29 Nov 19: London Bridge sealed off amid reports of gunfire . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you feel about our hanging many Nazis after the war?
Nothing, I wasn't there. But it was of its time. It did not require a change of policy and legislation.

Somehow, if the same presented itself today (qv FTFs in Syria) I doubt that capital punishment would be restored so they could be dispatched. With respect to FTFs in Syria, the longer they have been kept there, the greater the certainty that they will be deaded, which saves this government having to make difficult decisions - such as trying to prosecute them in absence of admissible evidence. Trump's petulance and Turkey's opportunism, coupled with the PYD (Syrian Kurds) trying to play a bargaining chip, might see FTFs returning to the UK and receiving potentially light sentences, because of the difficulty in proving their crimes (as we all know, these chaps and chapesses all went to Syria to be teachers, medics and drivers and never used weapons or threw gays from buildings). However, this tragic case (as I pointed out before) is resulting in a spotlight being turned on the criminal justice system and how to handle these loonies.
 
Not enough of them were hanged.
Far too many were let off from 1949 onwards.
Which, of course, the Rote Armee Fraktion's (so-called Baader-Meinhof Gang) rationale for their terrorism in the late 1970s, targeting former Nazi businessmen and politicians, who had done rather well in the post-war era.
 
Which, of course, the Rote Armee Fraktion's (so-called Baader-Meinhof Gang) rationale for their terrorism in the late 1970s, targeting former Nazi businessmen and politicians, who had done rather well in the post-war era.
Correct. I admire their anger but not in any way their tactics.
BTW thanks for showing me the correct spelling of their names.
 
Which, of course, the Rote Armee Fraktion's (so-called Baader-Meinhof Gang) rationale for their terrorism in the late 1970s, targeting former Nazi businessmen and politicians, who had done rather well in the post-war era.
Indeed. A lot of terror could have been avoided if those Nazis had been hung.
 

BopBopBop

War Hero
Thank God we have the CPS!
It's all in the small print.

You can use force to prevent crime, arrest the suspect and prevent them escaping.
(I always ensured I shot the escaping armed suspect in the back on my firearms refreshers)

Given that Khan had already killed two, was likely to kill more and was wearing a suicide vest it would have been desirable to impale him with the tusk or smash his head in with the fire extinguisher.

What you going to do if this happens on a train or a boat or rural area and armed cops are not minutes away?

Run (the other way)
Swarm
Kill.
You know it makes sense.

The law worked for Kenneth Noye.

Section 3, Criminal Law Act 1967
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large”

Common Law (R v Griffiths 1988)
Common Law recognises that there may be circumstances in which one person may inflict violence on another, without committing a crime. It recognises as one of these circumstances, the right of a person to protect himself / herself from attack and to act in defence of others and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing so. If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack, such force is not unlawful. If you have an honestly held belief that you or another, are in imminent danger, then you may use such force as is reasonable and necessary to avert that danger.

Article 2 ECHR
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article, when it results from the use of force, which is no more than absolutely necessary: -
a) In defence of any person from unlawful violence.
b) In order to affect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
c) To quell a riot or insurrection.
 
Ref my bold, Henry and Imogen priced the local kids out of the market, because the local kids parents took the extra money from the Henry and Imogen concerned, thus selling their kids chances of buying houses within the local price range. Don't blame Henry and Imogen for having loads of money, blame the greedy parents for pricing their own children out of the local housing market.
Absolutely. Henry and Imogen could have bought the whole street if the greedy parents hadn't raised the price....

...eh? My coat ? How kind !
 
For this reason we should recognise the courage of these two young people who died, courage for taking on work that should properly sit within the government's ambit.
I wouldn't exactly call the work they were doing courageous.

Ref my bold. You do realise that by "government ambit" you're suggesting the tax paying public should fund such, in my opinion, ill thought out schemes don't you? With all due respect, these bars tards are trying to kill us and you expect us to pay for them to be rehabilitated? If so, and as this is CA, do wan!
 

ACAB

LE
Public sentiment is probably favouring capital punishment but previous surveys have shown support depends on how the question is put. The last parliamentary debate on the death penalty was 21 years ago; theres no political appetite for it except in fringe politics, moreover it would require the UK to withdraw from a number of international conventions and in doing so would mean it would be much harder to have suspects extradited here to face capital charges.

But are you also proposing the abolition of due process or suggesting that it 'doesnt apply' in some cases?
It would simply require the withdrawal from the European Union.

Did you know, the EU still have the Death Penalty, or 'Use of Lethal Force' on the books for crimes such as 'Civil Disorder'. Makes you wonder what they worry about, does it not?
 
Last edited:
It would simply require the withdrawal from the European Union.

Did you know, the EU still have the Death Penalty, or 'Use of Lethal Force' on the books for crimes such as 'Civil Disorder'. Makes you wonder what they worry about, does it not?
Apparently they don't any more.

I was furious when I found out.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
It would simply require the withdrawal from the European Union.

Did you know, the EU still have the Death Penalty, or 'Use of Lethal Force' on the books for crimes such as 'Civil Disorder'. Makes you wonder what they worry about, does it not?
The French have always ruled from the street, as recent activities show. Even their anthem is about butchering each other!
 
Public sentiment is probably favouring capital punishment but previous surveys have shown support depends on how the question is put. The last parliamentary debate on the death penalty was 21 years ago; theres no political appetite for it except in fringe politics, [/b]moreover it would require the UK to withdraw from a number of international conventions[/b] and in doing so would mean it would be much harder to have suspects extradited here to face capital charges.

But are you also proposing the abolition of due process or suggesting that it 'doesnt apply' in some cases?
Bit in bold:

I rather think we're going to have form for that kind of thing in the near future.

As for capital punishment ...




They doing so well in their Arrse profiling until they mentioned Nicolas Cage ...

Mind you, it was in 2014, so maybe he's been replaced by Boris.
 

ACAB

LE
Apparently they don't any more.

I was furious when I found out.
Oh, But they still do. They just don't want the voting public to know.
 
I wouldn't exactly call the work they were doing courageous.
I know a few people who go out on the streets at night supporting people who live on the streets and those who find themselves in a bad way. These volunteers have all been aware of the kinds of risk they run and they have received some training in what to do and when discretion is the better part of valour. But they still go and do stuff I wouldn't want to, and they do it because they think it's the right thing to do for one's fellow humans.

I imagine that most in the rehabilitation business are also aware of what their 'clients' had done and the potential dangers, but they still do it because they think it's the right thing to do for one's fellow humans.

I'd call them courageous, both physically and morally.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top