Operation Spanner, S&M and ritual abuse

[chequita guevara]

boink

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney
the problem that people have with them is that their 'alternative lifestyle' involves a lot of thieving, robbing, that is to say, stealing and nicking of everything that isn't nailed down, and having a damn good go at anything that is.

That's the sort of blanket stereotype that breeds climates that kicked off Spanner and the Beanfield. I have friends in those communities, one of whom watched her home get wrecked at the Beanfield by the police simply because it was a bus. Personally speaking, I'd trust her with my kids and money.

[*End Is Forever*]

No-one is condoning that behaviour, Laz... but presumably the only way to shake off those stereotypes is to deal with the minority that conform to them?

[C0ckney]

i don't doubt that there are decent law-abiding people in those communities, i've just yet to meet one.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
No-one is condoning that behaviour, Laz... but presumably the only way to shake off those stereotypes is to deal with the minority that conform to them?

No, Iain. The way to shake off this stereotype, just like any other stereotype, is to stand up and say "I don't believe this crap".

Target the group for special police attention, and you'll just feed the stereotype. They're just people.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I never understood the campaign against travellers, or as they are known in the US, ****ing hippies. Sure, I wouldn't invite one into my home again, but as long as they're just driving around leaving me alone, what do I care?

There's a story there just begging to come out.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by st_swithin
I never thought Fight Club was even remotely gay. I just thought it was really, really funny.

Yes, I've been told NUMEROUS times that it's not supposed to be funny, but it is to me. The first time I saw it in a theatre, I was asked to leave for laughing too loud. Instead of leaving, I slept through the middle hour of the movie, but I did catch the last 20 min. or so.

I borrowed it from a friend recently, and it was even funnier than I remembered. I still missed the last half-hour or so, but that's just the ADD talking.

Sikander: I'm really glad you're not that sorry, because I would never ignore anyone's posts, no matter how much I disagree; I'm posting too, and I KNOW some of the stuff I say is EXTREMELY offensive. Not that I give a sh*t, mind you.

Zylka: Uh, no. I could kick both their asses, so I think I could do better.

I completely agree that Fight Club is hilarious. I think most people would find it humorous, or at least understand that it was trying to be funny even if they personally didn't appreciate the humor. I was in pain from laughing so hard, and had to rewind the film a couple of times so my GF could hear the next line. I've seen Fight Club 4 times so far, and am taking a break until someone I know who hasn't seen the film happens by the house again.

What surprised me was that it was also very insightful psychologically and excellent in its portrayal of the throw away kids of my generation as adults. Whether this portrayal manages to serve as a means of understanding these people for people who haven't been one or known one well, or whether the movie is merely capable of serving as a sort of nostalgia inducer for those who lived it I don't know. I'm just glad they made it, and did such a damned good job in almost every detail.

[st_swithin]

I wonder if your almost is the same as my almost...

Did you read the book?

If yes, was it the casting?

For me, none of the characters looked or sounded the way I thought they would, even though they were mouthing all the words correctly. Other than that, I thought it was a pretty decent movie meself.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by st_swithin
I wonder if your almost is the same as my almost...

Did you read the book?

If yes, was it the casting?

For me, none of the characters looked or sounded the way I thought they would, even though they were mouthing all the words correctly. Other than that, I thought it was a pretty decent movie meself.

I haven't read the book. A friend of mine has it, but he lives in LA, and I keep forgetting to "borrow" it when I visit. I'm glad that I didn't read the book first though, that usually makes the film a dissappointment.

[*End Is Forever*]

Target the group for special police attention, and you'll just feed the stereotype. They're just people.

...but if anyone tries to approach the genuine criminals within those groups (and they exist, as a minority, as they do within any group of people!) people scream "victimisation" and the whole thing degenerates further. People are people, and yes, of course no-one should be blacklisted or treated differently simply because they choose to live in a caravan, or a bus, or whatever, but at the same time criminals are criminals.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

The ECJ proceedings were unbelievable. Judge Pettiti came out with the following-

"The dangers of unrestrained permissiveness, which can lead to debauchery, paedophilia or the torture of others, were highlighted at the Stockholm World Conference. The protection of private life means the protection of a person's intimacy and dignity, not the protection of his baseness or the promotion of criminal immoralism."

Well that's one judge running his mouth to the potty ina concurring opinion, though giving a different "reasoning" (well a braindead rant, actually). Overall, however, the ECHR judgment was based on a reasoning that I have no problem with:

43. The Court considers that one of the roles which the State is unquestionably entitled to undertake is to seek to regulate, through the operation of the criminal law, activities which involve the infliction of physical harm. This is so whether the activities in
question occur in the course of sexual conduct or otherwise.

44. The determination of the level of harm that should be tolerated by the law in situations where the victim consents is in the first instance a matter for the State concerned since what is at stake is related, on the one hand, to public health considerations and to the
general deterrent effect of the criminal law, and, on the other, to the personal autonomy of the individual.
...

45. ... It is evident from the facts established by the national courts that the applicants' sado-masochistic activities involved a significant degree of injury or
wounding which could not be characterised as trifling or transient. ...

My personal opinion is it's their business, but from the legal perspective the judgment was perfectly in order.