Chris Huhne... going soon?

[turbobloke]

AnonSpoilSport said:

300,001.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Undermining is a process by which a wall (for instance) can be made to collapse or to bypass it (so in effect it's no longer there). There's no point otherwise.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Undermining is a process by which a wall (for instance) can be made to collapse or to bypass it (so in effect it's no longer there). There's no point otherwise.

Can, but may not. That's a poor analogy. Undermining the justice system occurs when miscarriages of justice take place e.g. innocent persons convicted (V Pryce) and scheming connivers pervert justice and try to escape its consequences (C Huhne). No collapse is needed. Nothing is 'brought down'.

[Zod]

Ooohh, that's a difficult one!

Every speeding conviction avoided through points-swapping is just that: a speeding conviction that, according to the law (that's the law as it is, not as we might want it to be) should have resulted in points on a driver's licence that, instead results in points going to another person's (the wong person's) licence.

In most cases, that a person avoided points on his licence will make no difference to the rest of us. In a few cases, it might result in somebody who needs a ban to make him rethink his driving causing death or serious injury to himself or others.

There is a reason we have speed limits. This being PH, most of us have views as to whether speed limits generally or on particular roads should be higher, but alost nobody believes there should be none at all. If people are allowed to swap points with impunity, we might as well not have speed limits.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Undermining is a process by which a wall (for instance) can be made to collapse or to bypass it (so in effect it's no longer there). There's no point otherwise.

Can, but may not. That's a poor analogy. Undermining the justice system occurs when miscarriages of justice take place e.g. innocent persons convicted (V Pryce). No collapse is needed. Nothing is 'brought down'.

It's not an analogy, it's a word that has specific meanings. You can look it up in dictionaries and books on ancient warcraft. And Ms Pryce was not innocent.

[jmorgan]

singlecoil said:

jmorgan said:

Well, I did ask earlier and you did answer but I was not using the situation to bolster my point. If you are using it thus then I expect some details, not anecdotal. I genuinely do not know either way so was not postulating it was the reverse.

How many provable instances would you need in order to accept that the practice is widespread and commonplace?

Dunno. What is the norm for anecdotal? Like I said, I don't know either way. You have information you can back up or you do not. Problem with stats and polls is they can be manipulated and twisted as much as they can be a reasonable representation. Concrete evidence is something else.

Either way this is a side issue. He got busted and is a whining ninny over it.

[singlecoil]

jmorgan said:

Either way this is a side issue.

I agree

[Murph7355]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're "proving" the undermining of the system yourself (assuming your figures are kosher/belief is correct).

If swapping points is/was/maybe widespread then it's because the particular law has been undermined by people perverting the course of justice.

If those who are caught doing this are severely punished, leading to a drop in the practice, then the severe punishment meted out has done its job.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Undermining is a process by which a wall (for instance) can be made to collapse or to bypass it (so in effect it's no longer there). There's no point otherwise.

Can, but may not. That's a poor analogy. Undermining the justice system occurs when miscarriages of justice take place e.g. innocent persons convicted (V Pryce). No collapse is needed. Nothing is 'brought down'.

It's not an analogy, it's a word that has specific meanings. You can look it up in dictionaries and books on ancient warcraft. And Ms Pryce was not innocent.

Together all the words made for a weak analogy.

I was referring to a speeding offence, were you referring to something more serious such PtCoJ?

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is hardly surprising since the people using the term 'bring down' mostly include you and singlecoil.

Others talk of undermining the justice system, or use words that mean similar, which has no connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Undermining is a process by which a wall (for instance) can be made to collapse or to bypass it (so in effect it's no longer there). There's no point otherwise.

Can, but may not. That's a poor analogy. Undermining the justice system occurs when miscarriages of justice take place e.g. innocent persons convicted (V Pryce). No collapse is needed. Nothing is 'brought down'.

It's not an analogy, it's a word that has specific meanings. You can look it up in dictionaries and books on ancient warcraft. And Ms Pryce was not innocent.

Together the word or words made for a weak analogy.

I was referring to a speeding offence, were you referring to something more serious such PtCoJ?

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Not so, you were showing that undermining may lead, but does not necessarily lead, to collapse / ceasing to operate. You did a good job.

As such, any undermining through miscarriages of justice remains serious, without any collapse or 'bringing down' of the justice system involved.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Not so, you were showing that undermining may lead, but does not necessarily lead, to collapse / ceasing to operate. You did a good job.

As such, any undermining through miscarriages of justice remains serious, without any collapse or 'bringing down' of the justice system involved.

I was undermining your attempt to turn this discussion into one about the meaning of the word 'undermine'. Fortunately the word 'undermine' is defined, as mentioned earlier, in dictionaries and books on warcraft. Now, even if you think it means something different to those definitions, that's ok because all I need to do is to demonstrate, as I have, that the word can be used correctly to describe a process which leads to the collapse of the thing that is being undermined.

Perhaps the time has come to return to the main theme, or would you like to continue on this diversion?

I'm guessing it will be the latter

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Not so, you were showing that undermining may lead, but does not necessarily lead, to collapse / ceasing to operate. You did a good job.

As such, any undermining through miscarriages of justice remains serious, without any collapse or 'bringing down' of the justice system involved.

I was undermining your attempt to turn this discussion into one about the meaning of the word 'undermine'.

As in, perverting the course of the thread.

Again.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

As in, perverting the course of the thread.

Again.

So I'm guessing we can return to the topic now?

[AnonSpoilSport]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Not so, you were showing that undermining may lead, but does not necessarily lead, to collapse / ceasing to operate. You did a good job.

As such, any undermining through miscarriages of justice remains serious, without any collapse or 'bringing down' of the justice system involved.

I was undermining your attempt to turn this discussion into one about the meaning of the word 'undermine'.

As in, perverting the course of the thread.

Again.

Is there a sentence for that?

And would it be more severe than the original post seemed to warrant?

[Leithen]

AnonSpoilSport said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

All I was doing was showing you that the word undermining does indeed carry connotations of collapse / ceasing to operate.

Not so, you were showing that undermining may lead, but does not necessarily lead, to collapse / ceasing to operate. You did a good job.

As such, any undermining through miscarriages of justice remains serious, without any collapse or 'bringing down' of the justice system involved.

I was undermining your attempt to turn this discussion into one about the meaning of the word 'undermine'.

As in, perverting the course of the thread.

Again.

Is there a sentence for that?

And would it be more severe than the original post seemed to warrant?

Only if you denied the meaning of the original post in several subsequent posts and possibly across multiple threads....

[AnonSpoilSport]

And cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands to prove you were in the wrong, as you steadfastly denied it?

At the same time as telling everyone else on PH how to live...

I think I'm spotting something here!

[will_]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What evidence would you like? Surely the fact that the innocent are being punished and the guilty are not is evidence enough that the very basis of the criminal justice system is being, for want of a better word, "perverted"?

You are welcome to the view that such an issue is not serious. However as explained above, the criminal justice system represents the maximum impact the state can have on an individuals life. That is why it is serious that it is, as far as possible, strengthened by seeking to ensure that justice is properly served, and those that seek to avoid justice being properly served ought to be disincentivised from doing so.

[turbobloke]

As indicated several times the 'bring down' thing is essentially a rhetorical device. It's used because it won't happen (collapse, ceasing to operate) while providing something to argue against which sounds convincing but doesn't exist and wasn't implied by others. As such it's also a misrepresentation. Arguing their weak case would be even more difficult for its users if it wasn't used, which is why it's used repeatedly.