Today I'm angry about.....

[CrazyHorse]

x1000 from me too.
It'll be those ruddy Europeans; our bread will be baked in imperial bread-tins but the toasters will be metric. Bastards.

[CAPSLOCK]

Not read all this thread, but I'd be surprised if Hobo hasn't added this


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 956044.ece

[Gary the Enfield]

Shouldn't have done him outside the house.

An intruder inside your house can be dealt with using 'reasonable force'.

[InsaneApache]

I was told by a copper a few years back that if you catch an intruder downstairs you have to let him escape. However if you catch him upstairs you can beat the crap out of him as he has no means of egress. The moral there then is he should have dragged his body back into the house and up the stairs. Beating him constantly with his 'clicky ba' of course.

[blurred]

Not read all this thread, but I'd be surprised if Hobo hasn't added this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 956044.ece

And what makes you angry about that?

[CAPSLOCK]

I don't do angry

Must confess to a slight disappointment that he didn't do a proper job and kill the scrote

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I don't do angry

Must confess to a slight disappointment that he didn't do a proper job and kill the scrote

I hope the scrote is not too brain damaged though....

... he needs to be just brain damaged enough to realise that he is brain damaged and that he will never be the same again after what he put that family through. That would do it.

[CAPSLOCK]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

[thebish]

Toaster makers and Bakers.

When the fook are they going to talk to each other.

Can't be difficult can it - My bread is these dimensions (approx), so the holes in your toaster need to be X size.

There is a member of this forum who once had a job reviewing high-end toasters..... maybe he could comment??

[TANGODANCER]

Toaster makers and Bakers.

When the fook are they going to talk to each other.

Can't be difficult can it - My bread is these dimensions (approx), so the holes in your toaster need to be X size.

There is a member of this forum who once had a job reviewing high-end toasters..... maybe he could comment??

We never had this sort of problem with coal fires and toasting forks.

[bobo the clown]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

oh, God no ! How can you even ask.

All he did, despite more previous than the Kray's, was to kidnap 5 people, tie them up & threaten their lives as he robbed them. Come on, give the guy a break !!

[William the White]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

oh, God no ! How can you even ask.

All he did, despite more previous than the Kray's, was to kidnap 5 people, tie them up & threaten their lives as he robbed them. Come on, give the guy a break !!

Just as a matter of interest what is the measure of self-defence turning into retribution that you would permit to someone who found themselves being burgled and fought back? How would it vary between self-defence in the house, and retribution on the public highway? How many miles or minutes of chasing would you permit? If it involved cars doing over 30mph in a built up area, would that make a difference? How about if it involved 'paying a visit' to the perpetrator the following day?

I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

If he inflicted that on my family I would pursue the bastard to the ends of the earth Will. I would have no compunction in caving his skull in when I caught up with him either.

So I'm guessing we'll be on opposite sides of this particular debate.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

oh, God no ! How can you even ask.

All he did, despite more previous than the Kray's, was to kidnap 5 people, tie them up & threaten their lives as he robbed them. Come on, give the guy a break !!

Just as a matter of interest what is the measure of self-defence turning into retribution that you would permit to someone who found themselves being burgled and fought back? How would it vary between self-defence in the house, and retribution on the public highway? How many miles or minutes of chasing would you permit? If it involved cars doing over 30mph in a built up area, would that make a difference? How about if it involved 'paying a visit' to the perpetrator the following day?

I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?

Chop off their hands for theft. Entering someone elses proprty can be defended by any means possible.

Paying a visit to the perpetrator at any time you found out who they were is fair game.

The point they lose human rights, should be the point they flout the law denying others the human right to live in peace in their own abode or posess things they've worked hard to buy. They should at that point lose any rights to be anything other than being soundly beaten in an entirely vindictive and non-proportionate manner.

Scrotes. Deserve unfair levels of retribution as the current system isn't sending out correct signals that what they're doing is incorrect and not very nice.

[bobo the clown]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

oh, God no ! How can you even ask.

All he did, despite more previous than the Kray's, was to kidnap 5 people, tie them up & threaten their lives as he robbed them. Come on, give the guy a break !!

Just as a matter of interest what is the measure of self-defence turning into retribution that you would permit to someone who found themselves being burgled and fought back? How would it vary between self-defence in the house, and retribution on the public highway? How many miles or minutes of chasing would you permit? If it involved cars doing over 30mph in a built up area, would that make a difference? How about if it involved 'paying a visit' to the perpetrator the following day?

I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?

Funnily enough WtW you are making a presumption here. If you read my reply it simply said that the scrote was not jailed, despite his history and the crime he committed.

You presumed that I meant that over-the-top retribution was in order.

That said, you presumed right.

[thebish]

Chop off their hands for theft. Entering someone elses proprty can be defended by any means possible.

Paying a visit to the perpetrator at any time you found out who they were is fair game.

The point they lose human rights, should be the point they flout the law denying others the human right to live in peace in their own abode or posess things they've worked hard to buy. They should at that point lose any rights to be anything other than being soundly beaten in an entirely vindictive and non-proportionate manner.

Scrotes. Deserve unfair levels of retribution as the current system isn't sending out correct signals that what they're doing is incorrect and not very nice.

that is interesting though... there are many ways that people "flout the law" - why pick out burglary as the one where you are allowed to beat a perpetrator senseless?

does the same apply to breaking into your car or snatching your bag in the street - or downloading your song or your film illegally from the internet..... are you really suggesting that I should have the right to beat someone to death if they "deprive me of my human right to posess things I've worked hard to buy?"

if this is the case, would we need police or courts or gaols at all?

(and - yes - I have been burgled - more than once)

[William the White]

Yeah, but if he'd killed him, said scrote wouldn't now be banged up costing us all.....

What, he isn't banged up?

oh, God no ! How can you even ask.

All he did, despite more previous than the Kray's, was to kidnap 5 people, tie them up & threaten their lives as he robbed them. Come on, give the guy a break !!

Just as a matter of interest what is the measure of self-defence turning into retribution that you would permit to someone who found themselves being burgled and fought back? How would it vary between self-defence in the house, and retribution on the public highway? How many miles or minutes of chasing would you permit? If it involved cars doing over 30mph in a built up area, would that make a difference? How about if it involved 'paying a visit' to the perpetrator the following day?

I'd be interested to know at what point 'scrotes' lose the human rights they so shamefully deny to others and for which they are denounced by you two. I share your repulsion at this case, which is more clear cut than a lot. But the degree of violence perpetrated on the 'scrote' was infintely beyond the threat he posed at the time he had his head caved in with a bat, suffering lifelong brain damage.

A jury found these men guilty. A judge imposed a light sentence for the degree of grievous bodily harm caused. You seem to think they were wrong. So, the law must be wrong. How would you change it?

Chop off their hands for theft. Entering someone elses proprty can be defended by any means possible.

Paying a visit to the perpetrator at any time you found out who they were is fair game.

The point they lose human rights, should be the point they flout the law denying others the human right to live in peace in their own abode or posess things they've worked hard to buy. They should at that point lose any rights to be anything other than being soundly beaten in an entirely vindictive and non-proportionate manner.

Scrotes. Deserve unfair levels of retribution as the current system isn't sending out correct signals that what they're doing is incorrect and not very nice.

That was certainly the idea in English jurisdiction in the 17th and 18th centuries when there were literally hundreds of capital crimes - the vast majority for property crimes. Amazing to consider, worthy, for those like you who believe in the power of retributive justice that the severity of the law didn't stop people stealing. Maybe it's because crime rates respond to something other than simply potential punshment? And the highest proportion of people in prison in western democracies? The USA - that almost crime free zone.

When 'bad people' lose human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable. You may not care about this. I do. Ironically, in this discussion so far, I'm the one in favour of law and order - you, CAPS and the clown in favour of brute force arbitrarily applied.

[a1]

its george bush's fault

[Bruce Rioja]

When 'bad people' lose human rights all people do. Because then they are no longer universally applicable. You may not care about this. I do. Ironically, in this discussion so far, I'm the one in favour of law and order - you, CAPS and the clown in favour of brute force arbitrarily applied.

Of course, you'd be just as level-headed if the the noise in the next bedroom turned out to be an intruder in a balaclava that was anally raping your youngest daughter, William, wouldn't you? Shouting to Mrs White that she should phone for the Police by dint of the law of the land being broken afore thine very eyes? I think not.
If there was a hammer, cricket bat, whatever, close by then you'd use it. You won't convince me otherwise.

[Verbal]

True dat.

Theory is all well and good, but I'd hazard a guess that that'd get chucked out the window, along with the bloodied remains of the perpetrator, in practice.