Would you?

[Samilktray]

College prices are a joke.

Lets be honest Jack.

[Jack]

College prices are a joke.

Lets be honest Jack.

Mars Milkshake and a Ribena, one in each pocket every morning. Save's you about 2 boys.

[Samilktray]

Mars Milkshake and a Ribena, one in each pocket every morning. Save's you about 2 boys.

Capri Sonne n all.

Apple though, theyve done away with cheap tacky tasting orange flavour.

That was the shit.

[AoWW]

Mars Milkshake and a Ribena, one in each pocket every morning. Save's you about 2 boys.

Don't let Sam bully you into false confessions.

[Jack]

Capri Sonne n all.

Apple though, theyve done away with cheap tacky tasting orange flavour.

That was the shit.

Capri Sonne is a last resort, only when Sheila ain't stuck the ol' Ribena's out.

Im not a fan at all of that orange one. Vile.

[Samilktray]

Capri Sonne is a last resort, only when Sheila ain't stuck the ol' Ribena's out.

Im not a fan at all of that orange one. Vile.

Sausage robbin n all.

I havent dabbled in that meself.

[Jack]

Sausage robbin n all.

I havent dabbled in that meself.

Nah I haven't attemped that yet.

Im holding out that these VAT cuts will carry on through to college and we could have breakfast for less then 2 boys, bargain.

[AoWW]

Sausage robbin n all.

I havent dabbled in that meself.

Gotta be a euphemism....

[Samilktray]

Nah I haven't attemped that yet.

Im holding out that these VAT cuts will carry on through to college and we could have breakfast for less then 2 boys, bargain.

Love that.

Gotta be a euphemism....

It literally is the theft of an extra sausage.

Phube will be outraged.

[Jack]

Gotta be a euphemism....

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Extra Sausage, stick it in your pocket, keep the 40 odd p in your wallet. peace.

[AoWW]

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Extra Sausage, stick it in your pocket, keep the 40 odd p in your wallet. peace.

Not the kinda thing you'd want to forget about and 'discover' a week later, though.

[Thracian]

Low it may be, but we have fewer murders per head than the US, and we don't have the death penalty. And have you seen the countries that are above the US? As for the countries that are below the UK in the list, most are on the whole the ones described as "civilised", with no capital or corporal punishment. That would suggest that it is not the death penalty that is the deterrent for murder.

Plus, you fail to ignore the other offences that you might be sentenced to death for in Saudi Arabia. That's without their human rights abuse record being questioned.

I'd expect rates to be lower in the UK than the US because it is not usual for people to carry guns in this country and they are certainly not so easily available as in the States.

On top of that the UK more compact a place to police that the US and has far more security cameras per square mile which makes it extremely hard for potential criminals to escape detection, particularly for serious crimes.

Our problem is not catching killers anyway. It is continually letting them go. Because if we didn't let em go there would be still fewer murders and violent crimes.

It is a pity the decision makers are not answerable for the lives that end up wrecked because of their misguided decisions and their utter failure sometimes to understand the minds of the people they are dealing with.

It sometimes doesn't help either that sentencing powers for serious crimes are limited instead of being down to the wisdom of the judge on hearing the evidence.

If judges cannot be trusted to act wisely rather than unfairly or maliciously then it's a poor reflection on the system that allows them to reach such elevated office in the first place. Obvious mistakes or vindictiveness can surely be addressed through our appeal system anyway!

As for human rights I am not so much sick of the millstone it places around our justice system, as sick of the priniciples being only applied in part.

Plenty is said and done about the human rights of criminals and not nearly enough is done to protect the human rights of their victims. Those victims don't necessarily give a shit about human rights. They care about the misery they've been caused and about the fact that the authorities do so little to help alleviate that misery much of the time.

And yet Article 30 seems to say it all and I quote:

===============================

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person, any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

How come that so often gets ignored?

Because that, to me, is the clause which explains unambiguously that human rights are only offered with human responsibility and if such responsibility is ignored then the basically worthy, though sometimes seemingly contradictory, human rights set our in the previous Articles are, surely, negated.

If it doesn't say that then the wording needs to be changed because, as it stands, there would seem to be no protections for victims which would make the Bill utterly unjust and out of touch with reality.

PS: The Saudi figures are given on the same basis as every other country and the deterents seem pretty effective. As I said before, if you've got other figures that tell a different I'll be more than happy to read em. As for other crimes carrying the death penalty I imagine that's the case in other countries too, like China, Iran and many others but I haven't gone into it.

You fail to mention Singapore. For one of the countries generally regarded as toughest on crime to have the lowest rates seems fairly conclusive to me as regards to the value of deterents although I'm quite sure that factors such as education may also play a part.

You'd be a strange lawyer-to-be if you didn't believe in the Bill of Human Rights with which you are so clearly involved but are you ever sufficiently detached to actual question independently whether that Bill is always a help or hindrance in achieving justice and helping to promote a society where people can live happily together and without unnecessary fear?

Cos if I were in any doubt about the human rights of a victim or a criminal I would protect the victim first.

Indeed it is another strength of sharia that the victim often has a say in the punishment of the criminal. In other words, having suffered a blow he is entitled to deliver one and the extent of that blow will doubtless reflect the degree to which the victim was affected.

Judges are distant but crime often isn't. It's far too often personal and victims should be entitled to affect the outcome once a case is proven. Entitled, I say, but not compelled.

[Jack]

Not the kinda thing you'd want to forget about and 'discover' a week later, though.

I suppose not, that's why you eat it when you sit down though

[FilboFox]

I'd find the nearest person who works there asap and rat them out!

[Benji]

Personally I'd only say something if there is a security guard or someone with a job to sort this kind of thing out.

Having worked at a retail store I know I wouldn't want people coming up to me to sort out some drugged up thief through fear of what he might do. Often those who work in such places are part-time youngsters at college or elderly members of staff. But if there's someone who is paid and trained to deal with those such situations, I'd not hesitate in letting them know.

I did it at uni once. There was a group of lads who have the usual swagger and attitude that make you think "I can't understand why you are at university". One of them leant over some food, while another ordered, and stuck a load of stuff in his coat, so I went and dobbed him in. Hopefully he was chucked out but although I had ulterior motives (the kind of people I despise at my uni) I'd have done it in any regular shop. I think having lived in London the past few years and hearing of someone being stabbed or shot most days of the week for no reason, often unprovoked or in response to someone standing up for what's right, stops me from doing it myself.

[Guest]

I'd expect rates to be lower in the UK than the US because it is not usual for people to carry guns in this country and they are certainly not so easily available as in the States.

On top of that the UK more compact a place to police that the US and has far more security cameras per square mile which makes it extremely hard for potential criminals to escape detection, particularly for serious crimes.

Our problem is not catching killers anyway. It is continually letting them go. Because if we didn't let em go there would be still fewer murders and violent crimes.

It is a pity the decision makers are not answerable for the lives that end up wrecked because of their misguided decisions and their utter failure sometimes to understand the minds of the people they are dealing with.

It sometimes doesn't help either that sentencing powers for serious crimes are limited instead of being down to the wisdom of the judge on hearing the evidence.

If judges cannot be trusted to act wisely rather than unfairly or maliciously then it's a poor reflection on the system that allows them to reach such elevated office in the first place. Obvious mistakes or vindictiveness can surely be addressed through our appeal system anyway!

As for human rights I am not so much sick of the millstone it places around our justice system, as sick of the priniciples being only applied in part.

Plenty is said and done about the human rights of criminals and not nearly enough is done to protect the human rights of their victims. Those victims don't necessarily give a shit about human rights. They care about the misery they've been caused and about the fact that the authorities do so little to help alleviate that misery much of the time.

And yet Article 30 seems to say it all and I quote:

===============================

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person, any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

How come that so often gets ignored?

Because that, to me, is the clause which explains unambiguously that human rights are only offered with human responsibility and if such responsibility is ignored then the basically worthy, though sometimes seemingly contradictory, human rights set our in the previous Articles are, surely, negated.

If it doesn't say that then the wording needs to be changed because, as it stands, there would seem to be no protections for victims which would make the Bill utterly unjust and out of touch with reality.

PS: The Saudi figures are given on the same basis as every other country and the deterents seem pretty effective. As I said before, if you've got other figures that tell a different I'll be more than happy to read em. As for other crimes carrying the death penalty I imagine that's the case in other countries too, like China, Iran and many others but I haven't gone into it.

You fail to mention Singapore. For one of the countries generally regarded as toughest on crime to have the lowest rates seems fairly conclusive to me as regards to the value of deterents although I'm quite sure that factors such as education may also play a part.

You'd be a strange lawyer-to-be if you didn't believe in the Bill of Human Rights with which you are so clearly involved but are you ever sufficiently detached to actual question independently whether that Bill is always a help or hindrance in achieving justice and helping to promote a society where people can live happily together and without unnecessary fear?

Cos if I were in any doubt about the human rights of a victim or a criminal I would protect the victim first.

Indeed it is another strength of sharia that the victim often has a say in the punishment of the criminal. In other words, having suffered a blow he is entitled to deliver one and the extent of that blow will doubtless reflect the degree to which the victim was affected.

Judges are distant but crime often isn't. It's far too often personal and victims should be entitled to affect the outcome once a case is proven. Entitled, I say, but not compelled.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding. We haven't incorporated it like we have the European Convention on Human Rights, which was enshrined in our legislative in the Human Rights Act 1998. The reason for this was to enable our courts to apply it to our national laws, without the need to go to Strasbourg, which was what was happening.

The Human Rights Act protects only certain "rights", and most of those can be derogated (we haven't included all of the articles in the HRA) and most of those that we have enacted are qualified rights that allow interference by the State in those rights. For example, the right to freedom of expression can be restricted, the right to private and family life can be restricted. Even the right to life is qualified!!

Of course people (and lawyers) are going to challenge decisions, or fight for the right to something along those lines. Certain newspapers love to report on the cases that are going to court that will outrage its readership, but they never give you the result of the case. Funny that.

As for human rights and the rights of criminals versus victims, do you not think that everyone is entitled to a fair trial? Given the number of miscarriages of justice in this country, then I would argue that this right is a fundamental requirement! Then there is the Article 5 right to liberty; should we be locking up people indiscriminately? I would have thought that a fair system is one that treats everybody the same.

You also need to look at the history of crime and punishment in this country. We introduced the probation system. Victorian reforms paved the way for the criminal justice system to be used as a rehabilitative process rather than just punitive. Is this not better for society? After all, who is paying for the upkeep of prisoners?

You keep mentioning murder statistics. First of all, Singapore, Qatar and Saudi feature below the UK, but don't they look more like exceptions rather than rules? Where are these figures coming from? Are all crimes being reported to the authorities? Are all crimes reported to the authorities then recorded and subsequently reported in official stats? Are these countries that are likely to ignore certain crimes, or fail to investigate them? There are far too many anomalies to just go by one source.

So ok, then, the US people can carry guns. So can people here in the UK! They can do it legally, so we have a rough idea of how many guns there are in this country, but they can do so illegally. We have no idea at all how many guns there are in this country. And just because people can have guns in the US, not everybody does, and not everybody who does will ever use the gun to shoot at another person. I would also like to know how many murders are committed by shootings before relying on the right to bear arms as a justification for a higher murder rate.

I would also like to say that murder, which no doubt grabs our attention, is not the biggest crime problem in this country. I do have the figures (on the other PC), but off the top of my head there were something like 750 murders in the UK in 2006/7 (ish). The overall crime figure was several hundred thousand. The crime stats also ignored any crimes that ended up in the Magistrates Courts, so that is all your motoring offences, petty thefts, public order, etc. Once these are taken into account, I think it's over a million crimes? Plus the recorded figures also do not include the number of crimes that do not get reported to the police! I could go on, but I won't.

For the record, all the crime stats available indicate that the largest proportion of crimes committed in the UK are property crimes; funnily enough the subject of the original post!!

[Mickey O'Neil]

I do think that someone (like this store) excessively profiteering opens themself up to a lack of sympathy.

That's where it's at for me I don't condone it, just why the fcuk should I bother.

There's plenty of corner shops near me and a Tesco Excessively Profiteering Express !

Kent News..I'd let people steal and say nothing.

Jay Dee...I'd grass them up to the owners.

Tesco...Help yourselves!