2 French exchange students - tortured and killed

[L4byr1nth]

Sorry mate, only the first line was for you, the rest was for Chimpy.

 

 

Ben.

 

EDIT: And maybe the last line!

[Chimpy]

I don't see how it's hypocritical.

 

And the guy had broken into his house, trespassed, and stolen property. He was well within his rights to shoot him, and it's one of the first cases I was aware of that was covered by the media, where I felt the verdict unjust.

 

If you didn't notice the people that robbed him and organised the robbery were caught and prosecuted. They didn't actually manage to steal anything from him. In England and Wales you have the right to use reasonable force to remove someone from your property for trespassing. However they were both attempting to remove themselves from his property at some speed through a window after being confronted by a man wielding a shotgun. You do not have the right to kill people for trespass.

 

Also, what about the rights of women under Sharia law? If you read the article that links to the one you linked to, English Common law already allows the same type of third-party mediation, so there really is no need. People are saying that they want 'Sharia' law, but not which parts, which is causing confusion, because as well as these useless courts, there are the severe physical punishments, degredation of the basic rights of women, and the penalty of death for leaving the system... Plus the fact that this is England, and we have our own laws here.

 

I'm the one that linked the article due to your confusion about what the Lord Chief Justice said! I know what he said because I was correcting your misunderstanding of it! He stated explicitly what he wanted in terms of Sharia law as you have pointed out. I know what Sharia law is and how it applies to various people. I have also pointed out how it is used in this country to mediate civil disputes this use part of our English Law(sic) that lets people decide some civil matters how they choose. This does not supersede common law in anyway. The rights of women are a good point as their could be an element of coercion to use Sharia for divorce etc. however this form of coercion is already dealt with by common law. If you are having issues understanding that then I suggest reinserting your head back into the copy of the Daily Mail you were reading.

[Garibaldi]

i am just sick of all the complaining, yes there are many *fruitcage* problems in Britain, MANY, and by all means point them out and try to do something about them, but your not, your just sitting on your *albatross* on an internet forum (as i am) complaining like a *fruitcage* OAP about how ###### this country is and that you need to move.

 

all i am saying is, be thankful you at least have democracy, and free healthcare and opportunities to lead a good life.

Let's not talk about healthcare in the UK please

I get your point my friend, don't get me wrong, but we can't deny that we seem to go through a route that deprives us of a little bit of our freedom day after day.

Let's b*tch in public forums while we can still do it

 

[L4byr1nth]

Actually it's The Times for me

 

And are you saying that because Mr. Martin encountered people robbing his house, they fled, and he took one down, then the Police caught them, that it isn't a robbery?

 

So if a woman gets raped, and the Police catch the guy, it doesn't count as rape?

 

Hmmmm...

 

They still broke in, with the intent to take things for personal gain. That's a robbery.

 

And I suggest you go away and read a few things about the state of this country. Before formally introducing new law, we should focus on what's wrong with the ones we already have. I don't care if people have been 'using' it for years. In fact, it might have been a contributing factor as to why this country has gone down the pan over the last 10 years.

 

I personally am waiting for a famous Terrorist Killer post in this thread.

 

Ben.

[Chimpy]

And I suggest you go away and read a few things about the state of this country. Before formally introducing new law, we should focus on what's wrong with the ones we already have. I don't care if people have been 'using' it for years. In fact, it might have been a contributing factor as to why this country has gone down the pan over the last 10 years.

 

You are hilarious! Where has anyone suggested formally introducing new laws? This ability already exists under common law as the article you've apparently read says! I suggest you pick up a copy of The Times (my paper of choice too) and actually read it rather than looking at the pictures.

 

As for Tony Martin breaking into someones house is not robbery it is conspiracy to commit burglary. Which is what the two guys that survived were prosecuted and put in prison for. Regardless of which Tony Martin still did not have the right to kill anyone especially not with an illegally held weapon!

 

Terrorist Killer??!

[ryan92]

Quick, clean, humane capital punishment is the only way forward. If they brought that in tomorrow, I would happily blow my Japan fund on airsoft kit, and stay in England forever.

 

The death penalty seams like an obvious suggestion however, it is flawed in many ways there is no quick, clean and humane way to conduct an execution. Below i have listed other problems with the death penalty

1.Studies have documented that over 400 innocent people have been sentenced to death and 23 executed in America in the 1900's. the most famous case being: Dennis Williams information on Dennis Williams case

2.The death penalty does not deter: Information on deterence of Capital punishment

 

3.In a study by Duke University it costs $2,000,000 more to have a person executed, than incarcerate them for life. If you want to spend £1,000,000 more per person being executed in taxes , then i think your insane. I also think that it is a much better deterent to know that you are going to be locked up for the rest of your life.

 

I would say that the UK needs to be tougher on sentencing, although i also think that the reintroduction of the death penalty is (from the facts shown above) a move in the wrong direction.

[Skarclaw]

and free healthcare and opportunities to lead a good life.

 

 

Care to point me in the direction of how I go about getting a tax exemption similar to yours?

 

Terrorist Killer??!

 

A user on this forum, I tend to avoid his posts.

[Parsley]

Care to point me in the direction of how I go about getting a tax exemption similar to yours?

 

 

 

A user on this forum, I tend to avoid his posts.

 

 

i sigged him because of his awesomeness, i dont avoid his post, i enjoy a good laugh as much as the next man

[L4byr1nth]

Chimpy, much as I admire your complacent attitude towards the downfall of Britain as a nation, I can't seem to adopt it for myself.

 

When I said introducing new laws, I wasn't just talking about 'Sharia' law, which existed under English common law anyway, I was talking about all the other 'new' laws. For example, the headlines the other day focused on how the British police force has been told to concentrate on speeding motorists, and have had their quotas increased.

 

Yep, that's what we need, for them to have to spend more time fining people.

 

As for locking them up for life, it's not going to happen, is it? Prisons are overflowing, and more and more people get off with crimes that they should have gone to jail for. It was only a couple of months ago that BBC news reported the downgrading of some crimes.

 

Capital punishment would solve this problem, but part of it's implementation period would be finding a quick, clean, and humane method of destroying a human life that would also be cost effective to the average tax payer. I suggest hanging, but some people argue that it's not humane enough.

 

I am also firmly of the belief that if people think they can break into your property and steal anything that belongs to you, they are taking the risk. Thus you should be able to defend yourself with any weapon you choose, and not have to worry about your own government turning on you for defending what you own in what I imagine is a very frightening and threatening situation.

 

The politically correct, nanny-state numpties who we put in charge don't think that that's the case... But then again, they wouldn't, would they.

 

Probably the only way to ever get round this is to install a micro camera behind the retina of every single person's eye, along with a micro HDD, which uploads to a server every time it gets full. Then we appoint an Offical High Juditioner (me!), who, in the event of a crime, reviews everyone who was involved's tapes', and makes a decision on the case BASED ON IT'S OWN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS. Not precedents, or jury decisions.

 

But who listens to me, eh?

 

Would be better than bloody I.D. cards.

 

Ben.

[Chimpy]

Chimpy, much as I admire your complacent attitude towards the downfall of Britain as a nation, I can't seem to adopt it for myself.

 

 

Hypocrite.

 

You are the person who is planning on running away so don't pretend to hold some kind of moral high ground.

 

I also find it humorous that I get accused of complacency a day after being mistaken for some kind of revolutionary by Harmless in this thread.

 

Seriously though your level of ignorance and wriggling once proved wrong is staggering.

 

As for:

 

But who listens to me, eh?

 

Ever stop to think why?

[Parsley]

Care to point me in the direction of how I go about getting a tax exemption similar to yours?

i have never paid a shred of tax in my life

 

no but really, you know what i mean

[Skarclaw]

You really mean, its a healthcare system you pay for in taxes, its akin to me subscribing to a magazine for 30 quid a year or whatever, then claiming I get a free magazine every month.

[Chimpy]

No it isn't. It's like paying car insurance only without the excess.

[Skarclaw]

Spose, either way you look at it, its not free unless you earn way under the tax band.

[Chimpy]

Spose, either way you look at it, its not free unless you earn way under the tax band.

 

It is free at the point of delivery no matter how much tax you have contributed. Which is the point.

 

Healthcare is one of the better things we pay tax for.

 

Apologies if I come across a bit short, L4byr1nth has made me grumpy.

[Skarclaw]

Not disagreeing there

[Md0ggyd0g]

No it isn't. It's like paying car insurance only without the excess.

 

Yes, if you were forced to have insurance, to have a car, and to insure every other idiot who can't stop crashing into stuff.

[Chimpy]

Yes, if you were forced to have insurance, to have a car, and to insure every other idiot who can't stop crashing into stuff.

 

Sure and your system makes health insurance companies rich at the expense of both the patients and the government.

 

By the way that is how car insurance works, in this country you are required to have it and for the most part it does pay for other people crashing, It will also replace your own car should you total it. I believe it works in the same way over there. If the other guy doesn't have insurance you pay it using your own.

 

Also per head you guys pay almost as much tax for health/social stuff as we do.

[jollygreengiant]

Capital punishment would solve this problem, but part of it's implementation period would be finding a quick, clean, and humane method of destroying a human life that would also be cost effective to the average tax payer. I suggest hanging, but some people argue that it's not humane enough.

 

I am also firmly of the belief that if people think they can break into your property and steal anything that belongs to you, they are taking the risk. Thus you should be able to defend yourself with any weapon you choose, and not have to worry about your own government turning on you for defending what you own in what I imagine is a very frightening and threatening situation.

 

 

Would be better than bloody I.D. cards.

 

Ben.

 

I think as capital punishment, we could do with something British. I too think hanging would come into that category. But of course, this wouldn't be used because it would be racist to everyone else of course. For a cost efficient alternative, id suggest upping a 6mmer to waaaay beyond forum limits. Through the eyesocket/ear. Probably not the most humane option however.

 

I definately think people should be allowed to defend themselves with ANYTHING they can find. As long as the intruder was inside their official boundary of their land. Without any reprecussions from the government whatsoever, espescially not having to set foot near any courtroom, even if the intruder dies. They should even have the ability to take down anyone with a ranged weapon directly threatening them, no matter where they stood. As long as the defender was on his own property. No way should anyone in fear of bodily harm on their own property be persecuted for dealing with the threat.

 

If only the government thought real people's thoughts...

[L4byr1nth]

 

Hypocrite.

 

You are the person who is planning on running away so don't pretend to hold some kind of moral high ground.

 

I also find it humorous that I get accused of complacency a day after being mistaken for some kind of revolutionary by Harmless in this thread.

 

Seriously though your level of ignorance and wriggling once proved wrong is staggering.

 

As for:

 

 

 

Ever stop to think why?

 

Hmmmm... Several things wrong with this.

 

You haven't proven me wrong. In fact, technically, it's impossible, as what I've notated here is only my personal opinion. I'm not making a statement, and thus you can only disagree with me, not attack my personal thought.

 

Also, I'm not 'wriggling'. I have constantly maintained that I am currently saving to leave this country, partly because of job opportunities, but mostly because I don't agree with what this country has become. If things were to change tomorrow, I would stay. I don't WANT to leave, but I personally think that quality of life in this country has decreased over the last ten years for most social groups, and I predict it will continue to fall... That's not beneficial to me, really, is it? There are a myriad of reasons for this, and I don't need to justify my move to anyone, least of all some dude on a public internet forum!

 

I'm not ignorant. You're trying to prove politics on fact. Politics has not, and never will be, based on fact. You can't change what I believe by accusing me of being wrong, because naturally, I think you're wrong, which I do, and you are.

 

My view on various laws and policies is my own, and if there's one thing I hate, it's when people quote your whole post, and dissect it, adding their own views... I don't care what you think, because my mind is already made up, pending a drastic change.

 

Ben.

 

[ryan92]

To Ben and Jolygreengiant:

 

Capital punishment would solve this problem, but part of it's implementation period would be finding a quick, clean, and humane method of destroying a human life that would also be cost effective to the average tax payer. I suggest hanging, but some people argue that it's not humane enough.

 

The extra £1,000,000 does not come from the actual execution, the execution itself is very cheap. The cost comes from the legal implications of sentencing someone to death, this cannot be changed, so no matter what its always going to cost more, so that point of yours is completely shot down. Secondly yes i do love a good old british hanging, especially the nice and clean ones where the person is decapitated(sure that leaves a nice mess). As you said about life sentencing is not going to happen because of prison overload, think how many more cells you can build for £1,000,000 per person who was to be executed, Ben please before you post again about capital punishment reserach it first.

 

To jollygreengiant:

I think as capital punishment, we could do with something British. I too think hanging would come into that category. But of course, this wouldn't be used because it would be racist to everyone else of course. For a cost efficient alternative, id suggest upping a 6mmer to waaaay beyond forum limits. Through the eyesocket/ear. Probably not the most humane option however.

 

As i have already said, hanging does not fulfill the requirements for a Clean/humane/ quick death. One of the most promising is asphixiation from an increase of nitrogen in the air, the convict doesent even know that their is an increase and they fall unconsious, similar to death from carbon monoxide.

 

Finaly as i indicated in my orginal post on this subject, capital punishment does not deter, so please tell me a sensible reason to bring in laws that on ocasion allow innocent people to die, have no deterence effect and cost £1,000,000 more? I am more than happy to listen.

[Sale]

Funny how I'm the official RKBA activist and gun nut on Arnie's, but I disagree with the barbaric ideals brought forward in this thread.

 

-I'm opposed to the death penalty.

Mistakes have been made, and even one is too many. You can't "un-kill" people, and a civilized nation shouldn't kill them in the first place. Criminals who commit this sort of crimes think they won't be caught, so it's not a deterrent. A death penalty serves zero justice to the victims. As an alternative, I would suggest people use firearms to defend themselves. It is 1) A very effective deterrent and 2) Most often doesn't even have to fired, so no-one is harmed in the process. 3) Most importantly the potential victim remains alive, something the death sentence can't provide.

 

"But life in prison costs so much..." -What, you kill people because of money? Are you any better than the murderers?

 

-I'm opposed to shooting in the back.

I think someone who attacks another person gives up all of their rights when they do so, but the rights are regained as soon as the attack is stopped one way or another. If the criminal runs, grab a cell phone and follow them if you're set on catching them. If they attack you again, go to the beginning of this paragraph. Just don't shoot someone in the back when they are running away - especially if they're empty-handed.

 

All of the people who oppose armed self-defence in the countless other threads, I wonder where you are now. We got some really nasty vigilantes here.

 

-Sale

[Agent47]

-I'm opposed to shooting in the back. a fleeing criminal

I think someone who attacks another person gives up all of their rights when they do so, but the rights are regained as soon as the attack is stopped one way or another. If the criminal runs, grab a cell phone and follow them if you're set on catching them. If they attack you again, go to the beginning of this paragraph. Just don't shoot someone in the back when they are running away - especially if they're empty-handed.

 

All of the people who oppose armed self-defence in the countless other threads, I wonder where you are now. We got some really nasty vigilantes here.

 

-Sale

 

fixed, what happens if you get the drop on a rapist/robber?

[Chimpy]

I'm not ignorant. You're trying to prove politics on fact. Politics has not, and never will be, based on fact. You can't change what I believe by accusing me of being wrong, because naturally, I think you're wrong, which I do, and you are.

 

 

Seriously you can't make this suitcase up! For future reference forming your opinion without reference to facts is by definition ignorant.

 

"Being ignorant is not such a shame as being unwilling to learn." - Benjamin Franklin

 

ryan92 - I wouldn't hold your breath for either of them to justify their opinions on capital punishment. They don't have to 'cause its politics and that doesn't require being proved with facts (see above quote) even when it involves killing people for little benefit.

[Sale]

what happens if you get the drop on a rapist/robber?

I thought I made it very clear already:

 

I think someone who attacks another person gives up all of their rights when they do so, but the rights are regained as soon as the attack is stopped one way or another. If the criminal runs, grab a cell phone and follow them if you're set on catching them. If they attack you again, go to the beginning of this paragraph.

Being as the attack is stopped and the criminal is running, there's no justification to shoot them at that point. As I said, I'm a good runner and would definitely be able to keep up while informing the police of my (=our) location. My brother has successfully applied this method and caught two robbers.

 

In case of an injured person that needs attention, I would prioritize them higher, though. Not really helpful to catch a mugger if you leave the victim to bleed to death.

 

-Sale