An absolute joke

[handyjack]

No matter how many articles they read saying black is a colour, for some reason their minds won't accept it. Ho hum.

No matter how many articles they read proving Islam is evil, for some reason their minds won't accept it. Ho hum.

 

[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"?

 

[EFLImpudence]

"Black is the colour of ... outer space. It is the darkest colour...."

...and how a vacuum - nothing - can be coloured.

Surely it looks black because there is nothing there, i.e. no colour.

 

[JBR]

Black is not a colour unless you telephone Islington council first, then it is

I have just been in touch with Islington Council and, to be precise, black is not 'coloured' but, under some circumstances, may be 'of colour'.

 

[Belboz]

Ignoring the victim's condition (one presumes that the attacker did not know at the time the victim had Aspergers) what should happen when someone assaults someone with a single punch (even when 'apparently' unprovoked) without having the intention to 'real harm' and that person then dies as a result?

If someone throws an unprovoked punch and this results in death, the puncher should face the full wrath of the law. No ifs buts or maybes, if he hadn't threw the punch the other person wouldn't be in his coffin. Go to jail, for a long time.

Difficulty is that the legal interpretation of applying sentencing doesn't allow for it. Most sentences are around the same length in similar cases. Even The Court of Appeal in this case agreed that the sentence was 'not unduly lenient' and upheld the original length of sentence accordingly.

Interestingly (as per usual) the media didn't present the full facts. Those can be found in the link below.

Note that the media failed to mention the 'racist comment' by the victim which allegedly caused the assailant to act. Also note the rationale applied by the law lords.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/956.html

 

[sooey]

Did anyone else hear the 'racist comment' or just the assailant?

Leaving that case aside there are plenty of cases where the punch was unprovoked and if that leads to death then murder is the charge that should be brought not manslaughter.

 

[Belboz]

The comment was heard by a witness (albeit I would have doubts as to the veracity of the account)

Issue here is that a murder charge needs proof of the requisite intent. Where that cannot be proved, no murder charge can be brought.

I posed my original question because, unlike this case, there are many cases where 'normal' joe public has lost his/her temper and punched someone only to find that the victim then dies as a result of a chain of events (usually falling to the ground and hitting their skull on a hard surface)

Therefore, would we seek to punish everyone to the maximum?

I am all for harsher punishments but I still maintain that the punishment needs to fit the crime and the crime itself has to be judged on its merits in each case.

 

[sooey]

Issue here is that a murder charge needs proof of the requisite intent. Where that cannot be proved, no murder charge can be brought.

If someone gets killed, they're dead, done, dusted, gone forever, if somebody does that to someone else they should take the consequences. If they wish to claim that 'they didn't mean it' when it comes to the crunch, so what? The other guy's still dead.
If that attitude was applied there would be a lot less fist happy bullies around.

 

[jockscott]

Most sentences are around the same length in similar cases.

I reckon Ronnie Biggs would disagree with you there. He got 30 yrs for a robbery of only £2.6 million... Do that these days and you'd be very unlucky to get more than ten yrs at the most.

 

[Trazor]

It's easier to call black a colour, for the masses, whom it would otherwise confuse.

Are you deliberately acting like a bell end or are you unable to read your own directive.

Black is a colour. Pure and simple.

"For the masses" WTF!! Wot a monumental bell end.

First thing I found on Google as per your instructions....http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black

If you can't argue without name calling, then please don't bother.

This was the opening sentence from the Wiki site Google search, when you googled it.
and I quote.....

"In the visible spectrum, white reflects light and is a presence of all colors, but black absorbs light AND IS AN ABSENCE OF COLOUR . Black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye.

 

[Belboz]

Most sentences are around the same length in similar cases.

I reckon Ronnie Biggs would disagree with you there. He got 30 yrs for a robbery of only £2.6 million... Do that these days and you'd be very unlucky to get more than ten yrs at the most.

That's why I said SIMILAR cases i.e. ones where the circumstances are similar. Biggs' case is nothing similar.

If you look at the average sentences for 'fights' or assaults where someone dies as a result (with no intent proven) the sentence in this particular case is just above average.

I fully agree that once someone is dead they are dead but, the end result aside, there is a big difference between an intent to maim or kill and a punch where no such intent is there - legally speaking at least.

I would very much doubt that there is anyone on here who hasn't lost their temper with someone. Of course, many may hold back on an actual punch but for those who have lashed out in temper with no intention of causing the other's death, should they pay a very heavy penalty?

As I said before, it's not just scum who end up in these situations, it happens to joe public too.

IMHO, each case should be treated on its merits.....

 

[sooey]

IMHO, each case should be treated on its merits.....

I would entirely agree with that .Which is totally at odds with this...

Difficulty is that the legal interpretation of applying sentencing doesn't allow for it. Most sentences are around the same length in similar cases. Even The Court of Appeal in this case agreed that the sentence was 'not unduly lenient' and upheld the original length of sentence accordingly.

 

[noseall]

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

Eh?
I would if I understood the question.

 

[Belboz]

IMHO, each case should be treated on its merits.....

I would entirely agree with that .Which is totally at odds with this...

Difficulty is that the legal interpretation of applying sentencing doesn't allow for it. Most sentences are around the same length in similar cases. Even The Court of Appeal in this case agreed that the sentence was 'not unduly lenient' and upheld the original length of sentence accordingly.

The second quoted passage was in response to the suggestion that an assailant 'ought to face the full wrath of the law' and 'go to jail for a long time'.

I don't see how the two are at odds??

 

[noseall]

If you can't argue without name calling, then please don't bother.

Only if you promise not to post rubbish.