Jump to content

nnfox

Member
  • Post count

    1,766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

nnfox last won the day on 23 August 2015

nnfox had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,421 Excellent

About nnfox

  • Rank
    Key Player

Recent Profile Visitors

4,563 profile views
  1. nnfox

    Patson Daka

    This weekend? I can't see that.
  2. My guess would be more along the lines that the rules were breached but there was a lack of a written disciplinary procedure to deal with such a rule breach. Any punishment that was not 'agreed' would likely be unenforceable and subject to a successful legal challenge. If they had each been handed a 30 point deduction as is now proposed, they would all have protested given that there was no indication that such a severe punishment would be dished out. Now that the 30 point deduction will be documented, any future repeat would be much easier to enforce. It's still an absolute sha
  3. So basically Cags wants a move to Roma now?
  4. This has got to be a wind up.
  5. Winner - France Runner Up - Netherlands Where will England finish - Round of 16 Where will Scotland finish - 4th in group Where will Wales finish - 4th in group Top Scorer - Romelu Lukaku Player of the tournament - Kante Biggest surprise - Czech Republic Biggest disappointment - Croatia
  6. Relegation, significant points deductions, european bans, transfer bans, squad size reductions. They were surely all on the table and I believe that most football fans would have accepted a couple of those options. Instead, these six teams, with revenues that dwarf the rest of football, get to decide what their punishment is. And guess what? It's the thing that causes them the least hassle, a small dent in their finances but allows them to continue business as usual in an attempt to close off the top six positions in the premier league. Disgusting. The FA and the Pre
  7. So my stance is that I don't agree with the death penalty, but not because I'm particularly concerned about miscarriages of justice, but I see it as an easy way out. I'd much rather see them live out their natural lives in prison and when they die, get buried there too. Your particular comment here though seems to abdicate responsibility. If the verdict is wrong, that's on the jury... What if you were selected for jury service and had to give a verdict on someone, who, if found guilty, could be sentenced to death. Would you be ok with the prospect of getting it wrong?
  8. Out of interest, is this your stance on people who are convicted once for the very worst crimes (such as serial killers) or does it apply to career criminals (minor offences in comparison) who go to prison, come out reoffend again and again. It's what they do. No remorse, no interest in rehabilitation, just go out and commit crime until they get caught again. Should they, being a menace to society, rot behind bars too? I don't know the answer, just curious.
  9. Two completely different motives. One situation is to kill someone in order to punish them for something they did probably a year or more previously (which I am against). The other is to kill someone in order to protect the lives of others there and then (which I am for).
  10. Worse than Huntley? I respect your opinion, but will disagree, maybe because I know a bit more about the Soham case. Both of them are unquestionably right up there as being amongst the most despicable examples of humanity, but at least Pitchfork, in the end, admitted his crime. Nobody knows exactly what happened to those two primary school children in Soham, mainly because Huntley has never spoken any truth about it. Together with his attempt to control the media and get in front of the camera at every opportunity in the immediate aftermath, and the lengths he went to dispose of
  11. This is a good point and kind of links back to my second point in that rehabilitation is HARD for the individual and so many won't do it, not because they don't want to, but because it is very difficult to achieve. Society can generally take the stance that it is a good idea to rehabilitate offenders and give them a chance. The headline is that a person did a bad thing, he now sees the error of his ways and wants to contribute to society. I don't think many people would oppose that except in the most serious cases (like child killers). Society says it's OK. The 'sys
  12. Victim Personal Statements reflect the impact that the crime has had on the victim and/or friends and family. They get read out after a guilty verdict has been reached but before sentencing and the Judge should take it into account (along with sometimes many other factors) when passing sentence. In your first example, it may lead to a tougher sentence. In your second example, as there is no impact to significant others, then it won't. But the lack of the victim personal statement won't lead to a more lenient sentence.
  13. Rehabilitation is an interesting topic. I'm all for giving people a second chance but it is not for the state to rehabilitate offenders. The state can help and signpost offenders. But rehabilitation can only work if 1. Offenders want to be rehabilitated and 2. They have to put the effort into making the necessary changes to their own lives. Unfortunately there are many who can't or won't do their bit and there comes a point where the state have to draw the line.
  14. Chilwell on 100k more than Mount
  15. I agree and I'd go a tad further in saying that we have probably gone past the point of having the safest convictions. Social media that gives everyone a mouth piece and wall to wall news coverage with multiple "expert" opinions now threatens the fairness of trials more than ever.
×
×
  • Create New...