Justice system a farce 2.
Ret.
cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of criminals
receiving more than one caution in a year has increased from 28,256 in 2000
to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by 33 per
cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed ten or more has
increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in 2008.
'Many police say that this is because the Crown Prosecution Service can be
risk averse when deciding to take a case to court.
You couldn't make it up.
Kev
martin
> Hundreds of serial offenders are being given as many as nine or ten
> police cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
> Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of criminals
> receiving more than one caution in a year has increased from 28,256 in
> 2000 to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
> The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by 33
> per cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed ten or
> more has increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in 2008.
Surely it's up to the police whether or not to offer a caution. For one
I am glad to see you criticizing the police instead of your constant
defending. It makes you look a little more balanced.
> Kev
Bob Ferguson
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
news:IpWdnYCkLK2cQ6zW...@pipex.net...
> Hundreds of serial offenders are being given as many as nine or ten police
> cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
> Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of criminals
> receiving more than one caution in a year has increased from 28,256 in
> 2000 to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
> The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by 33
> per cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed ten or more
> has increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in 2008.
>
> 'Many police say that this is because the Crown Prosecution Service can be
> risk averse when deciding to take a case to court.
>
This backs up the assertion that the police will try to persuade a suspect
to accept a caution instead of being taken to court precisely because they
know that the case doesn't have a hope in hell's chance of success in court.
Ret.
It is certainly up to the police as to whether they offer a caution or not -
but if the CPS are refusing to put a case before the courts then it is a
caution or nothing.
Kev
Ret.
It is not a question of the case not having a hope in hell's chance of
success in court - it is a question of the CPS simply not being prepared,
for a multiplicity of reasons (government pressure because of overcrowded
prisons?), to even put the matter before the courts.
I have explained before how I had rows with the CPS when I refused to
caution an offender for a like-offence for the third time - only to be told
by them that if I didn't carry out the caution they would simply NFA the
file. I can assure you that they were not making the decision not to put the
matter before the courts because of a lack of evidence.
Kev
martin
Surely you should be criticizing the police for not being able to build
a strong enough case. Come on Kev, just once, please. It's almost christmas.
>
> Kev
martin
> Bob Ferguson wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>> news:IpWdnYCkLK2cQ6zW...@pipex.net...
>>> Hundreds of serial offenders are being given as many as nine or ten
>>> police cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
>>> Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of
>>> criminals receiving more than one caution in a year has increased
>>> from 28,256 in 2000 to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
>>> The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by
>>> 33 per cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed
>>> ten or more has increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in
>>> 2008. 'Many police say that this is because the Crown Prosecution
>>> Service
>>> can be risk averse when deciding to take a case to court.
>>>
>>
>> This backs up the assertion that the police will try to persuade a
>> suspect to accept a caution instead of being taken to court precisely
>> because they know that the case doesn't have a hope in hell's chance
>> of success in court.
>
> It is not a question of the case not having a hope in hell's chance of
> success in court - it is a question of the CPS simply not being
> prepared, for a multiplicity of reasons (government pressure because of
> overcrowded prisons?), to even put the matter before the courts.
Hang on. Are you really saying that the police are SO incompetent that
they are unable to put together a sufficiently strong case for someone
you think should be in prison for it to even get to court?
November 5
Old news. I've always maintained that the justice system is all but
name and serves no justice. In fact at times it perpetrates injustice
itself in the name of justice.
Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain had a
gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in court and jail
money too.
N5
Alasdair
>It is certainly up to the police as to whether they offer a caution or not -
>but if the CPS are refusing to put a case before the courts then it is a
>caution or nothing.
And what happens if the punter says he's not accepting a caution?
--
Alasdair.
Ret.
If the offender has admitted his guilt - how much stronger a case do you
need? When it comes to juveniles the CPS will fall over backwards to avoid
putting them before the court. They only need the slightest excuse. A
'dissimilar offence' is the favourite - so if the offender has been
previously cautioned for shoplifting, then he can be further cautioned for
criminal damage because that isn't an offence of dishonesty. After that, if
he drives a car without insurance or a driving licence - then that's another
dissimilar offence deservining of a caution. It doesn't seem to occur to
the CPS that each of these offences is demonstrating a cavalier disregard
for the law and, by letting them off with a verbal caution, is merely
reinforcing a notion that they can do what they like and nothing will happen
to them.
Kev
Ret.
Depends... Usually they know they are bang to rights and are only too
willing to accept a slap on the wrist.
Kev
Ret.
Have I said anything remotely like that? What I am saying is that the CPS
are under pressure not to put people before the courts - particularly when
the prisons are overflowing. It doesn't matter how good the case is, or
even if there is a full admission by the offender - if the CPS don't want to
put the matter before a court then there is nothing the police can do but
either caution or release NFA.
Note in the article I've linked to that the Tories say they will return
charging decisions to the police.
Kev
Steve Walker
> If the offender has admitted his guilt - how much stronger a case do you
> need? When it comes to juveniles the CPS will fall over backwards to
> avoid putting them before the court. They only need the slightest
> excuse. A 'dissimilar offence' is the favourite - so if the offender has
> been previously cautioned for shoplifting, then he can be further
> cautioned for criminal damage because that isn't an offence of
> dishonesty. After that, if he drives a car without insurance or a
> driving licence - then that's another dissimilar offence deservining of
> a caution.
You're seriously lost in Daily Mail LaLaLand, Kev.
For nearly a decade, juveniles have been restricted to *one* Police
Reprimand followed by *one* Final Warning.
http://wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Reprimands_and_final_warnings
Steve Walker
> martin wrote:
>> Hang on. Are you really saying that the police are SO incompetent that
>> they are unable to put together a sufficiently strong case for someone
>> you think should be in prison for it to even get to court?
>
> Have I said anything remotely like that? What I am saying is that the
> CPS are under pressure not to put people before the courts -
That's utter nonsense - the CPS is thoroughly committed to *increasing*
their effectiveness against offenders - see for example
www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/justicegap.html
Mentalguy2k8
"martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b31e620$0$2477$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
You're accusing someone else of lacking balance?????
Ret.
LOL! What they say and what they do are entirely different things - but
having said that, a caution is as good as a court conviction to the CPS
because an offence has been detected and the matter disposed of. A caution
simply saves all that court time...
Kev
Cynic
>It is certainly up to the police as to whether they offer a caution or not -
>but if the CPS are refusing to put a case before the courts then it is a
>caution or nothing.
A few weeks ago you were assuring us that the police would never try
to get people to accept a caution unless they knew they would be able
to take them to court if the caution was refused.
I stated at the time that it was my belief that in a huge proportion,
if not the majority of cases, the police triy to trick the suspect
into accepting a caution because they know that the CPS would never
take the case to court.
It looks very much as if you have just admitted that my belief is
correct.
--
Cynic
Vicko Zoomba
> Hundreds of serial offenders are being given as many as nine or ten police
> cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
> Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of criminals
> receiving more than one caution in a year has increased from 28,256 in 2000
> to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
> The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by 33 per
> cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed ten or more has
> increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in 2008.
>
> 'Many police say that this is because the Crown Prosecution Service can be
> risk averse when deciding to take a case to court.
>
>
> You couldn't make it up.
>
You can when you're in LabourLand.
McKevvy
Vicko Zoomba
No disrepsect, but the Tories (like NuLabour) will say anything to get
them elected. How many promised have we had from politicians that
they've made while in opposition that simply don't materialise once
they are elected?
I personally would like to see the UK separate from the Human Rights
Act and build our own Act made by British people for British people
that constitutes British law upon British principles. Even with all
that it will take a very long time for this country to get back on the
moral, common sense track.
I fear we have lost it already.
McKevvy
Vicko Zoomba
> Steve Walker wrote:
> > Ret. wrote:
> >> martin wrote:
> >>> Hang on. Are you really saying that the police are SO incompetent
> >>> that they are unable to put together a sufficiently strong case for
> >>> someone you think should be in prison for it to even get to court?
>
> >> Have I said anything remotely like that? What I am saying is that
> >> the CPS are under pressure not to put people before the courts -
>
> > That's utter nonsense - the CPS is thoroughly committed to
> > *increasing* their effectiveness against offenders - see for example
> >www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/prosecution/justicegap.html
>
> LOL! What they say and what they do are entirely different things -
< my thoughts entirely!>
but
> having said that, a caution is as good as a court conviction to the CPS
> because an offence has been detected and the matter disposed of. A caution
> simply saves all that court time...
>
Agreed.
Mckevvy
Cynic
>LOL! What they say and what they do are entirely different things - but
>having said that, a caution is as good as a court conviction to the CPS
>because an offence has been detected and the matter disposed of. A caution
>simply saves all that court time...
And of course dispenses with a lot of unnecessary red tape, such as
actually proving that the suspect is guilty.
--
Cynic
Jethro
>
> - Show quoted text -
Surely *human* rights are just that ? Otherwise you are going to end
up with a situation of "French" rights and "German" rights. And I'm
sure you didn't mean to imply that.
Jethro
> Act and build our own Act made by British people for British people
> that constitutes British law upon British principles. Even with all
> that it will take a very long time for this country to get back on the
> moral, common sense track.
> I fear we have lost it already.
you miss the point. The *law* should be subservient to human rights.
Not the other way round.
AlanG
wrote:
As do fixed penalty notices for such allehed offences as cycling the
wrong way up the street or looking at me funny.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming
AlanG
The Daily Mail does it all the time. You saying they are labourites?
Ret.
The situations are different. In many of these cases a file has been
submitted to the CPS. The CPS accept that there is a case to answer but
argue that a caution is the most suitable way of disposing of the matter.
They are *not* arguing that there is insufficient evidence to put the matter
before a court - they are arguing that a caution is the most suitable
'penalty'. In many instances the police disagree with them vehemently - but
there is nothing that they can do about it.
Kev
Ret.
In many such instances there is already an admission of guilt. It is that
admission that is often sufficient to persuade the CPS that a caution is the
best method of disposal.
Kev
Ret.
No-one is forced to pay a fixed penalty.
Kev
Ret.
I agree totally.
Kev
Richard Miller
<robert....@google.co.uk> writes
>
>"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>news:IpWdnYCkLK2cQ6zW...@pipex.net...
>> Hundreds of serial offenders are being given as many as nine or ten police
>> cautions in a year rather than being taken to court.
>> Figures obtained by the Conservatives show that the number of criminals
>> receiving more than one caution in a year has increased from 28,256 in
>> 2000 to 43,512 in 2008, an increase of 54 per cent.
>> The number receiving nine cautions in a single year has increased by 33
>> per cent, from 45 in 2000 to 60 in 2008, and the number handed ten or more
>> has increased by 74 per cent, from 137 in 2000 to 238 in 2008.
>>
>> 'Many police say that this is because the Crown Prosecution Service can be
>> risk averse when deciding to take a case to court.
>>
>
>This backs up the assertion that the police will try to persuade a suspect
>to accept a caution instead of being taken to court precisely because they
>know that the case doesn't have a hope in hell's chance of success in court.
>
>
I have another concern.
We are told there is no more money for legal aid. Indeed, the pre-budget
report said there would be some cuts.
Where on earth are we going to find the slack in the system to cover
these tens of thousands of people if they start prosecuting them instead
of cautioning them? I don't disagree with the principle that it is the
right thing to do (if the evidence justifies it), but without the money,
it will cause serious problems.
--
Richard Miller
Steve Walker
The same arguments would apply, rather more directly, to the Police.
Jethro
so you agree the state is above the law ?
Cynic
>> And of course dispenses with a lot of unnecessary red tape, such as
>> actually proving that the suspect is guilty.
>In many such instances there is already an admission of guilt.
The admission is not necessarily proof that the person committed an
offence. They may have admitted carrying out a certain *act*, and
taken the word of the police that the act in question amounts to an
offence when in fact a court would find otherwise. Or they may have a
valid defence to the crime but are unaware that such a defence exists.
--
Cynic
Mr X
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fi25j594b0i80mhg4...@4ax.com...
Ret.
I agree that the UK is in a mess and that the Human Rights Act has created
more problems than it has solved. I also agree that we are becoming an
increasingly amoral country.
Kev
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> I agree that the UK is in a mess and that the Human Rights Act has created
> more problems than it has solved.
Really?
What 'problems' has it caused?
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
Ret.
> On Dec 24, 12:59 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> I agree that the UK is in a mess and that the Human Rights Act has
>> created more problems than it has solved.
>
> Really?
>
> What 'problems' has it caused?
Quick Google:
From the outset, critics of the Act claimed that it would be a field day for
lawyers and protect the interests of criminals and terrorists against the
law-abiding majority. The Act has become a cause celebre for much of the
Press, highlighting cases such as the London jeweller who was told by police
last October that circulating CCTV images of a thief would infringe human
rights laws.
The following month, 200 drug-addicted prisoners brought a case against the
Home Office for stopping them taking drugs in jail and won �3,500 each.
Opponents warned of a flood of trivial cases swamping the courts, while Mr
Cameron has spoken of the Act as "practically an invitation for terrorists
and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" because of the problems
successive Home Secretaries have faced detaining and attempting to deport
terror suspects who they say are a threat but cannot be charged.
Last year, the then Prime minister Tony Blair criticised the courts for an
"abuse of common sense" after a judge ruled that nine Afghan asylum seekers
who hijacked an aircraft to fly to Britain should not be returned to their
country as it might breach of their human rights.
A significant turning point was the 2005 case of Anthony Rice, a convicted
rapist who murdered a woman while on parole. The parole board was found to
have taken too much account of his human rights when they decided to release
him.
Ministers have expressed exasperation at the way the Act has been
interpreted by the courts on some occasions. In January, the former Home
Secretary Charles Clarke launched a withering attack on the senior
judiciary, citing the case of anti-terrorist control orders, which were
overturned by the Appeal Court without offering advice on how to make them
comply with human rights law.
The Act appears to put the rights of some criminals above those of their
victims
* It has been accused of adding to the cost of litigation and fuelling the
compensation culture
* Publicity surrounding high-profile cases involving the Act helps to
undermine confidence in the legal system
Kev
Col Colt
>
> From the outset, critics of the Act claimed that it would be a field day
> for lawyers and protect the interests of criminals and terrorists against
> the law-abiding majority.
much as a parking ticket - and my interests are served by the HRA and the
constraints it places on the state and its increasinlgy out of control and
undisciplined agents. The problem is that the HRA is not strong enough in
protecting the interests of the innocent - look at the way it failed to halt
the evil practice of raping the innocent of the DNA - but it is better than
the nothing.
> The Act has become a cause celebre for much of the Press, highlighting
> cases such as the London jeweller who was told by police last October that
> circulating CCTV images of a thief would infringe human rights laws.
>
Which just goes to show that the police are happy to misrepresent the act.
There is nothing in the HRA that would prohibit CCTV - mores the pity - as
is proved by the fact that parts of this country now look like the less
scenic parts of East Germany.
> The following month, 200 drug-addicted prisoners brought a case against
> the Home Office for stopping them taking drugs in jail and won �3,500
> each.
Lie.
> Opponents warned of a flood of trivial cases swamping the courts, while Mr
> Cameron has spoken of the Act as "practically an invitation for terrorists
> and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" because of the problems
> successive Home Secretaries have faced detaining and attempting to deport
> terror suspects who they say are a threat but cannot be charged.
>
And Camerton's opinion is to be trusted because? Like any other modern
politicianh is primary function is to destroy freedom. The man simply a
smarmier version of Brown.
> Last year, the then Prime minister Tony Blair criticised the courts for an
> "abuse of common sense" after a judge ruled that nine Afghan asylum
> seekers who hijacked an aircraft to fly to Britain should not be returned
> to their country as it might breach of their human rights.
>
And you adduce a proven liar in defence of your case!
> A significant turning point was the 2005 case of Anthony Rice, a convicted
> rapist who murdered a woman while on parole. The parole board was found to
> have taken too much account of his human rights when they decided to
> release him.
>
And what was he on parole for? Without knowing the details of the case it
is impossible to know whether the board's decision was reasonable. Just
quoting the tendentious Dail Mail headline proves nothing.
> Ministers have expressed exasperation at the way the Act has been
> interpreted by the courts on some occasions.
You mean Labour ministers whose raison d'etre is to destroy as much freedomn
as possible before they are ejected from office 'expressed exasperation'.
If the HRA were truly doing its job, those ministers would be incandescent
as every one of their attacks on the innocent would have been overturned.
It's like asking a convicted paedophile for his opinion on child protection
laws.
> In January, the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke launched a withering
> attack on the senior judiciary, citing the case of anti-terrorist control
> orders, which were overturned by the Appeal Court without offering advice
> on how to make them comply with human rights law.
>
Clarke is a liar and utterly untrustworthy. No surprise that you would seek
him as an authority. Detention without trial is an insult to the long held
freedoms of this country. But then I would not expect you to understand
that.
> The Act appears to put the rights of some criminals above those of their
> victims
>
Lie
> * It has been accused of adding to the cost of litigation and fuelling the
> compensation culture
>
Accusations are cheap and meaningless.
> * Publicity surrounding high-profile cases involving the Act helps to
> undermine confidence in the legal system
>
So blame the freedom-hating tabloid press, who won't be happy until this
country is turned into a police state.
Col Colt
news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
> empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
> without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
>
And if the 'victim' gets the wrong person, what then? If it is OK for a
vigilante to murder an innocent and then say in exculpation 'honest mistake'
then it must be OK for their victim's family to kill every member of the
vigilante's family to ensure that all vigilantes are more careful in the
future. Fair's fair.
> Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain had a
> gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in court and jail
> money too.
>
Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol with ease,
Salen would have also had a gun. In such circumstances, a burlgar going
into an occupied house is going to preemptively kill all the inhabitants
before they present a threat to him. Not that I disagree with firearms
ownership, per se, but the idea that it is going to be asymmetrical, with
only the 'good guys' armed, is naive bullshit.
joe parkin
So in a country with easy gun laws, do burglars actually shoot the
house owners on sight? If not, why not?
--
Ret.
> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> news:PsSdnXhjC6uYW67W...@pipex.net...
>>
>> From the outset, critics of the Act claimed that it would be a field
>> day for lawyers and protect the interests of criminals and
>> terrorists against the law-abiding majority.
> Well I am a member of the 'law abiding majority' - I have never have
> had as much as a parking ticket - and my interests are served by the
> HRA and the constraints it places on the state and its increasinlgy
> out of control and undisciplined agents. The problem is that the HRA
> is not strong enough in protecting the interests of the innocent -
> look at the way it failed to halt the evil practice of raping the
> innocent of the DNA - but it is better than the nothing.
>
>> The Act has become a cause celebre for much of the Press,
>> highlighting cases such as the London jeweller who was told by
>> police last October that circulating CCTV images of a thief would
>> infringe human rights laws.
> Which just goes to show that the police are happy to misrepresent the
> act. There is nothing in the HRA that would prohibit CCTV - mores the
> pity - as is proved by the fact that parts of this country now look
> like the less scenic parts of East Germany.
Read what it says. It says that the Act prevented a London jeweller from
*circulating* CCTV images of a thief. It did not say that the Act prevented
him from using CCTV.
>
>> The following month, 200 drug-addicted prisoners brought a case
>> against the Home Office for stopping them taking drugs in jail and
>> won �3,500 each.
> Lie.
So what is the truth in relation to that incident then? That's certainly
how I read it at the time.
>
>> Opponents warned of a flood of trivial cases swamping the courts,
>> while Mr Cameron has spoken of the Act as "practically an invitation
>> for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" because
>> of the problems successive Home Secretaries have faced detaining and
>> attempting to deport terror suspects who they say are a threat but
>> cannot be charged.
> And Camerton's opinion is to be trusted because? Like any other
> modern politicianh is primary function is to destroy freedom. The
> man simply a smarmier version of Brown.
He is simply verbalising the concerns of many people about this pernicious
Act.
>
>> Last year, the then Prime minister Tony Blair criticised the courts
>> for an "abuse of common sense" after a judge ruled that nine Afghan
>> asylum seekers who hijacked an aircraft to fly to Britain should not
>> be returned to their country as it might breach of their human
>> rights.
> And you adduce a proven liar in defence of your case!
I have merely cut 'n pasted a newspaper article. What about the actual facts
of the incident?
Truth.
>
>> * It has been accused of adding to the cost of litigation and
>> fuelling the compensation culture
>>
> Accusations are cheap and meaningless.
>
>> * Publicity surrounding high-profile cases involving the Act helps to
>> undermine confidence in the legal system
>>
> So blame the freedom-hating tabloid press, who won't be happy until
> this country is turned into a police state.
I believe you are in a minority with your liking for the Act.
If you want more articles on why it is a bad law, look here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=human+rights+act
Kev
Ret.
Take a look at the 'death from gunshots' statistics from the US and weep.
Remember the case a couple of years ago when an English couple in the states
ran out of petrol and the husband knocked on someone's door? He was shot
through the glass door and killed because the home owner thought he had come
to rob them. That's the sort of thing that would happen over here if we had
'easy gun laws'.
You readily castigate police firearms officers for the tiny minority of
mistaken shootings. How many mistaken shootings do you think there would be
if every Tom, Dick and Harry were permitted to carry guns for 'protection'?
Kev
Ret.
> Col Colt wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>> news:PsSdnXhjC6uYW67W...@pipex.net...
> If you want more articles on why it is a bad law, look here:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=human+rights+act
>
> Kev
Further to the above I would also add this comment. IMO, one of the main
problems with society today (which is bolstered by this Act) is that whilst
everyone is aware of their *rights* - very few pay much regard to their
'responsibilities'.
So let me make a suggestion - that a new 'Human Responsibilities Act' is
created and takes precedence whenever there is a clash between it and the
'Human Rights Act'.
So, if an asylum seeker, whilst in this country awaiting a decision, decides
to drive a car without any driving documents, and then runs off when he
knocks down and kills a child (as has happened very recently), the fact that
he has produced children whilst in the country should matter not a fig.
Under the Human Responsibilities Act, he had a responsibility to abide by
the laws of the UK and not to act in such a way that endangered members of
the public. Because he has ignored those responsibilities he immediately
loses all rights to remain in the UK and is deported. Those sections of the
Human Rights Act which afford him a right to a 'family life' are of no
account because, by his own actions and failure to abide by his
responsibilities under the Human Responsibilities Act, he has himself
deprived others of that right.
How's about that?
Kev
Col Colt
news:7pk0v4...@mid.individual.net...
Col Colt
> Ret. wrote:
>> Col Colt wrote:
>>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
>>> news:PsSdnXhjC6uYW67W...@pipex.net...
>
>> If you want more articles on why it is a bad law, look here:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=human+rights+act
>>
>> Kev
>
> Further to the above I would also add this comment. IMO, one of the main
> problems with society today (which is bolstered by this Act) is that
> whilst everyone is aware of their *rights* - very few pay much regard to
> their 'responsibilities'.
>
police and other species of state superannuated parasite, who simply cannot
be brought to account for their routine abuses of the law and insults
against the law abiding. They are a much greater threat to me that some
pathetic Afghan that wouldn't be here if Britain hadn't assisted the United
States of Terrorism in playing its owned deluded version of the 'great
game'.
Cynic
wrote:
>>>> And of course dispenses with a lot of unnecessary red tape, such as
>>>> actually proving that the suspect is guilty.
>>>In many such instances there is already an admission of guilt.
>> The admission is not necessarily proof that the person committed an
>> offence. They may have admitted carrying out a certain *act*, and
>> taken the word of the police that the act in question amounts to an
>> offence when in fact a court would find otherwise. Or they may have a
>> valid defence to the crime but are unaware that such a defence exists.
>That's their problem.
Indeed it is. The question is whether our justice system should be
creating such problems for people.
--
Cynic
Mr X
Everyone can have access to a solicitor at the police station free of cost.
If they decide not to call one and accept the caution that is their choice.
It is not the job of the police to run people's defences.
If you want to see cautions abolished you'll have t make a better case than
that.
Cynic
>>> The Act has become a cause celebre for much of the Press,
>>> highlighting cases such as the London jeweller who was told by
>>> police last October that circulating CCTV images of a thief would
>>> infringe human rights laws.
>> Which just goes to show that the police are happy to misrepresent the
>> act. There is nothing in the HRA that would prohibit CCTV - mores the
>> pity - as is proved by the fact that parts of this country now look
>> like the less scenic parts of East Germany.
>Read what it says. It says that the Act prevented a London jeweller from
>*circulating* CCTV images of a thief. It did not say that the Act prevented
>him from using CCTV.
Which is no less bullshit. It seems that in that case it was the
police who had no understanding of the law. If they did, they would
have known that the HRA has *no power whatsoever* over private
citizens, but can only be apoplied to *governments*.
Unsurprising seeing that policemen still claim that photography in
public is illegal despite having it spelled out to them on several
occasions.
>>> The following month, 200 drug-addicted prisoners brought a case
>>> against the Home Office for stopping them taking drugs in jail and
>>> won �3,500 each.
>> Lie.
>So what is the truth in relation to that incident then? That's certainly
>how I read it at the time.
The drug in question was a medically prescribed drug (methadone)
intended to assist in getting them off their addiction. The prison
refused to allow them to take such medication. As such it was little
different to refusing to allow a prisoner to have prescribed
painkillers.
>>> Opponents warned of a flood of trivial cases swamping the courts,
>>> while Mr Cameron has spoken of the Act as "practically an invitation
>>> for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" because
>>> of the problems successive Home Secretaries have faced detaining and
>>> attempting to deport terror suspects who they say are a threat but
>>> cannot be charged.
>> And Camerton's opinion is to be trusted because? Like any other
>> modern politicianh is primary function is to destroy freedom. The
>> man simply a smarmier version of Brown.
>He is simply verbalising the concerns of many people about this pernicious
>Act.
Concerns that have absolutely no basis in fact. Politicians are good
at pandering to popular hysteria rather than telling the truth.
>>> Last year, the then Prime minister Tony Blair criticised the courts
>>> for an "abuse of common sense" after a judge ruled that nine Afghan
>>> asylum seekers who hijacked an aircraft to fly to Britain should not
>>> be returned to their country as it might breach of their human
>>> rights.
>> And you adduce a proven liar in defence of your case!
>I have merely cut 'n pasted a newspaper article. What about the actual facts
>of the incident?
Which part of the HRA do you claim was involved, and why is that law
undesirable?
In fact, perhaps you would list all the sections of the HRA that you
claim to be things that are undesirable. Note that almost all of them
carry an exception in that they may legitimately be broken for the
purpose of crime detection, prevention of the security of the country.
The HRA is often made into a *scapegoat* for acts that were in fact
due to incompetance or had more sinister motives. Just as the DPA is
often used as an excuse for not providing information that you are
entitled to.
--
Cynic
Jethro
well first of, you cannot legislate for morality, so you can stop any
talk of that and the HRA. Secondly, you totally and utterly failed to
answer my question. Now I know when a member of the public does this
when being interviewed by a police officer, then it becomes an instant
admission of guilt (been there with a rather aggressive DS years ago),
but for you, I'll try again.
Simple question.
"Is the state above the law ?"
If you answer yes, then you are a troll. If you answer no, then you
would have to agree that the HRA is simply a piece of legislation
designed to ensure the state is *not* above the law. You may disagree
with it's interpretation (as I do in a few cases) but you can't simply
say it's invalid per se.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Please do not call Kevin a 'troll'.
It's unfair to trolls.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> So, if an asylum seeker, whilst in this country awaiting a decision, decides
> to drive a car without any driving documents, and then runs off when he
> knocks down and kills a child (as has happened very recently), the fact that
> he has produced children whilst in the country should matter not a fig.
> Under the Human Responsibilities Act, he had a responsibility to abide by
> the laws of the UK and not to act in such a way that endangered members of
> the public. Because he has ignored those responsibilities he immediately
> loses all rights to remain in the UK and is deported. Those sections of the
> Human Rights Act which afford him a right to a 'family life' are of no
> account because, by his own actions and failure to abide by his
> responsibilities under the Human Responsibilities Act, he has himself
> deprived others of that right.
>
> How's about that?
It isn't even good enough to call 'bullshit'.
For one thing, you have casually disregarded the rights of his family
to have a family life.
Apart from your previous employment as a policeman, why do you believe
it is appropriate to punish the innocent?
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> Culex (The Infamous Culex) wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 12:59 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> >> I agree that the UK is in a mess and that the Human Rights Act has
> >> created more problems than it has solved.
>
> > Really?
>
> > What 'problems' has it caused?
>
> Quick Google:
And the usual, right-wing, popular prattle.
I could go through those examples of trite, Tory twaddle but I'd only
be duplicating the excellent efforts of others. So I'll ask Kev
another question or two - it's really just the same question, but
asked two ways, to help the hard of understanding:
Whence did those definitions of human rights arise?
In other words, Kev, were they foisted on the UK by the EU?
(I know the answer, of course, and I suspect most other people do, but
let's just see if Herr Kev knows. So please don't give him any
clues...)
Ret.
The main question is whether our 'justice system' is actually deserving of
that description...
Kev
Ret.
No-one has punished his family but him. What about the rights of the family
he has torn apart due to his callous disregard for our laws? But, of
course, the Human Rights Act invariably puts the rights of the criminal
ahead of the rights of his victims doesn't it?
Kev
joe parkin
> joe parkin wrote:
> > Col Colt wrote:
> >
> >>"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups
> > > .com ...
Before the law on firearms, how many mistaken shootings were there?
My question still stands about burglars shooting on sight prior to
robbing houses, not a case a couple of year ago which did not involve
burglars.
--
joe parkin
> "joe parkin" <joeparki...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:7pk0v4...@mid.individual.net...
> > Col Colt wrote:
> >
> >>"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups
> > > .com ...
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
> >>> empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
> >>> without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
> > > >
> > > And if the 'victim' gets the wrong person, what then? If it is OK
> > > for a vigilante to murder an innocent and then say in exculpation
> > > 'honest mistake' then it must be OK for their victim's family to
> > > kill every member of the vigilante's family to ensure that all
> > > vigilantes are more careful in the future. Fair's fair.
> > >
> >>> Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain
> had >>> a gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in
> court and >>> jail money too.
> > > >
> > > Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol
> > > with ease, Salen would have also had a gun. In such
> > > circumstances, a burlgar going into an occupied house is going to
> > > preemptively kill all the inhabitants before they present a
> > > threat to him. Not that I disagree with firearms ownership, per
> > > se, but the idea that it is going to be asymmetrical, with only
> > > the 'good guys' armed, is naive bullshit.
> >
> > So in a country with easy gun laws, do burglars actually shoot the
> > house owners on sight? If not, why not?
> >
> On occasions, yes.
December 6, 2004
Shooting the burglar
Daily Mail, 6 December 2004
According to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens,
householders should be able to kill burglars and only face prosecution
where they are shown to have used 'gratuitous violence'.
Name 2
--
Ret.
Before the law on firearms, only a tiny minority of the UK populace held
guns - and even they were tightly controlled. People were not allowed to
carry or use guns for protection prior to the Dunblane incident - but
despite that we still had two massacres (which we have not had since). If we
allowed the entire uk population to buy and own guns as easily as they can
in the States then our 'deaths from gunshot' stats would shoot up to
resemble the US.
Kev
Ret.
As the recently jailed 'businessman' did.
Kev
joe parkin
> joe parkin wrote:
> > Col Colt wrote:
> >
> >>"joe parkin" <joeparki...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7pk0v4...@mid.individual.net...
> > > > Col Colt wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegr
> > > > > oups .com ...
It wasn't "gratuitous"?
--
Ret.
It was in the opinion of the judge.
Kev
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
No - it just does not sustain the imbecilic notion that, because one
family has been 'torn apart', the family of the miscreant must
likewise be wrenched asunder.
Why do you have this peculiar idea that the human rights of a
criminal's family are voided by that criminal's conviction even after
that criminal has been released from prison?
Finally, how about answering my other question of who 'foisted' the
European Convention of Human Rights on the UK?
Col Colt
>> >
>> > December 6, 2004
>> > Shooting the burglar
>> > Daily Mail, 6 December 2004
>> >
>> > According to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens,
>> > householders should be able to kill burglars and only face
>> > prosecution where they are shown to have used 'gratuitous violence'.
>>
>> As the recently jailed 'businessman' did.
>
> It wasn't "gratuitous"?
>
Ret.
No-one's fault but the miscreant's. I know that must be a hard concept for a
bleeding-heart liberal - but it's true none-the-less. Perhaps we ought not
to send anyone to jail because of the effect it will have upon their family?
>
> Why do you have this peculiar idea that the human rights of a
> criminal's family are voided by that criminal's conviction even after
> that criminal has been released from prison?
If the criminal did not want to his family to be inconvenienced by his
criminality - he should not have resorted to criminality.
>
> Finally, how about answering my other question of who 'foisted' the
> European Convention of Human Rights on the UK?
Our ludicrous and pathetic government - who else?
Kev
Cynic
wrote:
>> Indeed it is. The question is whether our justice system should be
>> creating such problems for people.
>AFAICS it isn't.b
>Everyone can have access to a solicitor at the police station free of cost.
>If they decide not to call one and accept the caution that is their choice.
>It is not the job of the police to run people's defences.
The police should however give people a full and honest indication of
their position. In many cases the police indicate that they are doing
the suspect a *favour* by offering a caution, when in fact the police
know full well that the CPS would probably not pursue a prosecution.
Many people who accepted a caution for child porn offences were not
told that it would entail being on the sex offenders' register for
years. The cases of that nature where a caution was offered were
mostly those where the images were of questionable indecency, so the
suspect may well have elected to take the gamble and go to trial if
full consequences were known.
And Kev has previously stated that a caution is sometimes offered as a
"take it now or leave it offer" that will be withdrawn if the suspect
elects to wait to see a solicitor.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>Further to the above I would also add this comment. IMO, one of the main
>problems with society today (which is bolstered by this Act) is that whilst
>everyone is aware of their *rights* - very few pay much regard to their
>'responsibilities'.
The same is true of those who are given powers, but fail to pay much
regard to the responsibilities that go with those powers.
--
Cynic
Ret.
I don't disagree - it is a symptom of today's UK society.
If I could have been given a pound for every person I dealt with during my
time in the police who claimed, "I know my rights". I would be a rich man.
I don't think I every heard anyone proclaim, "I know my responsibilities.".
Actually, in the early years of my service, the most often heard statement
was: "I pay my rates." I never quite worked out just what that was supposed
to signify! I think many thought that being a rate-payer meant that they
had a 'Get out of jail free' card!
Kev
Mr X
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:51:56 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Indeed it is. The question is whether our justice system should be
>>> creating such problems for people.
>
>>AFAICS it isn't.b
>>Everyone can have access to a solicitor at the police station free of
>>cost.
>>If they decide not to call one and accept the caution that is their
>>choice.
>>It is not the job of the police to run people's defences.
>
> The police should however give people a full and honest indication of
> their position. In many cases the police indicate that they are doing
> the suspect a *favour* by offering a caution, when in fact the police
> know full well that the CPS would probably not pursue a prosecution.
>
caution or face a court. That in itself means they are satisfied that the
person is guilty of an offence. By accepting a caution the person is
admitting guilt. If you haven't done it, why say you have?
I don't believe the police should have to look after the suspect's
interests. He can get a lawyer for that, free of cost.
Of course the caution shouldn't be on a take it or leave it basis.
> Many people who accepted a caution for child porn offences were not
> told that it would entail being on the sex offenders' register for
> years. The cases of that nature where a caution was offered were
> mostly those where the images were of questionable indecency, so the
> suspect may well have elected to take the gamble and go to trial if
> full consequences were known.
>
I would never accept a caution. Someone I was at University did after
getting into a fight with a bouncer during freshers' week. He came off the
worse in the fight as well. I still don't know why he took the caution but
as he wasn't a friend I never got into the details.
joe parkin
Miss the question mark at the end?
--
November 5
Col Colt wrote:
> "November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
> > empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
> > without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
> >
> And if the 'victim' gets the wrong person, what then? If it is OK for a
> vigilante to murder an innocent and then say in exculpation 'honest mistake'
> then it must be OK for their victim's family to kill every member of the
> vigilante's family to ensure that all vigilantes are more careful in the
> future. Fair's fair.
Cue the concept of "statistical justice". This is justice which is
meted out by probabilities and chance, rather than absolutes.
It is impossible for human justice to be correct 100% of the time. It
is an illusion to think courts are not governed by the concept of
"statistical justice" either.
It may be that a burglar would gun down the people whose house he
breaks into, presumably with a sound suppressor so as to not attract
the attention of the whole (armed) household or neighbours.
However, every time the burglar does the deed, he plays Russian
Roulette. "Statistical justice" says that in a fully armed society,
even without courts and police, he will eventually be gunned down.
> > Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain had a
> > gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in court and jail
> > money too.
> >
> Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol with ease,
> Salen would have also had a gun. In such circumstances, a burlgar going
> into an occupied house is going to preemptively kill all the inhabitants
> before they present a threat to him. Not that I disagree with firearms
> ownership, per se, but the idea that it is going to be asymmetrical, with
> only the 'good guys' armed, is naive bullshit.
I never said good guys may not find themselves shot. By that same
token how many innocent people have we fined, sent to jail or been
given cautions? All in the name of "institutional, impartial justice"!
However I will state as fact that on average, troublemakers in a fully
armed society will meet justice quickly.
N5
Ret.
> Col Colt wrote:
>> "November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
>>> empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
>>> without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
>>>
>> And if the 'victim' gets the wrong person, what then? If it is OK
>> for a vigilante to murder an innocent and then say in exculpation
>> 'honest mistake' then it must be OK for their victim's family to
>> kill every member of the vigilante's family to ensure that all
>> vigilantes are more careful in the future. Fair's fair.
>
> Cue the concept of "statistical justice". This is justice which is
> meted out by probabilities and chance, rather than absolutes.
>
> It is impossible for human justice to be correct 100% of the time. It
> is an illusion to think courts are not governed by the concept of
> "statistical justice" either.
>
> It may be that a burglar would gun down the people whose house he
> breaks into, presumably with a sound suppressor so as to not attract
> the attention of the whole (armed) household or neighbours.
>
> However, every time the burglar does the deed, he plays Russian
> Roulette. "Statistical justice" says that in a fully armed society,
> even without courts and police, he will eventually be gunned down.
And statistics also say that in a fully armed society the number of people
shot by accident, following arguments, and in suicides, will all be
dramatically higher than in societies that are not fully armed. Is it worth
it?
>
>>> Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain had
>>> a gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in court and
>>> jail money too.
>>>
>> Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol
>> with ease, Salen would have also had a gun. In such circumstances,
>> a burlgar going into an occupied house is going to preemptively kill
>> all the inhabitants before they present a threat to him. Not that I
>> disagree with firearms ownership, per se, but the idea that it is
>> going to be asymmetrical, with only the 'good guys' armed, is naive
>> bullshit.
>
> I never said good guys may not find themselves shot. By that same
> token how many innocent people have we fined, sent to jail or been
> given cautions? All in the name of "institutional, impartial justice"!
>
> However I will state as fact that on average, troublemakers in a fully
> armed society will meet justice quickly.
And also many hundreds of wholly innocent people would meet their deaths
quickly...
Kev
Ret.
> Col Colt wrote:
>> "November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:faf82607-8987-4a25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Justice would be more swift and appropriate if more victims were
>>> empowered to fight back with both the right tools for the job and
>>> without fear of the law coming back to haunt them!
>>>
>> And if the 'victim' gets the wrong person, what then? If it is OK
>> for a vigilante to murder an innocent and then say in exculpation
>> 'honest mistake' then it must be OK for their victim's family to
>> kill every member of the vigilante's family to ensure that all
>> vigilantes are more careful in the future. Fair's fair.
>
> Cue the concept of "statistical justice". This is justice which is
> meted out by probabilities and chance, rather than absolutes.
>
> It is impossible for human justice to be correct 100% of the time. It
> is an illusion to think courts are not governed by the concept of
> "statistical justice" either.
>
> It may be that a burglar would gun down the people whose house he
> breaks into, presumably with a sound suppressor so as to not attract
> the attention of the whole (armed) household or neighbours.
>
> However, every time the burglar does the deed, he plays Russian
> Roulette. "Statistical justice" says that in a fully armed society,
> even without courts and police, he will eventually be gunned down.
And just how many more incidents like this:
would we have in a fully armed society? You are crazy to think that more
guns would make society safer.
Kev
November 5
If you're perfectly rational about it, you have to admit that the man
had dodgy genes to be predisposed to commit such a violent crime. At
least we can say his genes won't be passed on to future generations.
Would you rather he didn't kill his family, and taxpayers have to
support him or his family in later years for mental health care?
Or would you rather he kill his family with a machete, given a gun
ban?
N5
November 5
Your "statistics" on American gun data prove nothing. This has been
debated in other threads and your fearmongering was shown to be a sham
by me and other posters.
Those gunned down were probably thieves or muggers who got their just
desserts, instead of like in the UK where the criminals go free and
the homeowners get jailed. There is no other interpretation of this,
other than that the whole justice system is perverted and is an abject
failure.
>
> >
> >>> Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain had
> >>> a gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in court and
> >>> jail money too.
> >>>
> >> Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol
> >> with ease, Salen would have also had a gun. In such circumstances,
> >> a burlgar going into an occupied house is going to preemptively kill
> >> all the inhabitants before they present a threat to him. Not that I
> >> disagree with firearms ownership, per se, but the idea that it is
> >> going to be asymmetrical, with only the 'good guys' armed, is naive
> >> bullshit.
> >
> > I never said good guys may not find themselves shot. By that same
> > token how many innocent people have we fined, sent to jail or been
> > given cautions? All in the name of "institutional, impartial justice"!
> >
> > However I will state as fact that on average, troublemakers in a fully
> > armed society will meet justice quickly.
>
> And also many hundreds of wholly innocent people would meet their deaths
> quickly...
>
> Kev
So you would disarm, say, a woman, and expect her to fight a 200 kilo
mugger with her bare hands?
You have blood on your hands!
N5
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Imprisoning the driver of the car for the offence(s) he committed was
proportionate to his guilt. Tearing his family apart after his release
from jail would have been grossly disproportionate and, moreover,
would have contravened their basic human rights.
> > Why do you have this peculiar idea that the human rights of a
> > criminal's family are voided by that criminal's conviction even after
> > that criminal has been released from prison?
>
> If the criminal did not want to his family to be inconvenienced by his
> criminality - he should not have resorted to criminality.
Irrelevant. His sentence was just and has been served.
There is no excuse for any further action to be taken.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
Which 'ludicrous and pathetic government' had you in mind?
Ret.
In your opinion - but not necessarily in the opinion of others who want to
be protected for ever from people who behave like this.
>
>>> Why do you have this peculiar idea that the human rights of a
>>> criminal's family are voided by that criminal's conviction even
>>> after that criminal has been released from prison?
>>
>> If the criminal did not want to his family to be inconvenienced by
>> his criminality - he should not have resorted to criminality.
>
> Irrelevant. His sentence was just and has been served.
>
> There is no excuse for any further action to be taken.
Again - in your opinion. When people come to this country as a guest, then
they have a responsibility to abide by our laws. If they fail to do that,
and abuse our hospitality, then they should lose the right to remain here.
They can always take their family with them.
Kev
Ret.
Totally and utterly untrue.
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and
suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>
> Those gunned down were probably thieves or muggers who got their just
> desserts,
Again - a total fabrication of your fevered mind. How many thieves or
muggers were sat taking lessons in the numerous school massacres that have
taken place in the States?
instead of like in the UK where the criminals go free and
> the homeowners get jailed. There is no other interpretation of this,
> other than that the whole justice system is perverted and is an abject
> failure.
I don't disagree with you that our UK justice system is a complete farce and
punishments generally far too lenient. Arming the general public is not the
answer, however, as deaths from gunshots would climb dramatically - and
there would be more deaths of innocent people than criminals.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Walid Salem would have gotten his just dessert if Munir Hussain
>>>>> had a gun to kill him. Would've saved the taxpayer a mint in
>>>>> court and jail money too.
>>>>>
>>>> Of course in any world where Hussain could have acquired a pistol
>>>> with ease, Salen would have also had a gun. In such circumstances,
>>>> a burlgar going into an occupied house is going to preemptively
>>>> kill all the inhabitants before they present a threat to him. Not
>>>> that I disagree with firearms ownership, per se, but the idea that
>>>> it is going to be asymmetrical, with only the 'good guys' armed,
>>>> is naive bullshit.
>>>
>>> I never said good guys may not find themselves shot. By that same
>>> token how many innocent people have we fined, sent to jail or been
>>> given cautions? All in the name of "institutional, impartial
>>> justice"!
>>>
>>> However I will state as fact that on average, troublemakers in a
>>> fully armed society will meet justice quickly.
>>
>> And also many hundreds of wholly innocent people would meet their
>> deaths quickly...
>>
>> Kev
>
> So you would disarm, say, a woman, and expect her to fight a 200 kilo
> mugger with her bare hands?
>
> You have blood on your hands!
The chances of your armed woman being able to get her gun out of her handbag
and actually use it in such a situation are remote. Unless, of course, you
are wanting your armed populace to all be walking around with loaded
handguns in their hands, safety off...
Kev
Ret.
There is no evidence to suggest that he would have done any such thing.
There is ample evidence from around the world that the more guns there are
in circulation, the more innocent people die from gunshots.
Kev
November 5
So what? Even if your clearly unbiased source is true, what is to say
those who killed themselves wouldn't kill themselves some other way?
Maybe even plough their car over a bridge and take some pedestrians
with them?
>
>
>
> >
> > Those gunned down were probably thieves or muggers who got their just
> > desserts,
>
> Again - a total fabrication of your fevered mind.
Ah, personal comments begin.
I will mirror what other posters here have noted about your posting
style. You offer the most shallow of arguments with a modicum of what
passes as "logic" for an uneducated person like yourself, and when
these fail you resort to personal comments. It is police style through
and through, of the "No one paints factories" logic the copper who
arrested a painter painting factories said.
So, I will return the favour. You, are a person on the twilight of his
life, still set in your ways and bitter over younger, more talented
people with opportunities. Your punishment, is your existence.
> How many thieves or
> muggers were sat taking lessons in the numerous school massacres that have
> taken place in the States?
The schools where the shootings happened were notably, gun free
campuses, such as Virginia Tech, which recently implemented a gun-free
campus policy weeks before the shooting. Look it up!
In fact the campuses where shootings were averted with minimal
casualties were ones where it so happened that people at the scene
were armed, such as taking their handgun from their car's glove
compartment.
>
> instead of like in the UK where the criminals go free and
> > the homeowners get jailed. There is no other interpretation of this,
> > other than that the whole justice system is perverted and is an abject
> > failure.
>
> I don't disagree with you that our UK justice system is a complete farce and
> punishments generally far too lenient.
And the bigger travesty is that all UK taxpayers are paying to prop up
such a corrupt system, that will put *them* in jail or fined, while it
lets the crims go free!
Much easier to abolish the court system and all laws entirely, and let
the system govern laisser faire.
Amongst other reasons, this is why as a moral person I decided I will
have nothing to do with the UK taxman and migrated abroad. Paying tax
in the UK is an indirect crime, due to what the taxes go towards
paying, such as embezzling MPs, a painfully corrupt judiciary/
executive and so on.
> Arming the general public is not the
> answer, however, as deaths from gunshots would climb dramatically - and
> there would be more deaths of innocent people than criminals.
Criminals are the ones who would be gunned down as a result of arming
law abiding people.
At the end of the day, no one does trials or confessions of those
gunned down. So in all fairness, it is impossible to say EITHER WAY if
those gunned down were truly deserving of it.
So the acid test is whether you would like to live in those countries
with freer gun laws, such as Switzerland, Finland, the Czech Republic,
Austria, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Israel, Thailand, ...
As for me, I have already migrated to a gun free country from the UK
and indeed I have visited most of the countries on that list, and
wouldn't mind living there more than the UK for a variety of reasons,
such as a more friendly environment for businesses, better work ethic
of employees, less militant unions, less red tape, ...
Discuss chances as you want, but I'd say the woman has better chances
with a gun, than without one.
At the end of the day, who cares about what you think? You're just an
old fart who has had his chance to change the world and hasn't even
dared to contemplate change in your sad, decrepit old age. The world
will go on, business as usual, without you, and your "contributions"
throughout your life probably already forgotten.
N5
November 5
Disputable, as no one has put those gunned down before a trial to see
if they weren't deserving of their fate.
But for argument's sake let's say this is true. To what extent exactly
do you propose people should be protected from harm?
Are you going to ban: Bladed/pointed implements? Electricity? Fuel?
Cars? Water? Salt? Cholesterol? Candles? Poisonous trees? Stairs? Tall
buildings? Fire?
How many freedoms do you propose to take away to preempt tragedy or
crime?
Do you see now, why it is most fortunate you are a nobody and are
nearing the end of your life? Your dangerous beliefs of preempting
crime/tragedy by restricting freedoms do not deserve the light of day.
The world is a dangerous place. Those with the most options or tools
available to them, are the most likely to adapt.
N5
nux vomica
> November 5 wrote:
> > Ret. wrote:
> >> November 5 wrote:
> >>> Col Colt wrote:
The chances of what!? - Same order of chance as Mrs Woods being able
to get the old 9-iron out of Tiger's golf-bag I expect,, eh?
<nux vomica>
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
As usual, Kev has failed or refused to answer this question.
Is he stupid or simply arrogant?
nux vomica
I've got the armoured-car ready and available, so:-
It's in his basic nature as a trait but this has doubtless been
reinforced by token-incentives schemes/reward and punishment etc, much
in the same manner as the dogs they similarly train,
'They' made him like this for an intended purpose, unfortunately it's
impossible for him to now change just as it's equally impossible and
futile trying to teach an old-dog new-tricks -impossible!:(
<nux vomica>
AlanG
Indeed.
The sentence for an offence once served should be the end of the
matter. Pandering to sadists for extra punishment is not serving the
ends of justice
Cynic
wrote:
>> The police should however give people a full and honest indication of
>> their position. In many cases the police indicate that they are doing
>> the suspect a *favour* by offering a caution, when in fact the police
>> know full well that the CPS would probably not pursue a prosecution.
>Are you saying that they aren't? The police are saying you can take the
>caution or face a court.
And *there* is the dishonesty in cases where the police know that the
probability of the CPS taking the case to court is very small.
> That in itself means they are satisfied that the
>person is guilty of an offence. By accepting a caution the person is
>admitting guilt. If you haven't done it, why say you have?
Why do people allow the police to delete photographs from their camera
when they have done nothing wrong?
The arrest and processing is, for most people, an extremely traumatic
and bewildering experience. People who have not had such an
experience before will not know what to expect or what is likely to
happen. They may well not have access to a lawyer who would explain
it to them for many hours. Many people will say *anything* to end the
nightmare and get back home to normality quickly.
In child porn cases where the images are of questionable indecency,
the suspect will not *know* whether they are guilty of an offence or
not (in fact nobody does unless and until a court has decided). The
police however will be quite adament that the images are definitely
illegal, and so the suspect may believe that he is guilty when in fact
he may well not be.
The same can be true in other cases where the suspect has a perfectly
valid defence that he does not know makes his admitted actions legal.
A case of assault where the suspect was acting in defence of another
person, for example.
--
Cynic
Ret.
> On Dec 29, 10:22 pm, "Culex (The Infamous Culex)"
> <the.cu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Culex (The Infamous Culex) wrote:
>>>> Finally, how about answering my other question of who 'foisted' the
>>>> European Convention of Human Rights on the UK?
>>
>>> Our ludicrous and pathetic government - who else?
>>
>> Which 'ludicrous and pathetic government' had you in mind?
>>
>> -- -
>>
>> Culex -- the Infamous Culex
>
> As usual, Kev has failed or refused to answer this question.
>
> Is he stupid or simply arrogant?
"The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom
which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force
on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim is to "give further effect" in UK law to the
rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes
available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without
the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It also
totally abolished the death penalty in UK law (although this was not
required by the Convention in force for the UK at that time).
The Labour party incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into
law through the Human Rights Act 1998. "
Kev
Ret.
Statistics from around the world suggest otherwise.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Those gunned down were probably thieves or muggers who got their
>>> just desserts,
>>
>> Again - a total fabrication of your fevered mind.
>
> Ah, personal comments begin.
>
> I will mirror what other posters here have noted about your posting
> style. You offer the most shallow of arguments with a modicum of what
> passes as "logic" for an uneducated person like yourself, and when
> these fail you resort to personal comments. It is police style through
> and through, of the "No one paints factories" logic the copper who
> arrested a painter painting factories said.
>
> So, I will return the favour. You, are a person on the twilight of his
> life, still set in your ways and bitter over younger, more talented
> people with opportunities. Your punishment, is your existence.
LOL!
>
>> How many thieves or
>> muggers were sat taking lessons in the numerous school massacres
>> that have taken place in the States?
>
> The schools where the shootings happened were notably, gun free
> campuses, such as Virginia Tech, which recently implemented a gun-free
> campus policy weeks before the shooting. Look it up!
So why haven't such school shootings continued in the UK after the
introduction of our gun laws?
>
> In fact the campuses where shootings were averted with minimal
> casualties were ones where it so happened that people at the scene
> were armed, such as taking their handgun from their car's glove
> compartment.
Gunfight at the OK corral eh?
Rubbish as usual. If you were right then no armed police officers would ever
be shot would they? And they are actually 'trained' to use their guns.
>
> At the end of the day, who cares about what you think? You're just an
> old fart who has had his chance to change the world and hasn't even
> dared to contemplate change in your sad, decrepit old age. The world
> will go on, business as usual, without you, and your "contributions"
> throughout your life probably already forgotten.
Your attempts to wind me up are not working my friend. I am probably one of
the most content people you could wish to meet.
Kev
Ret.
People in the UK are more 'safe from harm' than any country with more
liberal gun laws. Take a look at the chart on this page and see where the UK
is:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>
> Are you going to ban: Bladed/pointed implements? Electricity? Fuel?
> Cars? Water? Salt? Cholesterol? Candles? Poisonous trees? Stairs? Tall
> buildings? Fire?
>
> How many freedoms do you propose to take away to preempt tragedy or
> crime?
>
> Do you see now, why it is most fortunate you are a nobody and are
> nearing the end of your life? Your dangerous beliefs of preempting
> crime/tragedy by restricting freedoms do not deserve the light of day.
>
> The world is a dangerous place. Those with the most options or tools
> available to them, are the most likely to adapt.
And take a look again at that chart and see where the USA is... There is no
freedom when your chances of being gunned down are so much higher when
everyone has firearms.
Kev
Paul Cummins
wrote:
> The Labour party incorporated the European Convention on Human
> Rights into law through the Human Rights Act 1998. "
No, parliament did.
The Labour Party has no power to incorporate conventions into law.
Indeed, most of the Labour Party are not involved in law-Making in any
way, shape or form.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> > On Dec 29, 10:22 pm, "Culex (The Infamous Culex)"
> > <the.cu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 29, 9:49 am, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> >>> Culex (The Infamous Culex) wrote:
> >>>> Finally, how about answering my other question of who 'foisted' the
> >>>> European Convention of Human Rights on the UK?
>
> >>> Our ludicrous and pathetic government - who else?
>
> >> Which 'ludicrous and pathetic government' had you in mind?
>
> which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force
> on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim is to "give further effect" in UK law to the
> rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes
> available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without
> the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It also
> totally abolished the death penalty in UK law (although this was not
> required by the Convention in force for the UK at that time).
>
> The Labour party incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into
> law through the Human Rights Act 1998. "
Thank you.
As usual, you (and the Wikipedia imbeciles you quoted) are quite
utterly mistaken; it was already part of UK law, as you might have
learned had you read a little more. In fact, it came into force on 3
September 1953, when Tony Blair was still a baby and probably not even
weaned off his mother's tit.
Additionally, contrary to the crap repeated endlessly by the Daily
Wail and/or your chums in UKIP and the BNP. it is not EU law. It was
actually devised under the direction of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and, if
it could be said to have been foisted upon anyone, it was the British
who foisted it upon the (then) new Council of Europe.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> People in the UK are more 'safe from harm' than any country with more
> liberal gun laws. Take a look at the chart on this page and see where the UK
> is:
>
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
And yet the restrictive firearms control law, hurried through by your
beloved Labour government as soon as it was elected, seems to have
hardly affected the crime rates at all and certainly not to any
significant degree:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF04.htm
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
>
>
AlanG
Indeed
Wonder why the proles in the UK were not allowed to petition The
European Court of Human Rights until 1966?
Ret.
>> People in the UK are more 'safe from harm' than any country with more
>> liberal gun laws. Take a look at the chart on this page and see
>> where the UK is:
>>
>> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>
> And yet the restrictive firearms control law, hurried through by your
> beloved Labour government as soon as it was elected, seems to have
> hardly affected the crime rates at all and certainly not to any
> significant degree:
>
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF04.htm
> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
It was never intended to reduce crime levels - it was intended to reduce the
likelihood of more Dunblanes and Hungerfords. So far it has been entirely
successful has it not?
Kev
November 5
What statistics? Statistics interpreted by you, perhaps?
You have shown absolutely no impartial evidence whatsoever, that gun
control saves lives.
If for comparative purposes we compare the lives saved and lost by gun
control, you must add genocides and ethnic cleansing facilitated by
one side being disproportionately armed. The German Jews prior to WW2
were disarmed of their guns by the Nazi Party. Don't forget to add
them to the lives lost by gun control, to start with.
And of course on an ongoing basis, a majority of lives lost or scarred
by crime is caused by governments' gun control laws.
Quite quickly the numbers stack up and will show that the lives saved
by not having guns readily available for suicide (as you so often
quote) would be overshadowed by the lives lost by genocide, ethnic
cleansing and crime on hapless victims.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Those gunned down were probably thieves or muggers who got their
> >>> just desserts,
> >>
> >> Again - a total fabrication of your fevered mind.
> >
> > Ah, personal comments begin.
> >
> > I will mirror what other posters here have noted about your posting
> > style. You offer the most shallow of arguments with a modicum of what
> > passes as "logic" for an uneducated person like yourself, and when
> > these fail you resort to personal comments. It is police style through
> > and through, of the "No one paints factories" logic the copper who
> > arrested a painter painting factories said.
> >
> > So, I will return the favour. You, are a person on the twilight of his
> > life, still set in your ways and bitter over younger, more talented
> > people with opportunities. Your punishment, is your existence.
>
> LOL!
Keep laughing, you old fool.
> >
> >> How many thieves or
> >> muggers were sat taking lessons in the numerous school massacres
> >> that have taken place in the States?
> >
> > The schools where the shootings happened were notably, gun free
> > campuses, such as Virginia Tech, which recently implemented a gun-free
> > campus policy weeks before the shooting. Look it up!
>
> So why haven't such school shootings continued in the UK after the
> introduction of our gun laws?
Instead we now have crims going after hapless victims and killing or
maiming them. Congratulations, gun control laws have replaced one
sporadic evil with a widespread, everyday one.
> >
> > In fact the campuses where shootings were averted with minimal
> > casualties were ones where it so happened that people at the scene
> > were armed, such as taking their handgun from their car's glove
> > compartment.
>
> Gunfight at the OK corral eh?
You can not preempt a crime. If someone starts shooting in what would
be a massacre, only then are others justified in taking measures to
stop him.
The logic of a retard! By that same token you expect soldiers to never
be shot either? They are trained! LOL!
We are talking probabilities here, moron!
> >
> > At the end of the day, who cares about what you think? You're just an
> > old fart who has had his chance to change the world and hasn't even
> > dared to contemplate change in your sad, decrepit old age. The world
> > will go on, business as usual, without you, and your "contributions"
> > throughout your life probably already forgotten.
>
> Your attempts to wind me up are not working my friend. I am probably one of
> the most content people you could wish to meet.
That is the nub of it, isn't it? You're content with your simple
existence. As for me, I will never be content with what I have. There
will always be a vision to follow, more money to make and more assets
to acquire.
As I have said, your (simple) existence is your punishment.
> Kev
N5
November 5
It may have averted these - they are too rare to make a statistically
significant judgment.
However, what is has done is disarmed people from defending themselves
from crims. So every day, honest people are being murdered, injured or
scarred by being unable to defend themselves.
But that doesn't matter to our simple-minded bobby here and his like-
minded co-workers, does it? It doesn't make big headlines like school
shootings and we all know image is everything.
N5
November 5
No they are not. They can be shot, knifed, mugged and all and sundry
by crims who have no fear of defensive retaliation from the victims
*OR* the "justice system".
There is no comeback for doing evil in the UK now and the only people
the plod and judiciary are after are honest middle class people, for
motoring offences and tax bills.
And I won't grace that pro-genocide website with a moment of my time
or web traffic. Anyone who advocates gun control is indirectly
advocating genocide of people (which invariably happens when there is
no parity in armaments) and power of the criminal over the innocent.
Blood on their hands!
> >
> > Are you going to ban: Bladed/pointed implements? Electricity? Fuel?
> > Cars? Water? Salt? Cholesterol? Candles? Poisonous trees? Stairs? Tall
> > buildings? Fire?
> >
> > How many freedoms do you propose to take away to preempt tragedy or
> > crime?
> >
> > Do you see now, why it is most fortunate you are a nobody and are
> > nearing the end of your life? Your dangerous beliefs of preempting
> > crime/tragedy by restricting freedoms do not deserve the light of day.
> >
> > The world is a dangerous place. Those with the most options or tools
> > available to them, are the most likely to adapt.
>
> And take a look again at that chart and see where the USA is... There is no
> freedom when your chances of being gunned down are so much higher when
> everyone has firearms.
>
> Kev
Probably most of the people gunned down in the USA were burglars or
crims getting their just desserts.
N5
joe parkin
Then why do we have the sex registers?
His sentence should have been deportation, never mind the other
trimmings.
--
tim....
>
>
> Ret. wrote:
>> Culex (The Infamous Culex) wrote:
>> > On Dec 30, 1:01 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> >> People in the UK are more 'safe from harm' than any country with more
>> >> liberal gun laws. Take a look at the chart on this page and see
>> >> where the UK is:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
>> >
>> > And yet the restrictive firearms control law, hurried through by your
>> > beloved Labour government as soon as it was elected, seems to have
>> > hardly affected the crime rates at all and certainly not to any
>> > significant degree:
>> >
>> > http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF04.htm
>> > http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm
>>
>> It was never intended to reduce crime levels - it was intended to reduce
>> the
>> likelihood of more Dunblanes and Hungerfords. So far it has been entirely
>> successful has it not?
>>
>> Kev
>
> It may have averted these - they are too rare to make a statistically
> significant judgment.
>
> However, what is has done is disarmed people from defending themselves
> from crims.
No it didn't, we never had that right in the UK before so we didn't lose it
All that gun control did was remove guns from "hobby" shooters.
>So every day, honest people are being murdered, injured or
> scarred by being unable to defend themselves.
Being allowed to carry guns wouldn't change this. The sort of homicidal
maniac who might randomly shoot me in the street is going to do so long
before I can get my gun to defend myself.
tim
joe parkin
> > But for argument's sake let's say this is true. To what extent
> > exactly do you propose people should be protected from harm?
>
> People in the UK are more 'safe from harm' than any country with more
> liberal gun laws. Take a look at the chart on this page and see where
> the UK is:
When the government makes a decision to protect us, they could make a
choice from a wide array of protection. From none at all, up to locking
us away in a padded room with an army around us to protect us.
As it is, the government has decided to protect us, by removing our
access to self protection, surrounding us by CCTV to keep an eye on us,
surrounding us by an elitist group of state police who have been shown
the beauty of self exoneration for crimes against the citizen.
I could go on, but I leave it to others.
Where your choice of protection lies, could well be influenced by your
position in the existing hierarchy.
> > The world is a dangerous place. Those with the most options or tools
> > available to them, are the most likely to adapt.
>
> And take a look again at that chart and see where the USA is...
> There is no freedom when your chances of being gunned down are so
> much higher when everyone has firearms.
There is no freedom when you have no freedom.
--
joe parkin
My anti crocodile devices are still working in my sitting room.
--