On 24/01/2012 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article94ydnZob3fBUX4PSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
Your attitude seems to be: "F*ck the thousands of innocent people who
potentially suffer because of attacks of wanton vandalism and theft such
as these, it is far better that they do so than the guilty be punished
in any way - even if it be by their own stupidity".

You seem to love making things up as I've never even implied that thieves
go unpunished.


Nor have you suggested that they should be.

How dare you have such contempt for society - a contempt at least as
great as those who commit such acts. The potential outcome is no
different to planting bombs amongst innocent civilians by the IRA.

There is no one potential outcome - it depends on circumstances.

And those circumstances could well result in damage to innocent parties.

Tell me, are you a headline writer for a tabloid? You seem to see things
in a black and white way.


No, but that's probably a cleaner and more honest approach than, say,
the Guardian's.

You also should consider the difference between setting out to kill
someone and the possible result of a simple theft. But it's probably too
hard for you.


Not at all. But, if that "simple theft" does result in the death of an
innocent party, are you suggesting that we just accept it because that
wasn't the original intention? I would rather see you suggest that
criminals, major or minor, accept the consequences of their own actions,
especially if they impinge upon the lives of innocent people.

If, however, they manage to kill themselves in the course of their
illegal act it may serve as a warning to others.

Please remember that they have total freedom of choice in these matters
- their victims do not.

--
Moving things in still pictures