General Chit Chat

[BWFC_Insane]

Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.

Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.

Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.

Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.

Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....

Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.

[BWFC_Insane]

Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.

Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.

Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....

Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.

Way to miss the point. Just because someone is in your home IMO doesn't mean you can or should be able to lawfully kill them.

If someone has a knife in your house and is robbing you, but as you enter tries to flee, I don't think killing them is justified. I was generalising rather than talking about this specific case.

There is a slippery slope that leads to Pistorius IMHO. I'm quite glad this pensioner did what he did, but I think beyond clear self defence the law shouldn't allow you to kill someone because they're on your property.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Suprise, suprise, scumbag family of scumbag think.......

Career crook killed by pensioner 'didn't deserve to die', say family

Not like probably 99% of others then.

Having read the reports (which I assume to be accurate) about him, his father and his five uncles' 'exploits' in the past, I'd agree that he and his family are pretty much the very definition of scumbags, and while not exactly agreeing that he deserved to die, I won't be mourning the fxcker either.

What concerns me more is that the innocent householder is now facing a murder charge, and even if ultimately he's not charged, he shouldn't have to go through the shxt he is facing just because an invading scumbag happened to get skewered on his own implement.
I also think that in his, the innocent householder's case, it should be in Justice's interest that his name should have been withheld so that (specifically) the scumbag uncles, scumbag aunties, and all the scumbag family of the perished one cannot vent their misplaced scumbag spleen against him, the innocent one.

Equally that scumbag Pistorius got off first degree murder (or whatever its called over there) claiming he thought there was an intruder in his house.

I'm not sure carte blanch saying its ok to kill someone on your premises is ok. Even a burglar. If they're trying to harm you or your family...but if they're running away?

Just my view....

Wow!

Riva Steenkamp, an intruder!!!

Henry Vincent, career burglar, convicted scumbag, known for targeting pensioners in scams and robberies - armed with a screwdriver, and accompanied by another male, in a 78 year old pensioner's house (with his wife in bed upstairs)!!!

Fxck your view. Seriously.

Way to miss the point. Just because someone is in your home IMO doesn't mean you can or should be able to lawfully kill them.

If someone has a knife in your house and is robbing you, but as you enter tries to flee, I don't think killing them is justified. I was generalising rather than talking about this specific case.

There is a slippery slope that leads to Pistorius IMHO. I'm quite glad this pensioner did what he did, but I think beyond clear self defence the law shouldn't allow you to kill someone because they're on your property.

OK, I apologise for thinking you were talking about what I'd posted. You quite clearly, now you've made that point, weren't and was just generalising.
For what it's worth I agree.
Oscar Pistorius was a murderer, the intruder aspect was his desperate attempt to obfuscate the evidence, and we can dismiss that from the 'debate'.
But, I think there should be a "presumption of innocence", and the householder's name should be kept back, unless clear evidence to the contrary emerges, in cases of invasion.
Tony Martin (if I remember his name right) comes to mind, and this is where I'd probably disagree with you: to me Mr Martin (after the history he suffered) was quite within his right to 'execute' his intruder. In his case it was probably correct to prosecute, and I have no doubt these days a jury would have acquitted.
The big difference to what actually happened in my scheme of things is that, like a rape victim, nobody would have known his name.
With Henry Vincent almost exactly the opposite occurred - the defending householder was named, but the fxcking criminal's name was withheld for two days. Outrageous, in my opinion.

[TANGODANCER]

Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.

[Prufrock]

I think it goes back a bit further than that.

Law on self-defence in homes was right (Tony Martin had a pop art them inside his house and missed - touch and go - and then shot one as he was struggling to get through a window out. You can't be doing that).

They changed the law as a daily mail sop but you were never and certainly will never get convicted of you're just defending your family and home. Only the nutters who tie people up and batter them get done, which seems fair enough to me.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think it goes back a bit further than that.

Law on self-defence in homes was right (Tony Martin had a pop art them inside his house and missed - touch and go - and then shot one as he was struggling to get through a window out. You can't be doing that).

They changed the law as a daily mail sop but you were never and certainly will never get convicted of you're just defending your family and home. Only the nutters who tie people up and batter them get done, which seems fair enough to me.

You've not addressed my main point that people who are the victims of armed home invasion (the invadees) should have the right not to be named. This to save them from subsequent hassle from the scumbag families, relations and friends of the invaders, whether or not the invader gets 'topped' or not (with his own weapon or not).

[Hoboh]

A new driving license system for owners of driverless cars should be considered because of safety fears, a study suggests.

Autonomous vehicle owners could soon be forced to pass a new driving test due to mounting concerns over the safety of the technology.

The study also suggests that new laws might have to be enforced so that the 'drivers' pay attention while the car is moving, instead of sleeping, reading or watching films.

Soooo the point behind owning a driver less (possibly quite expensive) car is......................................?

[BWFC_Insane]

A new driving license system for owners of driverless cars should be considered because of safety fears, a study suggests.

Autonomous vehicle owners could soon be forced to pass a new driving test due to mounting concerns over the safety of the technology.

The study also suggests that new laws might have to be enforced so that the 'drivers' pay attention while the car is moving, instead of sleeping, reading or watching films.

Soooo the point behind owning a driver less (possibly quite expensive) car is......................................?

Probably no point for quite a number of years. I doubt manufacturers will be happy to take liability so no doubt it will still be your responsibility until the technology is robust enough for manufacturers to take on the legal burden. Doubt we'll see that in our lifetime.

Did you see the video where the woman was killed? Not sure anyone would have stopped that accident, whether driverless or human driver.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.

More recently than that I'm afraid. The last people executed would have been in about 1964 (just after I emigrated) and the death penalty abolished a year later. It would be another decade before it was abolished in N. Ireland.

[TANGODANCER]

Insaney. Have you ever known anybody of sound mind to seriously claim it is okay to kill another person? The answer is always no according to rationality and tradition right back to some tablets of stone from several millenniums ago. The fact that time and tide has occasionally changed the rules alters nothing. The law,to the best of my knowlege would never ask or answer such a question in this modern era because how could/can they claim impartiality in judging if they did/do? We dispensed with capital punishment in this country back in the fifties, so even the law kills no one any more. What the law will be asking surely, is did the victim have such intent in mind at the time in this particular instance. The answer to that depends more on the skills, evidence and honesty of the prosectution/defence lawyers proving intent or mitigation, and the character of the accused than whether it's ever a rule of law. In other words, has a law been broken deliberately? It boils down to nothing more. I think most folk are of like mind as to the guilt/innocence of the accused.

More recently than that I'm afraid. The last people executed would have been in about 1964 (just after I emigrated) and the death penalty abolished a year later. It would be another decade before it was abolished in N. Ireland.

Aye, you're right. I was thinking Ruth Ellis in 1955, but she was the last woman, not person to be hanged.

[TANGODANCER]

Just in passing, my beloved Dell pc with a load of family pics and all sorts of stuff, finally gave up its ghost this week and I lost the lot. Fortunately, I had saved a couple of files and e-mailed them back to myself so I can open them on any pc. My programe, Windows X.P Professional (which I loved for its simplicity) is also now gone and the new (refurbished) pc I just bought on Thursday has Windows 10 (oh dear, have to rely on being shown a few things by the wife whose laptop has Windows 8.5, she loves that). Again, fortunately, being retired my p.c needs are not business related so I can still get my hobby sites easily. I don't rate the new stuff against My Pictures, My Docs and Paint of XP Professional. It'll take time...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Just in passing, my beloved Dell pc with a load of family pics and all sorts of stuff, finally gave up its ghost this week and I lost the lot. Fortunately, I had saved a couple of files and e-mailed them back to myself so I can open them on any pc. My programe, Windows X.P Professional (which I loved for its simplicity) is also now gone and the new (refurbished) pc I just bought on Thursday has Windows 10 (oh dear, have to rely on being shown a few things by the wife whose laptop has Windows 8.5, she loves that). Again, fortunately, being retired my p.c needs are not business related so I can still get my hobby sites easily. I don't rate the new stuff against My Pictures, My Docs and Paint of XP Professional. It'll take time...

Your picture files "and all sorts of stuff" are probably still on the hard drive and can be recovered. Windows 10 is better than 8.5 - the wife will soon be jealous.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Cop this, this is the state of civilisation we have managed to reach.

Jasbir Puar.

Who, you might ask is Jasbir Puar?
Well, she is (and the following, apparently, are words of praise, not censure, that you discover when you type in her name on Google) a US based queer theorist who currently works [!] in the Department of Women's and Gender Studies [what's wrong with plain old-fashioned Gender Studies, I ask; can you imagine a Department of Men's and Gender Studies?] at Rutgers University.
Puar is author of "Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times" , and has recently published "The Right To Maim", in which she draws on "a stunning array of theoretical and methodological frameworks" in which she outlines "how Israel brings Palestinians into biopolitical being by designating them available to injury".

Unmissable really. A must read. I would have put this into the Politics thread but I don't think she's a member of the Labour Party. Yet. [I'm pretty sure that once Jeremy discovers her delights, he'll invite her in, pronto].

[TANGODANCER]

^^

Hmmm. had a quick read and make no apologies for saying "pass".
There are women, and then there are women....

[Hoboh]

Gulls should be shot on sight crapping on my car and having to use copious amounts of T cut to remove their bloody feet marks off the roof!
Why the hell they are protected I'll never know, thieving swines as well watched one take a Cornish pasty out of a woman's hand.
As far as I can ascertain they serve no useful purpose what so Ever!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

One useful purpose springs to mind instantly. They annoy the fcuk out of you

[Enoch]

I'm no misogynist and don't look to defend those that are but why is it ok to be misandrist and get yourself plastered all over the media?

[TANGODANCER]

I'm no misogynist and don't look to defend those that are but why is it ok to be misandrist and get yourself plastered all over the media?

I've had a long time dislike/mistrust against the word "equality" when referring to men or women. As far as I was brought up, at least amongst normal folk, they already had it. It usually actually means role reversal, especially when tied in with "we shall overcome", a statement that hardly equates to peace but rather turning tables. Just a thought. Try marching through a town centre with a placard saying "Straight Pride". You'd probably get arrested whatever for causing a disturbance regardless of sex/gender or whatever, you claim to be. It's usually those championing pointless causes for personal glory hunting that caused the term "No Shxt Sherlock" to be coined. Just get on with it....

[Prufrock]

Did they feck!!!