning, hurricanes etc.

Thousands of years ago it's quite feasible to believe that there's something making stuff happen. Now we know that's rubbish - yet we still have people who believe.

Greenback · 12 Mar 2011

Indeed, religion was a way of making sense of the world that primitive humans lived in. This was then formalised into religious codes, which, as Ainsworth rightly says, was codified by people who had an agenda, even if we don't know what it was!

I have purposely stayed out of this thread, but for what it's worth, I feel that the pathetic man and his pathetic protest should be ignored, as one of the objectives of such an act is to gain publicity and stir up hatred between different, fairly pointless, beliefs.

Geezertronic · 13 Mar 2011

Amuses me when you get someone religious say that when something good happens - "God has blessed us", and when something bad happens - "God is challenging us to overcome". This God cannot do wrong really

jon0844 · 13 Mar 2011

And in a sporting competition where each side/player prays. Clearly the side/person that loses must be hated by God!!

ainsworth74 · 13 Mar 2011

Sentence disgrace

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member