Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Malachy

  1. There was a picture in the paper not that long ago - I think it was Peter Gear's wedding - with Maurice Henderson leading the folk down the road. Could be wrong(?) And maybe even one more recently than that, but I have no idea who that was. They certainly still happen.
  2. A very good point, Njugle ^^^ This is an incredibly complex issue, but I would always say that society's responsibility is to be humane and to provide a good role model for its own citizens. This is just one of the many reasons why capital punishment is, in all case, wrong. After all, the most effective way to deal with crime is surely to execute all criminals, no matter what the crime. There would certainly be less drink driving. But is that the kind of society we want to live in?
  3. That's what I thought I said there Fjool.
  4. It is one of the problems of a forum like this, that a single piece of poor wording can so easily be misconstrued or blown out of proportion. I apologise whodat if I have offended you, because that was not my intention. Your post was certainly ambiguous, and on re-reading it I don't think my interpretation was unreasonable. However, if that was not what you meant to say then that was not what you meant to say. My point remains though. Someone who suffers abuse can be affected in all kinds of unpredictable and terrible ways. Particularly if that person does not have the benefit of a loving, caring family later in life. If the effect is to make that person angry or violent, which it sometimes, not always, is, then society's response should not simply be to find a suitable punishment for the crime, but to try to deal with the real issue, in order to protect others and to make their life better. I don't believe every sex offender was abused as a child. Human beings are infinitely complex things, and there are a multitude of reasons why it might happen. The point is that it cannot simply be attributed to them being 'bad' or 'evil' people. That is a simplistic and ineffective response. A truly humane society would work much harder at identifying the real causes of crime, whatever they might be, rather than just trying to clear up the mess afterwards. Unfortunately we still don't seem to live in that society. (PS My name is Malachy, please stop using Mr. It sounds very patronising, though I'm sure that's not your intention.)
  5. Yes, and that is the point. Abuse can become the norm, at which point that person cannot be regarded as fully responsible for their actions. Their ability to distinguish right from wrong can be distorted, in which case, that person needs help, not hard labour. whodat said that he assaulted someone in the past. His excuse was that he was drunk. So he gave up drinking. A person who has been abused cannot "give up" the effect of the abuse. Putting them in prison (particularly with the level of brutality being proposed in this thread) just exposes them to more anger and more abuse, and their problems will never end. Society must find a better solution.
  6. The gist of your argument seems to be that we shouldn't protect human rights because lawyers make too much money. I disagree.
  7. There was much wrong with your post, whodat, but that was surely the most offensive comment. In fact, it was possibly the most offensive I have ever seen on Shetlink. You are suggesting that if a child is raped or abused by their parents, and they then go on to physically or mentally abuse their own children, it is because they "enjoyed" being raped!! Not because the abuse has damaged them emotionally, or affected their ability to control anger or express love, but because they enjoyed it. I don't really know how to comment on that. I truly can't understand how someone could think that way. Life must be so simple for you.
  8. Well yes, I did say b******s to that. I think it would take a lot more than two leaders opposing each other for France and Britain to go to war. I can't think of any issue that could bring about such a thing....(...thinking...)....No, I really can't. The countries are just too intertwined with each other now, no matter what some people would like to think. One of the benefits I suppose of the infinite layers of beaurocracy that the EU creates, is that it makes crude acts of hostility almost impossible. It would require, I suppose, the election of a fascist government in one or other country before it could happen. And the first thing a government like that would do would be to leave the EU. As for the Cyprus issue, it is a long and complicated one. But resolution within the EU is much more likely to be peaceful than outside it. And the Balkans too will stabilise, I am sure, as they work towards joining Europe (if that is what they plan to do, and I hope it is). There is so much negative feeling about the EU, but I personally think that the developments going on in some of the new member states, and the would-be members, is hugely positive. A country like Romania is certain to benefit from membership. And with any luck Turkey will need to make huge improvements to its human rights as it works towards membership.
  9. Thank you for that. ^^^^^ At last, someone with some sense.
  10. I think you have misunderstood the word "equality", Styles. Nobody means to say that everyone's bodies are the same, any more than they would say that everyone's eyes are the same colour. Black people, surprisingly enough, have different coloured skin to other people as well! Equality is about having equali rights. But then you don't believe in human rights, so perhaps that is where your confusion is stemming from. If you are having problems coming to terms with the fact that black people are not a completely different species from you, then perhaps that's an issue that you should deal with elsewhere. This is a pointless thread!!
  11. His stuff is fine if you can forget about the sweat shops it came from. If you can buy it for that price here, imagine what the person who made it got paid! "I'll have three days of guilt with that toilet brush holder please Mr Hodge."
  12. If you actually read the Human Rights Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights you will find that it is an excellent document, and one that it would be hard to find serious fault with. It was started just after the war to try and help put an end to the kind of atrocities that had taken place in Europe in the previous decades. And that, which people tend to forget, is the enduring success of the EU. War within the EU is now all but unthinkable. Appealing to "common sense" is nonsensical because everybody's idea of common sense is different. Mine happens to be that protecting human rights should be at the heart of all legislation. Other people think it is common sense that the death penalty should be reintroduced, or that torture works, or that black people should be sent "home". Common sense is not some objective truth that can be appealed to, otherwise the law would be a much simpler thing. It is just your opinion. As to your suggestion that the UK has "always been just and fair", well that just made me laugh out loud (although I would like to point out that the UK is actually a "made up country"). When did "always" begin then? Was it after we stopped burning witches? After we invented concentration camps in South Africa during the Boar War? After we stopped assisting loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and locking up random Catholics without trial? After we helped to train the Taliban? After we stopped allowing people to be "rendered" to other countries to be tortured? (Oh we're still doing that aren't we?) The UK has "always" involved itself in some seriously dodgy business, both abroad and at home. I see little sign that it will stop doing that, but at least the human rights law keeps some check on it and brings it to light where our government might prefer to hide it. In my experience, people who choose to criticise human rights are like those who shout about political correctness and scrapping the EU. You don't have to dig very deep before you find some seriously unpleasant "common sense" views.[/i]
  13. There are several coats of arms becoming confused with each other here. There is the SIC / Shetland coat of arms, pictured above, there is the Lerwick Community Council coat of arms, there is the one you've mentioned Lisa (is that the one on the Anderson High gates?), and there is the Lerwick Town Council (which no longer exists). The LTC coat of arms, though I havenn't got a picture to prove it, is the one with a chough on it. Hence, presumably, the Jarl's chough. (The Jarl's Chough - could be a good name for a book)
  14. Are you suggesting that Tony Blair sticks with the Human Rights convention and creates laws that contravene the rules set down in the bill in order that his wife can sue the government, humiliate them, and get money for those people whose rights have been abused? That seems a bit over-the-top. If the government really did "stick to it like glue" the lawyers wouldn't be making money because nobody's rights would be getting infringed.
  15. Well the UK actually falls foul of human rights legislation more often than many other governments I would say. I think that having an external check on human rights is an excellent thing. The problem with it perhaps is that it is too easy for governments to opt out of particular parts that they don't like. The UK has opted out of the section banning detention without trial. This is something that they have previously got in trouble for - locking up Irish 'terror suspects' - and they have now returned to it for foreign suspects. In the case that is being referred to here, there is of course no guarantee that it will be successful in giving the vote to prisoners. I think that justifying their position, both to the public and to the judges, is a useful test for the government.
  16. ^^^^^ If you're suggesting that the red legs and beak of the Jarl's bird are the result of snaffling cow's offal I think that is perhaps a little far-fetched!
  17. I knew the Irish story. I didn't know there was a Shetland version. Where does that come from then? Or is it 'originless'?
  18. This is when we need the experts. Or we could just make up the story instead....Perhaps, amid the geographical confusion that caused a chough to be emblazened on the Jarl's shield instead of a raven, someone suggested they also put the red hand of Ulster on a flag above the galley, because the Vikings were, after all, hardline Unionists. Ian Paisley was the guizer jarl in 1949!
  19. What red hand is this you're referring to?
  20. These are obviously not on the subject of this thread - just an interesting aside. http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/archives/pages/news%20stories/2004/2004%2001%20january/no%5Fconflict%5Fof%5Finterest%5Fsays%5Fstove.htm http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/archives/pages/news%20stories/2005/december%202005/former%5Fsic%5Fconvener%5Fsuspended.htm In addition, Mr Stove was also financially involved with the infamous Shetland Weekly. Perhaps he was hoping to get a better press from them, but it was not to be. I wouldn't like to speculate on whether these are isolated incidents.
  21. Sorry Trout, I don't think I've ever seen such a sentence used without a heavy dose of irony, sarcasm or with tongue firmly in cheek before! This is a man who.....hmmm I probably shouldn't end that sentence or else I might get in trouble. I will just say that I disagree somewhat with your sentiment.
  22. Or, I suppose, it may have been used on the Lerwick council coat of arms as a symbol rather than an accurate portrayal of local ornithology. Apparently choughs represent "Strategist in battle, watchful for friends, divine providence." However, I'd still like to think it was one huge mistake. http://www.shetlopedia.com/images/thumb/9/9c/Jarlgalley.jpg/180px-Jarlgalley.jpg http://birdcheck.co.uk/main/images/previews/preview58.jpg http://www.m-w.com/mw/art/raven.gif Raven Just to show the difference...
  23. That is possible, though there are no confirmed records. But since the jarl's shield is a fairly new creation it is more likely that someone just drew the wrong bird - thinking they had portrayed a raven, or perhaps just gave it a red beak and legs to make it look more exciting?
  24. I looked into this (well actually I asked some folk who know about birds) and the bird on the SIC coat of arms is definitely a raven. However, there was apparently a chough on the old Lerwick Town Council coat of arms, and for some reason the chough (or a cartoonish version of one) is also on the Lerwick Guizer Jarl's shield every year! A bird that has nothing to do with Shetland! I wonder who was responsible for that blunder?
  • Create New...