Judge releases stoning death boys

#2
Maybe His Lordship needs to have a reality check and come down from his ivory tower. Perhaps a few weeks living in a inner city tower block in constant fear of these little scrotes and others like them would give him a more realistic view of life.
 
#4
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Maybe His Lordship needs to have a reality check and come down from his ivory tower. Perhaps a few weeks living in a inner city tower block in constant fear of these little scrotes and others like them would give him a more realistic view of life.
After which, he would be unfit to practise law, or adjudge cases.
Law relies on technicalities and words, yes/no answers and fact. Not gut feelings, morals or personal beliefs.

While this might not bring the desired result, as far as cases like these are concerned, imagine the damage that would be done, were every law lord allowed to prosecute and sentence based solely on his own opinion.

George W Bush's "crusade against evil", as well as ayatollah thingie's fatwas, and robert mugabe's (no capital letters) laws, are all prime examples of what happens when personal opinions, feelings and inclinations are channeled through official office and power. Would you really rather we had more politicians and law lords like that?
 
#5
Squidly are you honestly suggesting that its right that these little charmers be allowed back out to roam the streets just because of a legal "technicality"?
 
#6
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Squidly are you honestly suggesting that its right that these little charmers be allowed back out to roam the streets just because of a legal "technicality"?
I wasn't commenting on the "rightness" of the case either way as I haven't read through the full article.

As far as my personal opinion of these type of kids is concerned, I too live on an estate filled with roaming packs of feral kids, and I too wish they'd either grow up or just feck off somewhere else. But frankly, I'd rather have these gangs of feral kids, than a police force or criminal prosecution service that has the authority and wherewithal to apply the law as it sees fit, acording to each individual's likes and dislikes.

I wasn't posting to argue with the sentences given, nor to argue against the judge's leniency. I posted solely to express concern that you think it might be better if our law lords and politicians were encouraged to act on the basis of their emotions and feelings, rather than on the basis of legislation and rules.

The same people that say the law is the law and if you break it, you are criminal scum, do not then have the moral authority to turn round and say "I am not pleased with how you applied the law, you should be harsher/less harsh". No two people will agree on what constitutes "justice" and what the difference is between justice and revenge. It is therefore down to the law lords, having studied law at length, to judge every single case impartially and without bias or conflict of interest.

In any case, all this aside, I don't dispute that the little bastards need dealing with. How difficult that is with the law/police force as it stands, is another matter however.
 
#8
Scabster_Mooch said:
The report seems to suggest that causation has not been proved.

Still, they do not get away scot free because sentence is pending on another offence.
Otherwise known as "we'll get the little sods sooner or later" 8) .
Be a cnut, run the risk of getting prosecuted. You'd think the little sods would have grasped that by now wouldn't you 8O .
 
#9
I just hope that they will run foul of some "much more 'orrible cnut" one day.
 
#10
I've just seen the story on the BBC.

I feel sick.

Thoughts go out to the deceased's family, following this second body blow.
 
#11
Squiddly said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
The report seems to suggest that causation has not been proved.

Still, they do not get away scot free because sentence is pending on another offence.
Otherwise known as "we'll get the little sods sooner or later" 8) .
Be a cnut, run the risk of getting prosecuted. You'd think the little sods would have grasped that by now wouldn't you 8O .

Not these days. Chav scumbags have seen that you can do what the feck you like without fear of any consequences. For that, the government are leading from the front.

The legal system in this country is as robust as a nun in the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Scroats know this and know there is virtually no way they will suffer any sort of deprivation for thier actions. The recent 'sanction' to guide judges not to pass a custodial sentence in view of lack of prison space only adds to this.

At what point will the law abiding citizens of this country turn vigilanty and bypass the police, legal system, prisons and undertaker? At this rate, not long.
 
#12
well ladies and gents,

justice in this country, has finally died, after a slow lingering death.

what a kick in the teeth for the families of the deceased.

is this what murderers get these days, a slap on the wrist, and a few months in a luxury Jail.


shambles, absolute shambles. :x :x :x :x :x :x
 
#13
I'm going to start my own 'Justice Company'. Effectively, it'll be a load of burly blokes wearing long leather coats plus a chap I know from the Ukraine who has his own Dragunov.

'No target too young, no crime too petty' will be the slogan.

Think of it like 'Dog the bounty hunter' but instead of being a bit puffy, we'll just make these little feckers 'disappear'.

Any takers?

I'm sure it wont be too long before the public 'take the streets back'.
 
#14
'No target too young, no crime too petty'

now thats my kind of justice.
 
#15
Squiddly said:
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Squidly are you honestly suggesting that its right that these little charmers be allowed back out to roam the streets just because of a legal "technicality"?
I wasn't commenting on the "rightness" of the case either way as I haven't read through the full article.

As far as my personal opinion of these type of kids is concerned, I too live on an estate filled with roaming packs of feral kids, and I too wish they'd either grow up or just feck off somewhere else. But frankly, I'd rather have these gangs of feral kids, than a police force or criminal prosecution service that has the authority and wherewithal to apply the law as it sees fit, acording to each individual's likes and dislikes.

I wasn't posting to argue with the sentences given, nor to argue against the judge's leniency. I posted solely to express concern that you think it might be better if our law lords and politicians were encouraged to act on the basis of their emotions and feelings, rather than on the basis of legislation and rules.

The same people that say the law is the law and if you break it, you are criminal scum, do not then have the moral authority to turn round and say "I am not pleased with how you applied the law, you should be harsher/less harsh". No two people will agree on what constitutes "justice" and what the difference is between justice and revenge. It is therefore down to the law lords, having studied law at length, to judge every single case impartially and without bias or conflict of interest.

In any case, all this aside, I don't dispute that the little bastards need dealing with. How difficult that is with the law/police force as it stands, is another matter however.
The problem is that too many judges do precisley that: allow their own personal views to influence their interpretation of the Law.

Most judges are so far out of touch with Reality they could'nt make contact even by shouting loudly and hitting it with a big stick. The majority live in safe, secure neighbourhoods - you'd better believe that if a judge calls Plod, they'll have CO19 fast-roping out of Helis before he's put the 'phone down.

They enjoy a great salary and many perks, with the majority of people they meet on a daily basis bowing and scraping and generally treating them like incarnations of King Soloman.

Most of all, a judge knows that, no matter how badly he fcuks up, he's got a job for life.

So this gives too many judges the freedom to indulge their absurdly liberal beliefs, and treat worthless scum as though they were REAL people. :x

The pathetic excuse for a legal(NOT justice)system we have in this country will not change for the better until we are allowed to vote for judges.

I bow to no man in my hatred of politicians, but at least we have a chance to get rid of the cnuts every few years. :evil:
 
#16
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
I'm going to start my own 'Justice Company'. Effectively, it'll be a load of burly blokes wearing long leather coats plus a chap I know from the Ukraine who has his own Dragunov.

'No target too young, no crime too petty' will be the slogan.

Think of it like 'Dog the bounty hunter' but instead of being a bit puffy, we'll just make these little feckers 'disappear'.

Any takers?

I'm sure it wont be too long before the public 'take the streets back'.
You'll have more business than you know what to do with, mate! :twisted:
 
#18
Werewolf said:
Squiddly said:
rebel_with_a_cause said:
Squidly are you honestly suggesting that its right that these little charmers be allowed back out to roam the streets just because of a legal "technicality"?
I wasn't commenting on the "rightness" of the case either way as I haven't read through the full article.

As far as my personal opinion of these type of kids is concerned, I too live on an estate filled with roaming packs of feral kids, and I too wish they'd either grow up or just feck off somewhere else. But frankly, I'd rather have these gangs of feral kids, than a police force or criminal prosecution service that has the authority and wherewithal to apply the law as it sees fit, acording to each individual's likes and dislikes.

I wasn't posting to argue with the sentences given, nor to argue against the judge's leniency. I posted solely to express concern that you think it might be better if our law lords and politicians were encouraged to act on the basis of their emotions and feelings, rather than on the basis of legislation and rules.

The same people that say the law is the law and if you break it, you are criminal scum, do not then have the moral authority to turn round and say "I am not pleased with how you applied the law, you should be harsher/less harsh". No two people will agree on what constitutes "justice" and what the difference is between justice and revenge. It is therefore down to the law lords, having studied law at length, to judge every single case impartially and without bias or conflict of interest.

In any case, all this aside, I don't dispute that the little bastards need dealing with. How difficult that is with the law/police force as it stands, is another matter however.
The problem is that too many judges do precisley that: allow their own personal views to influence their interpretation of the Law.

Most judges are so far out of touch with Reality they could'nt make contact even by shouting loudly and hitting it with a big stick. The majority live in safe, secure neighbourhoods - you'd better believe that if a judge calls Plod, they'll have CO19 fast-roping out of Helis before he's put the 'phone down.

They enjoy a great salary and many perks, with the majority of people they meet on a daily basis bowing and scraping and generally treating them like incarnations of King Soloman.

Most of all, a judge knows that, no matter how badly he fcuks up, he's got a job for life.

So this gives too many judges the freedom to indulge their absurdly liberal beliefs, and treat worthless scum as though they were REAL people. :x

The pathetic excuse for a legal(NOT justice)system we have in this country will not change for the better until we are allowed to vote for judges.

I bow to no man in my hatred of politicians, but at least we have a chance to get rid of the cnuts every few years. :evil:
Outrageous innit?

But are you saying that the judgement is legally wrong? on what basis do you say that? The judges haven't even published the reason for their decision yet.

If this is about causation, then I have to say the judges might have a point.

In essence, the case is as follows:

- cnuts decided to pelt man with stones.

- man with existing heart condition suffers heart attack and dies.

- CPS decided to go for constructive manslaughter. CPS must IIRC show unlawful act (clearly proven) that caused the victim's death.

The judges have to decide the case in the context of setting a precedence. They have to take the longview for whatever they say now may be used by other judges as guidance. Causation cannot be defined so broadly as to encompass every consequence of an act. That is reason and logic at work.

Reason v shortsighted emotional kneejerk judgements? I'll take the former.
 
#19
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
I'm sure it wont be too long before the public 'take the streets back'.
Too optimistic I reckon.
If they can't be bothered to take their country back from liarbore, they sure as anything aren't going to take the streets back from the yoofs.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top