Parafox Posted 26 March 2017 Share Posted 26 March 2017 20 hours ago, Thracian said: Second chance? I didn't imagine you having a problem counting. Do you actually believe in allowing endless crimes until someone actually kills and maims all sorts? Why don't you take time out and speak to the victims to find how many share your view because they're the ones that count and have all the aftermath of your kind of liberalism to deal with. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 26 March 2017 Share Posted 26 March 2017 Is there a Dopeland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 26 March 2017 Share Posted 26 March 2017 7 minutes ago, Rincewind said: Is there a Dopeland? The Netherlands ayyyyyy lmao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 27 March 2017 Share Posted 27 March 2017 http://www.dw.com/en/german-police-predicted-berlin-terror-attack-nine-months-prior/a-38123750 @Thracian might find this interesting about being unable to deport people who are actively planning terrorist attacks. Not directly relevant but there are parallels to the earlier debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 8 hours ago, theessexfox said: http://www.dw.com/en/german-police-predicted-berlin-terror-attack-nine-months-prior/a-38123750 @Thracian might find this interesting about being unable to deport people who are actively planning terrorist attacks. Not directly relevant but there are parallels to the earlier debate. If the allegations are proved correct then the interior minister should answer but, again, I suspect it is bad law that has directed his thinking. The link only serves to emphasise points I've made many times and the need to end the influence of those whose views adversely impact not only on serious aspects of health and safety, but also on the interests of the country and its people generally. Law needs to be simple and judges need to have the means of acting effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 Unfortunately the law is not simple which is why I am not a judge. To be effective all aspects of case has to be looked at to ensure the right decision is made and there are no challenges to the verdict. To an untrained person 'The law is an ass' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 It gets worse..... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3181903/amber-rudd-said-whatsapp-must-not-be-place-for-terrorists-to-hide-and-calls-for-encrypted-messaging-services-to-be-open-to-the-intelligence-agencies/ and worse.... http://news.sky.com/story/battle-hardened-returning-jihadists-pose-uk-terror-threat-10815737 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 14 minutes ago, Rincewind said: Unfortunately the law is not simple which is why I am not a judge. To be effective all aspects of case has to be looked at to ensure the right decision is made and there are no challenges to the verdict. To an untrained person 'The law is an ass' Because a case might be complex doesn't mean the laws need to be. Quite the contrary. The judge needs as much flexibility as we can give him or her. And proper guidelines as to what the laws are meant to effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 58 minutes ago, Thracian said: It gets worse..... http://news.sky.com/story/battle-hardened-returning-jihadists-pose-uk-terror-threat-10815737 From Sky 'Sources' - And in other news, following terror attack news outlets spread fear on behalf of 'X' in hope to justify greater state powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 2 hours ago, Rincewind said: Unfortunately the law is not simple which is why I am not a judge. To be effective all aspects of case has to be looked at to ensure the right decision is made and there are no challenges to the verdict. To an untrained person 'The law is an ass' The law won't ever be perfect and I'm quite sure we shouldn't end up compromising ourselves and the lives and limbs of countless citizens in wasting time pretending we might somehow make it so. The whole justice system needs to be streamlined and judges given much greater powers to act effectively in relation to serious verifiable threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 I don't understand how a case can be complex but not the laws that apply to it. The judge should also be given flexibility whilst sticking to strict guidelines? Guidelines being the law I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 I was trying to look at things from a step back rather than go with a gut reaction. If verdicts are rushed we are in danger of the guilty having cases overturned and the innocent being punished. I for one do not want a crimminal going free and claiming compensation because a judge was acting on a gut reaction or public pressure and being freed on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 5 minutes ago, Rincewind said: I don't understand how a case can be complex but not the laws that apply to it. The judge should also be given flexibility whilst sticking to strict guidelines? Guidelines being the law I assume. I down intend going into a litany of explanation for someone who'd get us all killed to support some misty theories relating to a perfect world that doesn't and won't ever exist. But I'll try to precis an answer. You're accused of stealing something. It shouldn't really matter whether it's an object, an idea, an unfair advantage. It is all taking something to which you are not entitled. So the concept of stealing is simple. The judge listens to the evidence, decides guilt or otherwise, and considers the circumstances and seriousness to decide sentence. No need for juries - if judges can't judge properly and fairly there's way they should be judges. Guidelines should be just that. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about the word. If a judge thinks the circumstances are exceptional he should have the right to impose a sentence to reflect that - either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 I think I have lost this case. I support democracy and fairness to all which I thought we all wanted and why we have laws/guidelines for judges to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 59 minutes ago, Rincewind said: I think I have lost this case. I support democracy and fairness to all which I thought we all wanted and why we have laws/guidelines for judges to follow. Can you tell me what's "fair" about so-called democracies producing laws, sentences and a justice system that is regularly manipulated in various ways by terrorists, murderers, illegal immigrants, conmen, child predators and a whole lot of other people, so putting other people's safety in danger. Or why that somehow equates to democracy being commendable? And what's fair about a justice system that takes so long to administer the general public are left vulnerable for months and even years on end before, when action is finally taken, the same offender is often released early to commit further offences - to the frustration of those who perhaps took considerable risks putting them away in the first place. Seriously Rincey? What's to commend it? Cause all I see is a lot of time and money taken up that could be better spent. On things like education and good parenting for a start. But that doesn't negate politicians' obligation to take responsibility for the society they bring about and the health and safety we are all supposedly obliged to look out for in different ways. If I run a boxing club I'd be constantly obliged to review my health and safety provisions but the government can get away with not even protecting Parliament's frontage, with letting IS fighters back into the country or violent offenders back on the streets. Human Rights laws? It's all so much bullshit and hypocrisy. Our streets have never been completely safe but they were a lot safer 50 years ago despite all the high-technology cameras and security personnel we need nowadays even in everyday situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 2 hours ago, Rincewind said: I was trying to look at things from a step back rather than go with a gut reaction. If verdicts are rushed we are in danger of the guilty having cases overturned and the innocent being punished. I for one do not want a crimminal going free and claiming compensation because a judge was acting on a gut reaction or public pressure and being freed on a technicality. Oh, but if a case takes a long time to be heard then justice is suddenly flawless? Do you ever get real? Much of the time a case isn't heard because there's so many other cases to be dealt with, or for tactical delaying reasons, and that in itself speaks pretty poorly of our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 1 hour ago, Thracian said: Can you tell me what's "fair" about so-called democracies producing laws, sentences and a justice system that is regularly manipulated in various ways by terrorists, murderers, illegal immigrants, conmen, child predators and a whole lot of other people, so putting other people's safety in danger. Or why that somehow equates to democracy being commendable? And what's fair about a justice system that takes so long to administer the general public are left vulnerable for months and even years on end before, when action is finally taken, the same offender is often released early to commit further offences - to the frustration of those who perhaps took considerable risks putting them away in the first place. Seriously Rincey? What's to commend it? Cause all I see is a lot of time and money taken up that could be better spent. On things like education and good parenting for a start. But that doesn't negate politicians' obligation to take responsibility for the society they bring about and the health and safety we are all supposedly obliged to look out for in different ways. If I run a boxing club I'd be constantly obliged to review my health and safety provisions but the government can get away with not even protecting Parliament's frontage, with letting IS fighters back into the country or violent offenders back on the streets. Human Rights laws? It's all so much bullshit and hypocrisy. Our streets have never been completely safe but they were a lot safer 50 years ago despite all the high-technology cameras and security personnel we need nowadays even in everyday situations. Hoe do you spend money on good parenting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 1 hour ago, Thracian said: Can you tell me what's "fair" about so-called democracies producing laws, sentences and a justice system that is regularly manipulated in various ways by terrorists, murderers, illegal immigrants, conmen, child predators and a whole lot of other people, so putting other people's safety in danger. Or why that somehow equates to democracy being commendable? And what's fair about a justice system that takes so long to administer the general public are left vulnerable for months and even years on end before, when action is finally taken, the same offender is often released early to commit further offences - to the frustration of those who perhaps took considerable risks putting them away in the first place. Seriously Rincey? What's to commend it? Cause all I see is a lot of time and money taken up that could be better spent. On things like education and good parenting for a start. But that doesn't negate politicians' obligation to take responsibility for the society they bring about and the health and safety we are all supposedly obliged to look out for in different ways. If I run a boxing club I'd be constantly obliged to review my health and safety provisions but the government can get away with not even protecting Parliament's frontage, with letting IS fighters back into the country or violent offenders back on the streets. Human Rights laws? It's all so much bullshit and hypocrisy. Our streets have never been completely safe but they were a lot safer 50 years ago despite all the high-technology cameras and security personnel we need nowadays even in everyday situations. Also - I doubt that very much!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 9 minutes ago, RobHawk said: Also - I doubt that very much!!! As do I. There's a difference between number of crimes and number of reported crimes. But rose tints are very strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 On 3/26/2017 at 14:28, DANGEROUS TIGER said: I 100% agree with you, Thrac. Some people have their heads buried in the sand, and chose to ignore common sense. Repatriation, is the way forward, starting with the work shy immigrants and those with criminal records, while halting all further immigration. When the only person in the thread agreeing with you is DT - you know you are in trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 50 minutes ago, leicsmac said: As do I. There's a difference between number of crimes and number of reported crimes. But rose tints are very strong. Were you around 50 years ago as I was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 10 minutes ago, Thracian said: Were you around 50 years ago as I was? Indeed not, but I have recorded data to rely upon as well as anecdotes that have been recorded for posterity. Of course, the next step might be questioning the accuracy of that data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 54 minutes ago, RobHawk said: When the only person in the thread agreeing with you is DT - you know you are in trouble! Not really. The same group seems to follow the same thread or similar - rather like a self-appointed patrol whose purpose seems to be to shout down anyone who opposes their own views while seeming to defend human rights principles or legislation - the effects of which are seemingly indefensible at times But the views do seem clouded, more a determined stance than a reasoned argument. By the way I'd ask you too if you were around 50 years ago because the streets really were safer in my experience. I don't know about the numbers of petty crimes but the kind of murders, arson and other serious offences we have so often here in Leicester now were very much the exception 50 years ago and Birmingham and London just the same. Security cameras were sparse. People really could leave their doors open. But I don't expect support on here. Our young people have been wedded to the EU's human rights doctrines through their education and upbringing much like we were the Christian church when we were young, and fine ideals "human rights" extols if they weren't so flawed and so easily taken advantage of by those who want the benefits without responsibilities and who delight and benefit from exploiting them. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 54 minutes ago, RobHawk said: When the only person in the thread agreeing with you is DT - you know you are in trouble! In about another fifty odd years, you will doubtless have changed your tune. Experiencing decades of life, is something the younger generations will never understand. It'.s a bit like reading the first two chapters of a book and debates it with someone who has read it all. One day you will "see the light". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 28 March 2017 Share Posted 28 March 2017 1 hour ago, RobHawk said: Hoe do you spend money on good parenting? Are you seriously saying we can teach electronics and computer programming but not provide any sensible guidance relating to art of good parenting? My oldest son is 50 but only yesterday I was talking to a teenaged American friend who astounded me when talking about the parenting she received. I've had the other experience too - of trying and failing miserably to persuade the parents of a young family to get their kids to school at all, never mind on time, to read to them or provide the quiet time for others to read to them, to teach them that working flankers was wrong on various levels and that they needed proper food, rest and encouragement to get the best from themselves. Instead the kids ended up in care, the mum heartbroken and I wasted both time and money for no benefit whatsoever that I can think of. It was professional help I became convinced they needed but there was none available as I could see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.