lush Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 He was not bothered about people being chained up and given bread and water just bothered about himself and shown to sympathise with the actions of the above mentioned. Like I said I have chosen to ignore his posts so I am no longer WRONGLY accused of verbally abusing him. I do not think that is abuse. If any admins thinks I have then I will leave this site voluntarily and not post here again. How do you know i wasnt bothered? Yet more lush bashing going on here. I didnt sympathise with anyone but the victims of criminals. Appology????? Hes chosen to ignore my posts, hence he cannot appologise, typical. No longer wrongly of abusing me, YOU JUST DID It is abuse, when is he leaving?
Steven Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Prison by definition is retribution, as in denying people their freedom, if it were just about rehabilitation prison wouldn't be needed. It may involve some rehabilitation but punishment is the most significant part of it. In fact I'd wager that very little rehabilitation goes on in comparison to retribution, and if you were the victim of a crime I should imagine you would consider retribution to be the only part you'd be interested in. I know this is off topic, given the fact that 60% of all prisoners reoffend all the above does is reinforce criminality and guarantees there will be more victims. <_<
cisono Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Cisono, how can you say im wrong? There is no right or wrong when it comes to this, it's a matter of opinion. Exactly and it's my opinion that you are wrong PS: Have you ever studied any law? I suspect not.
Daniel Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Exactly and it's my opinion that you are wrong PS: Have you ever studied any law? I suspect not. And my opinion is that your wrong.
cisono Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 And my opinion is ... You did not reply to my question...
Daniel Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 You did not reply to my question... No, im not a tax dodging student. I left school and got a job.
cisono Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 No, im not a tax dodging student. I left school and got a job. OK. I will ask you again in 20 years' time then
davieG Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 I know this is off topic, given the fact that 60% of all prisoners reoffend all the above does is reinforce criminality and guarantees there will be more victims. <_< That may wll be the case although I'd be interested to know what the percentage is for those prisoners sent to open/rehabilitation type prisons - I rather suspect still relatively high. Some people are beyond change they just don't have an ounce of responsibilty in their bodies and are always on the look out for something for nothing no matter who suffers in the process. Rather like freund
Guest Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Also, do you know who actually took us into the Common Market, as it was then, in the first place? Do you know when that happened? This is the question Lush has neglected to answer. Quite conveniently too.
Rincewind Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Well that's Lush for you. On the prison issue does anyone disagree that prevention is better than cure? It's true a lot of criminals re offend time and again. The most serious are locked up for a long time despite the odd sensational Sun revelation. I would like to know the stats of those that come from high employment and rough neighbourhoods. I'm not making excuses but if a prisoner has committed petty crimes since his youth depriving him of the opportunity to learn new skills will not stop him re-offending. In jail he'll be with other inmates of longer standing and will teach him new tricks. I would also like to know the stats for domestic killings compared to serial killers and child killers. I believe the percentage will be much higher. Some may say a murder is a murder no matter how it's carried out, but a lot of people have outbursts of temper from time to time. Again I'm not defending anyone but just looking things in black and white is a lot easier for some people than looking at the wider picture and giving a little thought before speaking. They have said that voting will not be available to all prisoners and I would imagine that lifers would not be in that group. The law as it stands is I believe a couple of centuries old so like all issues concerning Human Rights it may need updating. There were no Human Rights in the 16th and 17th centuries as far as I know. Some reforms are good some are bad but unless you are directly involved by them views can differ quite a bit. I look for the middle ground as a starting point.
Steven Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Well that's Lush for you. On the prison issue does anyone disagree that prevention is better than cure? It's true a lot of criminals re offend time and again. The most serious are locked up for a long time despite the odd sensational Sun revelation. I would like to know the stats of those that come from high employment and rough neighbourhoods. I'm not making excuses but if a prisoner has committed petty crimes since his youth depriving him of the opportunity to learn new skills will not stop him re-offending. In jail he'll be with other inmates of longer standing and will teach him new tricks. I would also like to know the stats for domestic killings compared to serial killers and child killers. I believe the percentage will be much higher. Some may say a murder is a murder no matter how it's carried out, but a lot of people have outbursts of temper from time to time. Again I'm not defending anyone but just looking things in black and white is a lot easier for some people than looking at the wider picture and giving a little thought before speaking. They have said that voting will not be available to all prisoners and I would imagine that lifers would not be in that group. The law as it stands is I believe a couple of centuries old so like all issues concerning Human Rights it may need updating. There were no Human Rights in the 16th and 17th centuries as far as I know. Some reforms are good some are bad but unless you are directly involved by them views can differ quite a bit. I look for the middle ground as a starting point. Very sensible and wise.
lush Posted 9 October 2005 Posted 9 October 2005 Also, do you know who actually took us into the Common Market, as it was then, in the first place? Do you know when that happened? This is the question Lush has neglected to answer. Quite conveniently too. The tories, so what? I conveniently ignored it because it has no bearing on the subject in hand. The new labour nazi fascists want prisoners to have the vote, so they can bend there arms to vote for them.
MC Prussian Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 The tories, so what? I conveniently ignored it because it has no bearing on the subject in hand. The new labour nazi fascists want prisoners to have the vote, so they can bend there arms to vote for them. Deja vu?
Guest Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 The tories, so what? I conveniently ignored it because it has no bearing on the subject in hand. The new labour nazi fascists want prisoners to have the vote, so they can bend there arms to vote for them. Actually it does have a bearing, as you are implying that Labour are responsible, when in fact Labour is not. You have no knowledge of politics or the law. The EHC lead to the Human Rights Act, introduced during a Labour government which does not give prisoners the right to vote. The prisoner making the challenge has gone to the European courts, this has nothing to do with our domestic politics unless the judges (not politicians) decide otherwise. Until that point, I refuse to jump on the hysterical bandwagon the tabloids have created by sensationalising a story which may yet prove to have no grounds. Good journalism is about creating debate, but when there are people like you around, I think it defeats the object somewhat.
Rincewind Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 The tories, so what? I conveniently ignored it because it has no bearing on the subject in hand. Now that is really l
lush Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 Actually it does have a bearing, as you are implying that Labour are responsible, when in fact Labour is not. You have no knowledge of politics or the law. The EHC lead to the Human Rights Act, introduced during a Labour government which does not give prisoners the right to vote. The prisoner making the challenge has gone to the European courts, this has nothing to do with our domestic politics unless the judges (not politicians) decide otherwise. Labour support the idea Lisa, so they are partly responsible if the vote goes ahead. Are you suggesting that the mep`s will not be voting on this?
Guest Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 Labour support the idea Lisa, so they are partly responsible if the vote goes ahead. Are you suggesting that the mep`s will not be voting on this? If Labour 'wanted' this, it would have been included in the Human Rights Act (UK law). Decisions made in courts are made by judges. To be honest, we haven't covered the European courts and I'm sure Anish or Silverfox would correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is only the US appoint judges on a political basis. MEP's won't be making the decision, as they are not judges. They have made the law (European Human Rights Convention), it is now down to unpolitically motivated judges to decide if that law allows prisoners the right to vote or not. The fact it is being heard in Strasbourg suggests to me that the House of Lords have already said under English law it won't happen, or that the man fighting the case, and his counsel don't believe English law will allow it. If you get my drift.
lush Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 If Labour 'wanted' this, it would have been included in the Human Rights Act (UK law). Decisions made in courts are made by judges. To be honest, we haven't covered the European courts and I'm sure Anish or Silverfox would correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is only the US appoint judges on a political basis. MEP's won't be making the decision, as they are not judges. They have made the law (European Human Rights Convention), it is now down to unpolitically motivated judges to decide if that law allows prisoners the right to vote or not. The fact it is being heard in Strasbourg suggests to me that the House of Lords have already said under English law it won't happen, or that the man fighting the case, and his counsel don't believe English law will allow it. If you get my drift. What year did that human rights act come about, and when was the last one? Im sure labour decide judges here, the new 20 year old judge last week is a prime example. It then makes sense you`ll receive a law that suits your ideology. NO judge is unpolitical, thats a bed time story Lisa. Thracian, you have your finger on the pulse here, whos making the decision on the prisoners vote, mep`s or european courts?
Rincewind Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 I'm sure Lush says all that he does just to be controversal and stir things up. You just have to smile at it sometimes.
Guest Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 What year did that human rights act come about, and when was the last one? Im sure labour decide judges here, the new 20 year old judge last week is a prime example. It then makes sense you`ll receive a law that suits your ideology. NO judge is unpolitical, thats a bed time story Lisa. Human Rights Act 1998 It was brought about as a consequence of the European Human Rights Convention. The application of justice is not politically motivated, judges are therefore not politicians. In simple terms, MP's do not appoint judges. A 20 year old cannot be made a judge, they would not have the necessary academic or vocational experience. Do you have a link to this story at all, as this would be important for my studies? Thanks.
lush Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 I'm sure Lush says all that he does just to be controversal and stir things up. You just have to smile at it sometimes. Isnt that what your doing Why dont you add to the debate with sensible chat, and oh, btw, i thought you had me on ignore you just have to know what i say, provide your vote here my friend
lush Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 Human Rights Act 1998 The application of justice is not politically motivated, judges are therefore not politicians. In simple terms, MP's do not appoint judges. A 20 year old cannot be made a judge, they would not have the necessary academic or vocational experience. Do you have a link to this story at all, as this would be important for my studies? Thanks. Was 1998 the last HRA? PoliceSpecials.com forum, it also has a bbc link.
Guest Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 Was 1998 the last HRA? The Act quoted is the current Act. PoliceSpecials.com forum, it also has a bbc link. It's a forum for a start, and it concerns magistrates, not judges. A recent drive to recruit emphasised that it it is members of the public acting for and behalf of members of the public. MP's do not appoint magistrates.
lush Posted 10 October 2005 Posted 10 October 2005 MP's do not appoint magistrates. A combination of them do. Why did you close the other thread, i cannot reply to your question.
Rincewind Posted 11 October 2005 Posted 11 October 2005 The voice of reason yet again from Lisa. MP's do not appoint magistrates. That appears clear enough to me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.