This sexual assault thing is getting out of hand.I was discussing it with MrsCT last night and she said that when she was a 15 or 16 she had a Saturday job at a frozen food shop.The owner's son,who was in his 20's regularly touched up all the girls who worked there.They all laughed it off at the time.This fella is now apparently the MD of a large chain of shops in the North West of England.She was saying that maybe she should go to the rozzas and rat on him,then claim a wedge from the firm.She wasn't serious btw,but you can see where this might be heading,and the thing is her claim would not be a false one.
O/T Stuart Hall
- Thread starter Walsh.i.am
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sorry if I am going to raise a few facts that go against this media led frenzy. Of the charges only 3 were considered serious enough to warrant prosecution in their own right athough they were obviously distressing to the victims. Without those 3 more serious incidents no charges would have been brought at all. The Law - again I apologise if a minor complication such as the Law gets in the way of a witch-hunt - says that you have to be judged on the rules existing at the time of the offences and at that time the maximum sentance for this crime was 15 months. The Law was changed in 2002 by those lily livered liberal socialists and the maximum sentance is now 10 years.
As far as Capital Punishment is concerned the Criminal Law is based on a Defendant being guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but even so many innocent people have been convicted over the years and, when Capital Punishment was allowed, executed. No civilised society can risk that happening which is why all nations are gradually abandoning it. Just imagine the torment of an innocent man facing execution and the torment of the Jurors when they find out that they have been responsible for the death of an innocent person. I have no arguement against those who say life should mean life but the bloodlust shown on this thread does you no credit at all. May I also say to those trying to blame ' liberals ' for the current sentances that the Blair Government was responsible for a considerable crackdown on crime and low sentances and the current rules on early release, reduction for guilty pleas, age consideration etc etc are the work of this Tory Government trying to get people out of prison quicker so that they avoid building more prisons.
As far as Capital Punishment is concerned the Criminal Law is based on a Defendant being guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but even so many innocent people have been convicted over the years and, when Capital Punishment was allowed, executed. No civilised society can risk that happening which is why all nations are gradually abandoning it. Just imagine the torment of an innocent man facing execution and the torment of the Jurors when they find out that they have been responsible for the death of an innocent person. I have no arguement against those who say life should mean life but the bloodlust shown on this thread does you no credit at all. May I also say to those trying to blame ' liberals ' for the current sentances that the Blair Government was responsible for a considerable crackdown on crime and low sentances and the current rules on early release, reduction for guilty pleas, age consideration etc etc are the work of this Tory Government trying to get people out of prison quicker so that they avoid building more prisons.
J
JKCanary
Guest
No bloodlust as you chose to put it 1950 just a desire for proper punishment to be enforced and in certain cases the death penalty would be a viable option. 
Now this is where your argument falls down 1950. 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' up until the late 1990's was completely different to what is now. Notwithstanding the **** that hacked poor Lee Rigby to death which was beyond any doubt, with DNA fingerprinting etc that is available to Plod these days it's a completely different thing. If all of these cold blooded murderers, *****s and rapists were strung up there would be plenty of room in the gaols for all other villains. I long for the day when the political correctness and liberalism of today's society is lost forever and we have a strong government that will drive all of the arseholes that currently inhabit this once great nation of mine into the sea.
Now I suppose I'm going to be slated for being too 'right wing' because I care passionately about my country and I'm making a stand for the law abiding citizens who deserve so much better !
On the topic of DNA fingerprinting, unfortunately that's not the assurance it used to be. Synthetic DNA, or other DNA could be planted at crime scenes, and thoroughly incriminate the wrong person. As far as I'm aware, it's yet to happen, but it only takes a single case and then its trickier to punish on DNA alone.
Now this is where your argument falls down 1950. 'Beyond all reasonable doubt' up until the late 1990's was completely different to what is now. Notwithstanding the **** that hacked poor Lee Rigby to death which was beyond any doubt, with DNA fingerprinting etc that is available to Plod these days it's a completely different thing. If all of these cold blooded murderers, *****s and rapists were strung up there would be plenty of room in the gaols for all other villains. I long for the day when the political correctness and liberalism of today's society is lost forever and we have a strong government that will drive all of the arseholes that currently inhabit this once great nation of mine into the sea.
Now I suppose I'm going to be slated for being too 'right wing' because I care passionately about my country and I'm making a stand for the law abiding citizens who deserve so much better !
Oh dear - where do I start? The Birmingham 6 were convicted on fingerprint evidence, CCTV evidence and forensic evidence. It was later accepted that the fingerprint and CCTV evidence only proved that they had been there and the forensic evidence was shown to be contaminated/planted. Have you got enough trust in the Police to assume that no evidence, including DNA, will ever be contaminated/planted? It must be very tempting to a Copper, who is convinced that somebody is guilty, to ' find ' the evidence. Even if you look at the individual case of Lee Rigby how can you word and devise an Act Of Parliament to allow Capital Punishment in that case alone? Why hasn't the subject ever been raised in Parliament even by a right wing Tory when there has been a huge Tory majority? Simply because the vast majority of the Tory MP's and all the Opposition accept that it is impossible to implement in the modern world and would not get passed partly because it is impossible to eliminate errors.
Who are these ' arseholes ' you refer to? As far as I can see the majority of the recently convicted terrorists, child killers, Police killers and the killers of Lee Rigby were British citizens born and brought up in this country - where do you propose to ' drive them out ' to? Didn't Hitler use the same sort of rant to justify driving out and then eliminating the Jews the vast majority of whom were born in the Country they lived in, as had their ancestors for generations. Most of us ' liberals ' also care passionately about our Country but surely our Country has always stood for tolerance, fairness and compassion as well as much much more and I don't see too much of that in your rant.
I don't see what the big deal is about the Lee Rigby thing, its no different to any other murder for money, revenge, madness, or just plain genetic nastiness.
The fact is its because he's a muslim extremist or whatever they call themselves these days thats got people going. People will wind themselves up about it but there are far more relevant threats to everyday life which are much more important.
I'd bet there's not a huge difference in British soldiers or former British soldiers killing innocent British civillians over the past 10 years than Mulslim Terrorists.
The fact is its because he's a muslim extremist or whatever they call themselves these days thats got people going. People will wind themselves up about it but there are far more relevant threats to everyday life which are much more important.
I'd bet there's not a huge difference in British soldiers or former British soldiers killing innocent British civillians over the past 10 years than Mulslim Terrorists.
This might be a decent chance to raise awareness about the government's dangerous plans to privatise the Probation Service. Some of u will no doubt consider the fact that Probation believe that people who have committed awful crimes can change and should be robustly monitored in the community after their prison sentence makes them part of the liberal brigade. However, you may share my concerns that by 2015 the Government intend to ask companies such as Serco (who collect your bins)
and G4S (Olympic security) to take over the monitoring of sex offenders; domestic abuse perpetrators and all other offenders who are not assessed as causing serious harm imminently.
When risk escalates and the public may be in imminent danger, valuable time will be wasted contacting the probation service, so they can make a decision about how to protect the public. This decision will be made despite having no knowledge of the case since they were sentenced (which could be a decade previously).
To my knowledge the Police; the magistrates association; the sentence guidelines council; the probation service; probation unions; Labour; Police and Crime Commisioners; the prison reform trust; a number of newspapers and members of the public have expressed grave concerns that these changes will put us all at increased risk of all types of crime, including sexual and violent.
I have posted a summary of Labours' view of the changes below, but I don't want to look like I am making a party political point. The Tories are pushing these changes; the Lib Dems are helping them and Labour are whispering quietly from the shadows that they would rather the government didn't gamble with public protection (despite the fact that they introduced the legislation to allow the changes to take place).
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79434/embargoed_news_from_labour_labour_to_force_vote_on_government’s_“gamble_with_public_safety”_plans_for_probation.html
and G4S (Olympic security) to take over the monitoring of sex offenders; domestic abuse perpetrators and all other offenders who are not assessed as causing serious harm imminently.
When risk escalates and the public may be in imminent danger, valuable time will be wasted contacting the probation service, so they can make a decision about how to protect the public. This decision will be made despite having no knowledge of the case since they were sentenced (which could be a decade previously).
To my knowledge the Police; the magistrates association; the sentence guidelines council; the probation service; probation unions; Labour; Police and Crime Commisioners; the prison reform trust; a number of newspapers and members of the public have expressed grave concerns that these changes will put us all at increased risk of all types of crime, including sexual and violent.
I have posted a summary of Labours' view of the changes below, but I don't want to look like I am making a party political point. The Tories are pushing these changes; the Lib Dems are helping them and Labour are whispering quietly from the shadows that they would rather the government didn't gamble with public protection (despite the fact that they introduced the legislation to allow the changes to take place).
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79434/embargoed_news_from_labour_labour_to_force_vote_on_government’s_“gamble_with_public_safety”_plans_for_probation.html
J
JKCanary
Guest
Aaaaand both Hitler/Nazism and extremist Islam have been brought up. Considering this was a debate on the Stuart Hall conviction, does this mean the thread should be closed?
It's a bit like We are going to advance send reinforcements = We are going to a dance send three and fourpence. The thing gradually transmutes.Each post has some relevence to the previous but taken as the run it drifts some distance.
May I be of assistance. Chinese whispers is/was a party game widely played donkeys years ago where people sat in a large circle and player1 whispered a fairly complicated message to player2 and so on round the circle. After 2 circuits the last player had to recite the message and the point of the game/amusement was to see how the message resembled the original after 2 circuits. When the game originated donkeys years ago we were not very friendly with the Chinese and it is assumed that the name of the game was used as an insult to them inferring that they had no intelligence and talked a load of nonsense. The game has been rarely played in the last 30 years partly, presumably, because it had little appeal and partly, presumably, because it didn't involve going on a computor and blowing up loads of people. Having read my reply again and before you ask - I don't know the origin of ' donkeys years '
Let the family dish out whatever punishment they want.
And don't start me on the cushy life in prisons, make the ****ers paint the white lines on a motorway while keeping the traffic flowing!
And don't start me on the cushy life in prisons, make the ****ers paint the white lines on a motorway while keeping the traffic flowing!
Seems fair enough as long as it is also allowed that if it is subsequently proved that in fact the defendant was innocent his family can pick out at random one of the morons like you who came with the idea and dish out whatever punishment they want. Which leads to an interesting point of discussion - what would you do to Guru in those circumstances? Answers on a postcard please to Punish the twat competition, seat 46, block 6, Portman Road, Ipswich.
so ifs that the case, when somebody is proved innocent after a time in jail, does that mean the judge has to spend time in jail?
The Judge doesn't find anybody guilty or not guilty. He just directs the trial and passes sentance. Under your proposed system no Judge is needed. I agree with JK - can't we just let this rest?
no not saying to do away with the jury system, just let the family decide the sentence!
You are not reading what you have previously written - nobody mentioned the Jury system - you referred to the Judge!! I'm completely bored with this as your ideas are insane. If you want to carry on then you will have to argue with yourself.
