Capital Punishment

[King Billy]

Once again I could not be clearer on this, no joking about it but I would reject your suggestion of dunking them in water to establish guilt, I find that quite ridiculous and would pass that off as mere folly. You can call it what you want, the great charter or whatever, criminals who commit serious crime as in the examples that I have given in previous posts where there is no doubt that the offender is guilty, then this would carry an automatic death sentence. There is no right to a fair trial either, those rights were lost upon commiting such crimes.

Would this be retrospective? Would it apply to, say crimes committed before the Great Charter?

 

[MNW67]

No they weren't.

Your words were aggravated burglary and theft of cars. Two entirely different offences. One has the added descriptor of aggravated, and the other doesn't.
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.

The adjective 'aggravated' can carry over to cover both 'burglary' and 'car theft. So, it actually meant 'aggravated burglary and aggravated car theft'.

If an adjective (or determiner) appears before a list of two or more nouns, it is usually interpreted as modifying all of them.

 

[Highway Man]

The adjective 'aggravated' can carry over to cover both 'burglary' and 'car theft. So, it actually meant 'aggravated burglary and aggravated car theft'.

Exactly this and well he knows it, he is just being a silly billy and trying to twist again to somehow elevate himself but failed and went in the oppoosit direction of down rather than up. ?Funny isn't it how he and only he missed the obvious.

 

[transam]

How about bumping off those off who break into trade vans stealing tools ???

 

[Highway Man]

Would this be retrospective? Would it apply to, say crimes committed before the Great Charter?

I doubt there would be any benefit to try this notion as the days of the Magna Carter have well past their sell by date and the offenders would be dust by now.

 

[Highway Man]

How about bumping off those off who break into trade vans stealing tools ???

Lashings would be my choice of punishment followed up by replacing every tool stolen and given back to the rightful owner.

 

[King Billy]

The adjective 'aggravated' can carry over to cover both 'burglary' and 'car theft. So, it actually meant 'aggravated burglary and aggravated car theft'.

That would apply if the second noun did not have a second modifier. But in HWM's case it did.
Aggravated burlglary and theft of cars.
If he'd said "aggravated burglary and theft", the adjective would have applied to both nouns.
But he modified the second noun with its own adjective "of cars". If he'd wanted the adjective of "aggravated" to aplly to both nouns, he should have explicitly applied it.
So while your quote for grammar was correct, it didn't apply in HWM's case.

Take an example of "wear your red hat and the gloves with no fingers. The adjective "with no fingers" applied to the second noun "gloves" disapplies the rule of the adjective applying to both nouns.

 

[Highway Man]

That would apply if the second noun did not have a second modifier. But in HWM's case it did.
Aggravated burlglary and theft of cars.
If he'd said "aggravated burglary and theft", the adjective would have applied to both nouns.
But he modified the second noun with its own adjective "of cars". If he'd wanted the adjective of "aggravated" to aplly to both nouns, he should have explicitly applied it.
So while your quote for grammar was correct, it didn't apply in HWM's case.

Take an example of "wear your red hat and the gloves with no fingers. The adjective "with no fingers" applied to the second noun "gloves" disapplies the rule of the adjective applying to both nouns.

Get to bed mate its late for you, only you havent understood this and are now frantically looking for ways to try to hide your obvious mistake. Don't worry over it we are used to seeing this from you. Good night Billy, see you tomorrow for another episode.

 

[King Billy]

Exactly this and well he knows it, he is just being a silly billy and trying to twist again to somehow elevate himself but failed and went in the oppoosit direction of down rather than up. ?Funny isn't it how he and only he missed the obvious.

I've just explained the additional rules of grammar that proves I was correct.
And you're being a clown denying the undeniable.
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.
Funny isn't it, how you're not the only one that missed the obvious.

 

[King Billy]

Get to bed mate its late for you, only you havent understood this and are now frantically looking for ways to try to hide your obvious mistake. Don't worry over it we are used to seeing this from you. Good night Billy, see you tomorrow for another episode.

Good job you didn't have any qualifications in English, you'd have failed miserably.
Judging by your continued denial of the obvious, you have no qualifications in integrity neither.

 

[Highway Man]

I've just explained the additional rules of grammar that proves I was correct.
And you're being a clown denying the undeniable.
Car theft is not an aggravated offence.
Funny isn't it, how you're not the only one that missed the obvious.

Anything new to say or are you just going to bore everyone with a hundred pages on how you feel that you are a victim of my superiority?

 

[Highway Man]

Good job you didn't have any qualifications in English, you'd have failed iserably.
Judging by your continued denial of the obvious, you have no qualifications in integrity neither.

A bit ironic you saying iserably in that same sentence. I would get your head down now as it is late for you.

 

[King Billy]

I doubt there would be any benefit to try this notion as the days of the Magna Carter have well past their sell by date and the offenders would be dust by now.

It looks like someone whispered in your ear what Magna Carta meant. There's no way you'd have realised on your own. You even spelled it incorrectly.

 

[Highway Man]

It looks like someone whispered in your ear what Magna Carta meant. There's no way you'd have realised on your own. You even spelled it incorrectly.

Oh not the spelling again. Goodnight.

 

[MNW67]

That would apply if the second noun did not have a second modifier. But in HWM's case it did.
Aggravated burlglary and theft of cars.
If he'd said "aggravated burglary and theft", the adjective would have applied to both nouns.
But he modified the second noun with its own adjective "of cars". If he'd wanted the adjective of "aggravated" to aplly to both nouns, he should have explicitly applied it.
So while your quote for grammar was correct, it didn't apply in HWM's case.

Take an example of "wear your red hat and the gloves with no fingers. The adjective "with no fingers" applied to the second noun "gloves" disapplies the rule of the adjective applying to both nouns.

Your example is totally different grammatically to HWM's. There is no adjective (or other determiner) in the noun phrase 'theft of cars'.