animalmagic

2 hours ago, pmarlin said:

By the way that officer took an oath to obey the president.

From Wikipedia - 

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

Reposted this as my original included a quote contained in a post by pmarlin in a  Chomperhiggott post.  For some reason the original quote was wrongly attributed to Chomperhiggott.

Apologies for any confusion.

4 hours ago, colinneil said:

OP asks, why is the policeman smiling?.... Answer because he is a sicko.

Same as a few members on here they get some kind of kick about dead people.

He's just got a sense of humour and a reasonable imagination. 

He has just met some hysterically frightened hotel staff who think there is a dead body in the room but he can see it is only sheets and towels.  Pure Fawlty Towers with the Kipper and the Corpse!

48 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Imagine a world without another depraved leader...

Quite a few still out there!

14 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How high is the chance that she will ever go to jail for this even if she is guilty? Maybe 1% or less?

 

But if the USA wants Julian Assange then the UK jumps...

 

Completely agree that it is unlikely she would be sentenced to imprisonment.  Momentary inattention with no aggravating factors.  Mitigating factors of unfamiliar road system and usage, and possibly dealing with kids in car.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/

The offence would not be classified as Dangerous Driving under UK Law.

Big question is why on earth run away, and why are USA so keen for her to stay and not follow normal judicial process?

Is she Trump's nanny?

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

More pressure on the ChiComs can only be a good thing. 

I'm not actually convinced they can still be classified as Communist.

Even worse, I'm not sure they react well under pressure.

10 hours ago, Traubert said:

See that phrase 'ultimate aim?'

 

Where's the date? Who appoints the Chief Exective? Is this orderly progress? Smashing up the Legislature?

As I actually posted the excerpt I obviously did see the phrase you mention.  No idea why you are being so aggressive in your post as mine was simply providing information for others to read and make up their own minds on the current situation; I did not state a point of view either way on the current situation.  Is freedom of thought or speech a problem for you?

I do not agree with the levels of violence shown by either side; it is counterproductive to any solution.  The Govt has shown remarkable ineptitude on the whole and has yet to offer a solution to the situation, they simply sit back and let the police try win a political war through street battles.

Where is the date? - There is no date but there is a requirement to show progress.  The Occupy Central movement of 2014 was in response to a denial of universal suffrage.

Who appoints the C.E.? - Central People's Government.  But please note the phrase 'The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.   (please note that I used the phrase 'please note' rather than 'see that phrase')

Is this orderly progress? - No it isn't.  But I might suggest that the demonstrators are annoyed at no progress.

Smashing up the legislature? - This is not really a question, but as I said earlier, I do not agree with violence.

These demonstrations started in response to a Govt move to introduce an Extradition Bill. 

I have a couple of questions for you -

Since when can a Chinese city create its own Laws on Extradition?  Even though HK has some difference to other Chinese cities it must still rely on the CPG for Foreign Policy.

Since when does China approve any country to have dealings with Taiwan, let alone allow its own cities to create international treaties on extradition?

2 hours ago, Traubert said:

This may come as something of a surprise but if you take a step back you would see that its the street thugs that want to re-write the Basic Law not Beijing.  So who is destroying Hong Kong as we know it?

Article 45
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

40 minutes ago, morocco said:

It's about time to get the baht under control. There are a lot of other countries whose currency is not over bloated which makes them cheaper and more attractive to holiday in. 

I agree with you and am genuinely seeking knowledge, why is the baht so strong at the moment?

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The Chinese called the book of Atheism the 'Little red book'

Stalin called his priests of atheism  'commissars'

 

Back on topic, stabbings in Paris, stabbings in Manchester,

Islam does seem to be a religion the west would be better without.

Or perhaps the world would be better without religion?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. If it doesn't have priests/imams/etc it's not a religion.

Wikipedia disagrees -

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacred things, faith, a supernatural being or supernatural beings or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life". Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration …

Collins English Dictionary disagrees - 

Religion is belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief, such as praying or worshipping in a building such as a church or temple.

From the above definitions, and several others that I can't be bothered to quote, it would seem that priests/imams/etc are not necessary for a belief system to be defined as religion.

Perhaps now we can say that if a belief system HAS priests/imams/etc it is NOT a religion?

9 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Even for a man who has executed one of the most miserable and divisive foreign policies in memory, this decision is the biggest mistake he has ever made. Throwing an ally under the bus, after they have sacrificed 11,000 of their own people? We had only a few hundred special advisors left in Syria. It was costing less than a single trip to Mar a Lago to support this. 

 

Just another in a series of blunders this man of mediocrity has made. His lack of compassion and decency is mind boggling, even for him. 

Don't be silly.  He can only dream of being mediocre!

An interesting political and legal minefield.  Various bodies of legal expertise will advise that the Emergency Regulations Ordinance is superseded by any legislation that contradicts it.  The HK Bill of Rights Ordinance explicitly states that it overrules any previous legislation that contradicts it; and the HK Basic Law says that only the Legislative Council may make laws in the SAR which then takes away the power of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to do so.

To contend it is only Subsidiary Legislation, and therefore can be passed without the full legislative process, is also quite strange as the Bill of Rights and Basic Law have taken away the power of the Primary Legislation itself and the 'Facemask' Ordinance is subsidiary to nothing!

The deterrent effect is a little overblown as I can see there are laws to prohibit possession of firearms and offensive weapons which have not exactly deterred armed robbery or serious woundings.  

I am looking forward to seeing lines of 5 year-olds waiting outside court after trick or treat.

10 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Only if you forget the likes of Chairman Mao and Josef Stalin.

Quite true re Mao.  But Stalin was raised as Greek Orthodox and spent 5 years in a seminary.  I didn't say atheists were perfect; simply trying to highlight the atrocities committed in the name of religion.  Your two quoted characters didn't seem to commit murder and abuse on an industrial scale in the name of religion but politics and power.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

There isn't a book of Atheism so it can't be a religion. Religions are all about controlling the masses. Does atheism have priests controlling the followers of atheism?

Nice try but no cigar.

The Books of the Bible were decided upon a few hundred years after Christ's life; several books/gospels have since been discovered that were not included.  

Why does Atheism need priests/imams/etc to control its followers when they do not commit the crimes in the name of their religion that we are discussing here .

Lighting my cigar now!

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The cool reception from Brussels to Johnson’s proposal indicates just how far apart the two sides are on the first departure of a sovereign state from the EU project, which was forged from Europe’s ruins after World War Two.

A tad melodramatic, forged from the ruins of WWII!  The ruins would have been pretty cold in 1993 when the EU was formed; and not exactly furnace hot in 1957 when the EEC was first formed.

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Thank you for putting up this video. The same video is on the BBC website, but the BBC video has much longer footage.

Okay, watch the above video footage. The bit before the police officer fires the bullet, you will notice a few demonstrators/rioters beating a person. That person is on the floor, and you can just about see, the person is a police officer in riot gear. So, this was a fight, a few demonstrators/rioters are attacking a police officer, the police officer is on the floor, and a rioter moves towards the officer who fired the shot.

The rioters were beating the officer on the floor, before the officer with the gun fired.

You're welcome, here is even longer footage of the event.  Gives a little more perspective on run up to the shooting.  I have my own opinion on the sequence of events and the circumstances that led to it based on personal knowledge and experience.  Feel free to make up your own minds and draw conclusions

11 hours ago, PJPom said:

I agree that they should be allowed to protest but if I was a Police Officer and you were about to engulf me and my fellow Officers in burning petrol I would shoot you without a second thought 

From the HK local news feeds.  From other videos the petrol bomb was thrown later and by someone else.