Capital Punishment

Not to mention that sec 12A of the Theft Act 1968 describes the offence of Aggravated vehicle-taking.

Highwayman said "Car theft!
... and theft of cars ...
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.
It only becomes an aggravated offence if / when other factors and offences come into play, e.g dangerous driving, damage, etc.
So car theft is not an aggravated offence, per se, until it becomes an aggravated offence, i.e. other factors or offences, then it' becomes a more serious offence.

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

Now that I was able to explain the law to you, I hope you understand it better. :rolleyes:
 
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.
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. :rolleyes:
 
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. :rolleyes:
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.
No incitement necessary in HWM's case.
HWM is also a convicted violent criminal, one who claims great wisdom and intelligence. :rolleyes:
my wisdom,
... my intellectual threads.

One who thinks brawling in a pub should be perfectly acceptable. :rolleyes:
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 bit of introspection might reveal a different person.
.... A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. ....
 
Anyhing to say on this topic or is that it?
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 such applicants. violent criminals.
 
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.
So if a topic is discussed a gazillion times, it's worth discussing it again, in case anyone is bored?
Or is it in hope that most are bored of the topic, and it's pointless anyway*, and in the hope that the supporters of the policy will eventually win "today's" argument?

*The correct way to exert influence on this topic is via your MP, not via social media.
 
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!
You underestimate violent criminals desire to inflict pain and death.
 
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?
They were freedom fighters, fighting oppression.
 
Give me a child murderer, a locked room and an iron bar and I’d have a bloody good go.
Because you want to satiate your desire for violence, not because you want to legally punish an offender.
Your desire is not the natural desire of a law-abiding citizen. It's the desire of a vengeful, vindictive, violent person who seeks a legal excuse for their violent outbursts.
That is probably the mindset of a rogue soldier.
 
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.
Does it matter to you how a soldier is murdered? Is one murder more serious or heinous than another, in your world?
Like the shooting of soldiers suffering from PTSD during times of war?
Or the killing of civilians in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, the West Bank, and now Iran?
 
Back
Top