Comments:UK City Councillor suspended from party after expressing controversial views

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

The only thing I disagree with him on is the decriminalization of drink-driving. Unless, of course, he means to treat a drunk driver just like someone not under the influence. In which case, I'm 100% behind this guy, and I wish we had more folks like him over here in the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.195.170.123 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to hope that he means moving drink-driving to a civil offence as opposed to making it cease to be an offence at all. The issue with it being a criminal offence is that there are many, many occupations in which you will automatically lose your job or be barred from seeking a position because you have a criminal prosecution. On the flip-side I would have no problem with "being twice the legal limit" getting rolled into another criminal offence such as "dangerous driving". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian, he does mean the complete legalisation of drink driving. As as libertarian (which he is, although in a non libertarian party) he believes in personal responsibility. --A101 - (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

143.195.170.123, I agree with you completely, except for one thing - I think that people should be able to use their own mind on deciding when it's safe to drive not the government. (By the way I have never drunk any alcohol) --A101 - (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He gets suspended for saying stuff like this? This...this is child's play. I mean, I can understand racial slurs and the like, but this? Fephisto - (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most places treat drunk driving as more serious than causing the same hazards while not drunk because (a) drunks often don't realize that they're creating a hazard, i.e. the laws are a show making them realize that they are dangerous, and (b) it gives police grounds to remove them from the road immediately. Nyarlathotep - (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tired people may not concentrate on driving. Does that mean police should go round to cars and measure your alertness. --A101 - (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they would if there was a practical way to do so. For truck drivers they make them keep logs of their driving to make sure that they get enough rest. How well this works is another question altogether. --SVTCobra 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Cheers!

I don't much care about drugs and prostitution. If pushed I would prefer it all legal and safe(er) rather than on the streets and in the back alleys; but sir... whoever you are... if you will give me a handgun to use in sport and to defend my home with then you have my vote!!! And I don't care who calls me a right-wing jingo gun nut. Shane.Bell - (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not a "a right-wing jingo gun nut" because you want the freedom to own a gun. --A101 - (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Webb also advocated the decriminalization of drink-driving and the legalization of prostitution. CompuHacker - (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No.

In other words he advocated freedom and personal responsibility. What's wrong with that.--A101 - (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything wrong with someone stating their opinions, in fact it's way healthier so as to prompt discussions like this. And I can see where the libertarian POV comes from, however I like living in a society that protects people from unreasonable danger from others. Prostitution? Fine - usually both parties have made the choice to be there and usually no one is being harmed unwillingly. Drunk driving? I'm not OK with, as it involves one person's actions putting others at unreasonable risk of harm/death without the others having any say in it. Drunk driving isn't just a matter of personal responsibility, as I believe you were implying A101, it's also taking the responsibility of others' well-being into your hands. Wikidsoup - (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to suffer from an accident involved in drink driving don't drive and only cross roads when there is no car anywhere near. (By the way I don't drink alcohol and never have) --A101 - (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Only crossing roads "when there is no car anywhere near" is not practical for many urban dwellers. We've got to have practical solutions, don't you think? Wikidsoup - (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it really matters that much to someone they can move out of an urban area A101 - (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it really matters that much to a lot of people. Let me approach this from another angle: *if* the majority of people in a city thought that drunk driving should be punishable by law, do you think that makes it right to have it punishable by law? Wikidsoup - (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly A101 - (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heroin + Handguns

I think this guy is under the influence of something. People should have the choice of what they put in their body to an extent, however some of these substances then impair judgement. Making them a threat to other people's right to not be shot by some doped up addict trying to jack a few bucks to get the next score. Some things, like drugs, that limit and impair one's abilities to think rationally should be controlled as it leads in many cases the disruption and interference with other people's individual's rights to live a peaceful life.

I'm sure many of these people advocating what this person is saying would change their mind once their uncle/aunt/brother/mother/father/loved one gets shot by some drunk driving lunatic all hopped up on heroin.

So right. This guy advocates legalising all drugs. Surely he doesn't realise that if drugs were widely and legally bandied about the lives of how many people he could ruin? How crime would soar from people under the influence of crack cocaine, heroin, LSD and Crystal Meth? How hospitals would be put under even more pressure than they are already? How young people's minds and bodies would be pushed to the brink as they were constantly high from dangerous substances? I suggest that he is either uneducated, a complete anarchist or a terrorist trying to destroy the country from the inside! Harris Morgan - (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

As a Libertarian, Webb only supports the use of a hand gun is self defence. If his ideas became a reality, killing someone for no reason would still be a crime. He is not a anarchist, he is a Libertarian. They are different.--A101 - (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people are dumb and will make the wrong choice if given the chance, bringing loss of life and grief upon perfectly innocent individuals.

You underestimate the population. --A101 - (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In theory it sounds great giving people the right to choose but the fact that a person needs a gun to defend themselves against someone else itselfs tells you that some people make the wrong decision. Arming people will only increase the amount of blood shed. I think your statement about underestimating the population is the most naive thing I have heard in years. There are people out there that will make the wrong decisions in life. People that work hard and maintain society should not have to live their life under threat, fear, or potentially something worse. Heroin + Handguns = Bad Idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Concealed carry in America led to a marked reduction in rates of violent crime. Giving civilians handguns for self-defense makes criminals--those who, as you say, "make the wrong decisions in life"--more hesitant to attempt violence against others.--209.66.200.45 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

216.57.96.1, I believe people should not carry a handgun. I do however think that people can be given freedom. If they abuse that freedom, I would have no problem with that one person being banned from possessing a handgun. In addition, criminals can already obtain handguns, the law abiding citizen cannot. A101 - (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I think there can be too much freedom for one's good. I think doing what the Green party want to do (legalise ecstasy and cannabis for personal use) won't work and what this guy has said - legalising guns - is ridiculous. A gun is a weapon capable of killing people. If only one in about 100,000 people in the UK have even been affected by gun crime, why should every citizen be given the right to have a gun? It just seems like ineffective libertas gratia libertatis to me. Harris Morgan - (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

Guns, drugs, and prostitution?

What somebody needs to do is buy this man a plane ticket to America. They may have suspended him in the UK, but in the US, saying stuff like this is grounds for election to Congress.--209.66.200.45 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial views or sensible views? People thought the world was flat / cylindrical until someone brought about the controversial view that perhaps the world was a sphere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.247.74 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

I heard that Gavin retracted his comments on drink driving. Anonymous101 :) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)