- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 46,303
- Reaction score
- 3,681
- Country

No.Onerous sentences does not reduce crime.
Look at the US where some states have the death penalty. It doesn't discourage crime.

No.Onerous sentences does not reduce crime.

Stuff there human rights as well

Think you are getting carried away with yourself. You need to calm yourself down and Think on...Highway Man, Pete01, Spline & Transam it would appear.

eejitSaddo

Highwayman said "Car theft!Not to mention that sec 12A of the Theft Act 1968 describes the offence of Aggravated vehicle-taking.
Theft Act 1968
An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post...www.legislation.gov.uk
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.... and theft of cars ...
12
(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without having the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, he takes any conveyance for his own or another’s use or, knowing that any conveyance has been taken without such authority, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall [F1be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.]
[F112A
(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person is guilty of aggravated taking of a vehicle if—
(a)he commits an offence under section 12(1) above (in this section referred to as a “basic offence”) in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle; and
(b)it is proved that, at any time after the vehicle was unlawfully taken (whether by him or another) and before it was recovered, the vehicle was driven, or injury or damage was caused, in one or more of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) below.
guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

If I wanted to not waste my time, I wouldn't bother telling anyone, who might be interested, that I have blocked another poster, because I didn't like his opinion.I only see that it has posted 'something', as it is blocked here. Blocked, because I don't wish to waste my time reading the incessant drivel from this poster, who has a desperate need to post and so desperately craves attention. If everyone simply blocked, the poster would have none of the attention, it so craves, and stop bothering the forum with its posts.

Like smashing a pop singer in the face with a rifle butt because you disgree with them - kind of beatings....
"....A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. I would happily smash him in his face with a rifle butt.....
Some intellect.![]()
No incitement necessary in HWM's case.I would rather see him in front of an IDF soldier and see how he chants. A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. I would happily smash him in his face with a rifle butt. Inciting violence and hatred, surely he should have been dragged off the stage at this point.
my wisdom,
... my intellectual threads.
if two people are arrested for fighting in a pub and both fighters were willing to fight it out then I would say that this is acceptable and appropriate behavior, ...
.... A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. ....

Maybe an indication that you'd eagerly apply for the job of executioner, should it ever become available. Although I suspect there would be a long, long list of suchAnyhing to say on this topic or is that it?

Well that turns the British "presumption of innocence" on its head....one last chance to prove innocence. ...

So if a topic is discussed a gazillion times, it's worth discussing it again, in case anyone is bored?Well I think it is rather interesting and if you feel that way, why bother commenting on it? could you not ignore the topic and thread in that case and not contribute anything rather than say nothing.

You underestimate violent criminals desire to inflict pain and death.In addition if you advocate a system of capital/corporal punishment, then you have to be prepared to pull the switch/drop the trapdoor or wield the lash/cane yourself...
Some 'talk the talk', but I would wager none would be prepared to actually act on their 'bravado nonsense' when it comes to being faced with another human being!

They were freedom fighters, fighting oppression.Do you mean the old school days when there were no hate-filled religious nutters running round stabbings soldiers, policemen, members of the public and MP's in their surgeries? Those old school days?

Because you want to satiate your desire for violence, not because you want to legally punish an offender.Give me a child murderer, a locked room and an iron bar and I’d have a bloody good go.

Well, can you remember any of those crimes I mentioned? You don’t have to go back anywhere as near as the IRA days, do you? Talking of the IRA, you do know what the IRA did to keep local thugs and villains in order, don’t you? It worked.
Like the shooting of soldiers suffering from PTSD during times of war?Does it matter to you how a soldier is murdered? Is one murder more serious or heinous than another, in your world?

It still goes on, and it is still covered up by the clergy.Maybe you forget the days where hate filled religious nutters beat, raped and abused children....