An absolute joke

[sooey]

You say cases should be treated on merit yet you seem to want standard sentencing.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[Belboz]

You say cases should be treated on merit yet you seem to want standard sentencing.
You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps I've not put it across very well.

The general thrust of the posts about this case was that the assailant should be treated as if he were a murderer. Post mentioned things like hanging and 'revenge' attacks. They suggested the assailant ought to go to jail for a long time - certainly much longer than the actual sentence.

I raised the issue that the law and sentencing guidelines (not mine - HM Government's) prevented a murder charge being brought and also prevented an inordinately lengthy sentence (as one example the guidance is set so as to give 1/3 off sentence for an early guilty plea)

I took the view that your good self (and others) thought that any circumstances where someone is assaulted and dies as a result should attract the full weight of the law.

What I was trying to get at is that we couldn't have that as it would mean a sad case involving joe public would receive the same sentence as one involving a scumbag.

I am certainly not for standard sentencing - quite the opposite.

 

[noseall]

Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?

The lesser educated posters are referring to scientific descriptions about beams light whilst attempting to somehow discredit the 'colour' black.

A bit like spouting about the properties of steam when arguing about ice.

Black (amongst many other things) is a colour.

 

[sooey]

My view is that in an unprovoked attack where a person is killed, (note the use of 'killed' not 'dies') the assailant should have to answer in full. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, 'I didn't mean it' doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Belboz]

My view is that in an unprovoked attack where a person is killed, (note the use of 'killed' not 'dies') the assailant should have to answer in full. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, 'I didn't mean it' doesn't cut it for me.

And that would be the approach taken by many I suspect.

However, as we know, that is not how The Law works.

Probably best summed up by this section from the appeal judgement

The sentencing process cannot be driven only by the harm done, appalling as it is. The other side of the equation is the level of culpability, and inherent in the charge of manslaughter is the recognition that the offender did not intend to cause really serious harm. A balance has to be struck between these two major sentencing factors.

 

[Brigadier]

A perfect black is the absence of all colour, as it absorbs all light.

To see what a true black is, you need a sealed room where NO light can enter, when you are in that room you will not see your hand in front of your face, this is because there is no light able to enter your eyes.

If you think Black is a colour, please Google it, and see what you find.

You too are on about light and not matter.

You too are on about light and not matter.

Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?

You assert that black is a colour.
You assert that matter can be materially black (citing black paint, for one).
Others disagree, with explanations of their reasoning (black is an absence of reflected light).
You counter their reasoning, stating that they are discussing light, while you are discussing matter.




So, I ask again,

How can you discuss the colour of matter, without considering the effect of light upon it?


(BTW, I think black is an absence of light as well)

 

[sooey]

The sentencing process cannot be driven only by the harm done, appalling as it is. The other side of the equation is the level of culpability, and inherent in the charge of manslaughter is the recognition that the offender did not intend to cause really serious harm. A balance has to be struck between these two major sentencing factors.

The balance is out, THAT is what gets up peoples noses.

 

[noseall]

You counter their reasoning, stating that they are discussing light, while you are discussing matter.




So, I ask again,

How can you discuss the colour of matter, without considering the effect of light upon it?

Why would I need to discuss the effect light has upon any colour? They are all colours, as is black. I'm not discounting what they are saying about the effects of light. What I am saying is black is a colour.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What colour is red in the dark?

 

[Nige F]

All cats are grey in the dark

 

[Belboz]

My missus looks attractive in the dark..............

 

[Trazor]

Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?

The lesser educated posters are referring to scientific descriptions about beams light whilst attempting to somehow discredit the 'colour' black.

A bit like spouting about the properties of steam when arguing about ice.

Black (amongst many other things) is a colour.

Again you name call, how old are you????.

Just once more quoting Wicki.....BLACK IS THE ABSENCE OF ALL COLOUR.

I'm now out, in case you tell us we did not land on the Moon.

 

[noseall]

Just once more quoting Wicki.....BLACK IS THE ABSENCE OF ALL COLOUR.

:

The same Wiki that devotes several pages to the "colour" black?
Worra plonka.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black

 

[Trazor]

Just once more quoting Wicki.....BLACK IS THE ABSENCE OF ALL COLOUR.

:

The same Wiki that devotes several pages to the "colour" black?
Worra plonka.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black

More name calling, you really are ridiculous.

Unfortunately you are not intelligent enough to understand the Premise that Black is not a colour.

This will be my last post on this matter, your ignorance has won.

 

[JBR]

My view is that in an unprovoked attack where a person is killed, (note the use of 'killed' not 'dies') the assailant should have to answer in full. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, 'I didn't mean it' doesn't cut it for me.

And that would be the approach taken by many I suspect.

However, as we know, that is not how The Law works.

Probably best summed up by this section from the appeal judgement

The sentencing process cannot be driven only by the harm done, appalling as it is. The other side of the equation is the level of culpability, and inherent in the charge of manslaughter is the recognition that the offender did not intend to cause really serious harm. A balance has to be struck between these two major sentencing factors.

So smashing someone in the face sufficient to render them unconscious is not causing really serious harm!