Poll: 'Stop The Olympic Missiles' and you...

[Hazy992]

A target for what exactly? An assault on a heavily-guarded surface to air missile?

Well if you were planning an attack then it would be in your best interest to get rid of those missiles first. It's really not difficult to see why they'd be a target.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.
They don't own the house, so it's not their decision to make, really. Life's unfair, and some people have to lose out to add security for thousands more.

Well you know what that's a frankly terrible attitude to have. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail or hear on Fox News.

You're basically saying that if the government helps them out they don't get a voice. That's not an attitude that should be a part of a democracy.

Slightly different, as that would be going back on the promise of giving them support. That'd be equivalent to kicking them out of the house because it was in a strategic location, which they don't appear to have done.

So you'd be OK with forcible evictions too now?

It's more to to make sure more people are happy than unhappy. It's difficult to tell on this issue, but I imagine guarding the Olympics with missiles makes more people happy than it makes unhappy.

I already said I don't really have a problem with the missiles

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

But they shouldn't be forced on people who have explicitly said they don't want them and have not actually been given a say in the matter. Put them somewhere else or at the very least ask if they'd be OK with that

I think having 450 tons of Boeing unexpectedly inserted into your face whilst watching some chaps run just because some NIMBY was whining is rather more unfair

This is more than simple NIMBYism, these aren't windfarms we're talking about here but while we're on the topic of windfarms you know what the government does they want them built? They have a public consultation, as in they ask first. It's part of being a democracy.

 

[Hazy992]

Let make this point as simple as I can for the hard of thinking

Probably not a good idea to start your arguments with insults but go on ¬_¬

1. Because a few whinny stupid loud-mouths go to court who live in building mean everyone who lives there does.

And because a few didn't that means they're all cool with it amirite? Why was there no consultation process

2. Even the if was 100% of the poeple the who live there do I DON'T CARE BECAUSE REDUCING THE RISK THAT 60000 PEOPLE GET KILLED IS MORE IMPORTANT. The world does not revolve around wishes of one tower block in east London, there are plenty of things that I don't like or don't want near me but I live with them because it FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH I LIVE.

How can I put this eloquently? THIS IS NOT THE GODDAMN DPRK! You do NOT force this on people in a democracy you consult with them first.

In other words if they don't like it stand for mayor of London on a no missiles on my roof top and bugger the risk anyone else and see what happens. Something along the lines of they get 200 votes versus the millions cast for Labour or Conservative.

That's a great attitude to have; 'we can dick you over and if you don't like it just become mayor!'

Get a little perspective

 

[bobmus]

A target for what exactly? An assault on a heavily-guarded surface to air missile?

Well if you were planning an attack then it would be in your best interest to get rid of those missiles first. It's really not difficult to see why they'd be a target.
Yeah, but that's implying a much larger operation than we're likely to expect - they're not going to take over multiple military missile bases just to crashland a plane.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.
They don't own the house, so it's not their decision to make, really. Life's unfair, and some people have to lose out to add security for thousands more.

Well you know what that's a frankly terrible attitude to have. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail or hear on Fox News.

You're basically saying that if the government helps them out they don't get a voice. That's not an attitude that should be a part of a democracy.
Let's not make things too personal. D:
I've had far too many ethics classes/exams to get emotionally invested in an ethical problem. For me, the utilitarian good of defending the thousands is enough cause for some people to lose out here.

Slightly different, as that would be going back on the promise of giving them support. That'd be equivalent to kicking them out of the house because it was in a strategic location, which they don't appear to have done.

So you'd be OK with forcible evictions too now?
No, that was a comparative example to your 'so we can take away their food now' example.

It's more to to make sure more people are happy than unhappy. It's difficult to tell on this issue, but I imagine guarding the Olympics with missiles makes more people happy than it makes unhappy.

I already said I don't really have a problem with the missiles.
But they shouldn't be forced on people who have explicitly said they don't want them and have not actually been given a say in the matter. Put them somewhere else or at the very least ask if they'd be OK with that

Assuming that there are no other more suitable locations, this is our best bet I'd say. Though, as I already said, we could've had more openness about it, and perhaps a poll on the matter.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

..Lol.


Well they take security seriously I suppose ;p

 

[Hazy992]

Yeah, but that's implying a much larger operation than we're likely to expect - they're not going to take over multiple military missile bases just to crashland a plane.

They may still try it though. And it's going to be an easier target than the others because it's in a civilian area.

Let's not make things too personal. D:
I've had far too many ethics classes/exams to get emotionally invested in an ethical problem. For me, the utilitarian good of defending the thousands is enough cause for some people to lose out here.

It wasn't really much to do with you taking a utilitarian stance it was more with not having a problem taking away these people's rights. Sorry if I offended you but doing something like that doesn't sit right with me.

No, that was a comparative example to your 'so we can take away their food now' example.

Fair enough

Assuming that there are no other more suitable locations, this is our best bet I'd say. Though, as I already said, we could've had more openness about it, and perhaps a poll on the matter.

I'd have absolutely no problem with it if they'd had a vote on it or something because it's up to them. It's the fact that their opinions are being ignored I have a problem with.

And considering the size of London there must be somewhere a little more suitable?

 

[Hazy992]

..Lol.


Well they take security seriously I suppose ;p

'They'? Last time I checked Wales is part of the UK

 

[bobmus]

Yeah, but that's implying a much larger operation than we're likely to expect - they're not going to take over multiple military missile bases just to crashland a plane.

They may still try it though. And it's going to be an easier target than the others because it's in a civilian area.Perhaps, but that's not really the thing to worry about when living in that area during the Olympics.

Let's not make things too personal. D:
I've had far too many ethics classes/exams to get emotionally invested in an ethical problem. For me, the utilitarian good of defending the thousands is enough cause for some people to lose out here.

It wasn't really much to do with you taking a utilitarian stance it was more with not having a problem taking away these people's rights. Sorry if I offended you but doing something like that doesn't sit right with me.
I'd have a problem with them taking away people's rights.
I just don't think people have a right to the rooftop of a block of flats they don't pay anything to live in. (I believe this would be a stance echoed in the property laws of the UK as well.)
I get why that might be an opinion you disagree with though.

Assuming that there are no other more suitable locations, this is our best bet I'd say. Though, as I already said, we could've had more openness about it, and perhaps a poll on the matter.

I'd have absolutely no problem with it if they'd had a vote on it or something because it's up to them. It's the fact that their opinions are being ignored I have a problem with.

And considering the size of London there must be somewhere a little more suitable?

Unfortunately, sometimes people's wishes can't always be met. In fact, it's an essential part of living in a democracy - people who vote for the losing candidate don't get what they wanted.
But we're agreed that a poll would've been nice.

It might just be me being optimistic, but if they've chosen to put missiles on top of civilian flats, they probably have a damn good reason for it.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Regardless on where it should be located, shouldn't they conceal the missle launcher better?

 

[Sean Hollyman]

..Lol.


Well they take security seriously I suppose ;p

'They'? Last time I checked Wales is part of the UK

Mmmmyeah I guess.

London is quite different from Wales though, less shit going on.

 

[Hazy992]

Perhaps, but that's not really the thing to worry about when living in that area during the Olympics.

Well personally it's something I'd be worried about if I lived there

I just don't think people have a right to the rooftop of a block of flats they don't pay anything to live in. (I believe this would be a stance echoed in the property laws of the UK as well.)
I get why that might be an opinion you disagree with though.

Well I think they should still have a say because it's still their home but let's just agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, sometimes people's wishes can't always be met. In fact, it's an essential part of living in a democracy - people who vote for the losing candidate don't get what they wanted.
But we're agreed that a poll would've been nice.

Oh yeah I understand that, and like I said if they had a vote and more people were in favour then against I'd have no issue. It's the fact that there was no vote or consultation first.

It might just be me being optimistic, but if they've chosen to put missiles on top of civilian flats, they probably have a damn good reason for it.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I still think it's important to listen to the wishes of the people affected when making a decision like that

 

[bobmus]

It might just be me being optimistic, but if they've chosen to put missiles on top of civilian flats, they probably have a damn good reason for it.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but I still think it's important to listen to the wishes of the people affected when making a decision like that

I agree that they should be taken into account, but I don't believe that necessarily means this project can't go ahead despite some disagreements.

But, as you said, let's simply agree to disagree! Nice debating with you bro

 

[Hazy992]

But, as you said, let's simply agree to disagree! Nice debating with you bro

Yeah you too

How can I put this eloquently, you need to learn how things work. It is the job of government to impose some things on people and they have the authority given to them, BY US, to do so.

If they're able to ignore people's rights like that then the system is broken

 

[MetalMagpie]

And they say fanboys in gaming are bad, you guys are cracking down on Olympics with the god damn army? Wow... it must really be getting competitive out there.

I'm not even sure now if you are for real.

Two previous Olympic Games have suffered terrorist attacks. Most previous Olympic Games have had some involvement of the local armed forces to guard against such problems.

Is missiles on blocks of flats a bit much? I don't know. I'm not the head of the Secret Intelligence Service. I have no idea what the current "threat level" is thought to be.

 

[Hazy992]

But, as you said, let's simply agree to disagree! Nice debating with you bro

Yeah you too

How can I put this eloquently, you need to learn how things work. It is the job of government to impose some things on people and they have the authority given to them, BY US, to do so.

If they're able to ignore people's rights like that then the system is broken

Please be specific. Excactly which right set out in which law is being violated?

I was under the impression that the government had to do public consultations for things like this?

 

[Leftnt Sharpe]

My reaction upon hearing this: "Lol, Londoners". Then I got on with my life.

They should bring some of the ex-Provo lads in as consultants, they could test the defences, poacher to catch a poacher and all that.

 

[Hazy992]

But, as you said, let's simply agree to disagree! Nice debating with you bro

Yeah you too

How can I put this eloquently, you need to learn how things work. It is the job of government to impose some things on people and they have the authority given to them, BY US, to do so.

If they're able to ignore people's rights like that then the system is broken

Please be specific. Excactly which right set out in which law is being violated?

I was under the impression that the government had to do public consultations for things like this?

See that's the thing, people assume something is a right or a law when often it isn't. While I'm not an expert on British/Welsh law, it would seem that the last thing you would want to do is have public consultation on where you put your military or police assets so I really doubt that's a law unless you can point me at one. (You may CHOOSE to consult when its something like "which town should I put this air base in" but that doesn't mean you HAVE to or always will do it/listen)

A few people in this thread have also mentioned that those flats are government property. If true, that reduces the need to consult even further.

I would have thought that their being put in a civilian area on top of residencies meant that the people should have a say. They're not sticking them in a field somewhere