Today I'm angry about.....

[Lord Kangana]

I take your point Bruce, and accept that the law is an ass when it comes to the term "reasonable force" when the last thing you are going to do is think rationally or reasonably in that situation (and frankly, why should you?). I think the point William is making is that sometimes we need to be saved from ourselves. I don't think I'd want me making the law on burglars just after I've chased them out of my house with an iron bar (which I've done). I didn't catch 'em, and frankly with the benefit of time, I'm glad I didn't.

In short, we have to retain some humanity, even in the face of the inhuman, rise above it a little. As a society I'd prefer the carrot to the stick, if you get me.

[thebish]

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.

is it the balaclava that riles you so???

[Hoboh]

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?

simple decapitation

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.

the second they breathe or in this case the second they came in un invited

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?

let you deal with the sob's the hard way

[Hoboh]

I take your point Bruce, and accept that the law is an ass when it comes to the term "reasonable force" when the last thing you are going to do is think rationally or reasonably in that situation (and frankly, why should you?). I think the point William is making is that sometimes we need to be saved from ourselves. I don't think I'd want me making the law on burglars just after I've chased them out of my house with an iron bar (which I've done). I didn't catch 'em, and frankly with the benefit of time, I'm glad I didn't.

In short, we have to retain some humanity, even in the face of the inhuman, rise above it a little. As a society I'd prefer the carrot to the stick, if you get me.

Oh I see your Lordship the iron bar you just happen to keep by the door was it

[Hoboh]

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.

Hell Bruce why pull punches eh?

[Verbal]

...the weather.

Getting the coach home today. Setting off at 9.30am from Bath to London, changing there to get one to Horwich, eventually getting home for 7.45pm (alot cheaper, for some reason).

Get up early to check the weather....:'(

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

At what point does fighting back go over the top? I mean, you hit them once and this may do the trick, but are you going to wait and find out that it didn't and come off worse? No, I'd hit them again to be sure and probably once more to be certain. It would not be my intention (I don't think) to inflict brain damage or worse but it may be a by product of my defending my family and myself. Would that bother me? No, the scrote shouldn't have been there in the first place. Should I go to prison? No.

Now if I were to keep hitting them, 10 or 20 times after they have gone down then maybe the law should have something to say about that...

[Hoboh]

At what point does fighting back go over the top? I mean, you hit them once and this may do the trick, but are you going to wait and find out that it didn't and come off worse? No, I'd hit them again to be sure and probably once more to be certain. It would not be my intention (I don't think) to inflict brain damage or worse but it may be a by product of my defending my family and myself. Would that bother me? No, the scrote shouldn't have been there in the first place. Should I go to prison? No.

Now if I were to keep hitting them, 10 or 20 times after they have gone down then maybe the law should have something to say about that...

Put a mandatory limit on it ie over 50 smacks and you will be done!
Use of a blow torch on their knackers is over the top but the lords Iron bar is suitable for purpose.

[CrazyHorse]

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.

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

[Lord Kangana]

I take your point Bruce, and accept that the law is an ass when it comes to the term "reasonable force" when the last thing you are going to do is think rationally or reasonably in that situation (and frankly, why should you?). I think the point William is making is that sometimes we need to be saved from ourselves. I don't think I'd want me making the law on burglars just after I've chased them out of my house with an iron bar (which I've done). I didn't catch 'em, and frankly with the benefit of time, I'm glad I didn't.

In short, we have to retain some humanity, even in the face of the inhuman, rise above it a little. As a society I'd prefer the carrot to the stick, if you get me.

Oh I see your Lordship the iron bar you just happen to keep by the door was it

Under the bed.

Its better than the Samurai Sword that my mate keeps.

[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.

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.

I'm sure it didn't stop people stealing in the 17th and 18th Century. I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them now. They'd only do my house the once though. And I'd feel much better. Bastards were in my house this year in May with us all asleep upstairs. Wish I'd have woken up to put it to the test.

[Worthy4England]

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)

Quite happy to run the feckers over if they were in my car.

Let's be honest here, most people wouldn't want to beat anyone to death, and I'm sure if you could be certain you could subdue until the police arrive 4 hours later most people would, but the reaction is generated because the soft bastards passing laws and determining sentences are generally seen as going too light on the scrotes and not protecting the victims. Maybe when the authorities stop listening to the reform minority lobby and start listening to the retribution supporting majority, then some sense of balance will be the result.

Let's stop pretending this is about "solving the problem" as many have said - it doesn't work. So let's be really vindictive and feck trying to resolve the problem.

[thebish]

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.

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

I don't think he's even beginning to gloss anything over - how do you get that from what he wrote??

[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)

Quite happy to run the feckers over if they were in my car.

Let's be honest here, most people wouldn't want to beat anyone to death, and I'm sure if you could be certain you could subdue until the police arrive 4 hours later most people would, but the reaction is generated because the soft bastards passing laws and determining sentences are generally seen as going too light on the scrotes and not protecting the victims. Maybe when the authorities stop listening to the reform minority lobby and start listening to the retribution supporting majority, then some sense of balance will be the result.

Let's stop pretending this is about "solving the problem" as many have said - it doesn't work. So let's be really vindictive and feck trying to resolve the problem.

hmmmm - but "being honest" - this thread is about someone who hit someone so hard over the head with a cricket bat that it broke the bat and caused permanent brain damage and was quite some distance from the house, so well away from any "threat" - so I think it is quite a legitimate question (especially as you also suggest you would quite happily run over someone trying to nick a stereo from your car.)

[thebish]

Maybe when the authorities stop listening to the reform minority lobby and start listening to the retribution supporting majority, then some sense of balance will be the result.

Let's stop pretending this is about "solving the problem" as many have said - it doesn't work. So let's be really vindictive and feck trying to resolve the problem.

is that the same retribution supporting majority that hunt down and persecute (and sometimes murder) suspected paedophiles later discovered to be entirely innocent?

[CAPSLOCK]

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/481 ... _burglary/

These poor buggers got 3 years each cos the victim didn't have a cricket bat

I reckon the victim should be prosecuted for negligence

[Worthy4England]

Maybe when the authorities stop listening to the reform minority lobby and start listening to the retribution supporting majority, then some sense of balance will be the result.

Let's stop pretending this is about "solving the problem" as many have said - it doesn't work. So let's be really vindictive and feck trying to resolve the problem.

is that the same retribution supporting majority that hunt down and persecute (and sometimes murder) suspected paedophiles later discovered to be entirely innocent?

No I don't believe it is.

[Worthy4England]

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)

Quite happy to run the feckers over if they were in my car.

Let's be honest here, most people wouldn't want to beat anyone to death, and I'm sure if you could be certain you could subdue until the police arrive 4 hours later most people would, but the reaction is generated because the soft bastards passing laws and determining sentences are generally seen as going too light on the scrotes and not protecting the victims. Maybe when the authorities stop listening to the reform minority lobby and start listening to the retribution supporting majority, then some sense of balance will be the result.

Let's stop pretending this is about "solving the problem" as many have said - it doesn't work. So let's be really vindictive and feck trying to resolve the problem.

hmmmm - but "being honest" - this thread is about someone who hit someone so hard over the head with a cricket bat that it broke the bat and caused permanent brain damage and was quite some distance from the house, so well away from any "threat" - so I think it is quite a legitimate question (especially as you also suggest you would quite happily run over someone trying to nick a stereo from your car.)

Indeed. Had they not been in the house in the first place, the incident would never have occurred. I have no sympathy. Their own fault. I wouldn't care had it happened three months later in a different country.

[thebish]

Indeed. Had they not been in the house in the first place, the incident would never have occurred. I have no sympathy. Their own fault. I wouldn't care had it happened three months later in a different country.

hence my question... why the need for a police force, a court system and gaols?

[CrazyHorse]

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.

So you're just glossing over the fact that the 'bad people' have abused the human rights of their victims in the first place. Does your rule of universal applicability not apply to the right to be safe in your own home?

I don't think he's even beginning to gloss anything over - how do you get that from what he wrote??

I get it from the fact he's clearly glossing over the original loss of human rights.