|
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 25/01/2012 20:45, 'Mike' wrote:
"ŽiŠardo" wrote in message ... On 25/01/2012 20:25, 'Mike' wrote: "ŽiŠardo" wrote in message ... On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote: "harry" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , Clive George escribió: Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment, only that the death penalty is inappropriate. The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone. So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a railway line? -- Cynic Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline. Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog owner Mike Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs - both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment. -- Moving things in still pictures Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-) Mike Well, we started with the puppy walking and did about fifteen, and then moved on to the retired ones. What a joy, especially taking on the retired ones and seeing them relax and then enjoy themselves to the full for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we've been spoilt on the dog front, given the extensive training that the youngsters required - it rarely turned out a rogue, if ever. Regards RiŠardo -- Moving things in still pictures We found Labradors the hardest to train. Much preferred Alsatians. The trouble with those though is that they are a 'one person' dog. Don't like small yappy dogs. We would have another Alsatian tomorrow, the trouble is we are away too often, and, we have a Saloon car. An Estate is a must with big dogs Mike Yes, the Labradors can be on the stubborn side, although Lab/Retriever crosses are often better when it comes to temperament. Our current two are a black Labrador bitch, coming up thirteen years old but still a wonderful character and a five year old German Shepherd. He got to advanced training and decided that he'd rather chase cats! Both are superb with our grandchildren, although the Labrador is "top dog" and the Shepherd is well aware of it. They are the one reason why I've hung on to my Citroën Picasso - it's an ideal dog transport. RiŠardo -- Moving things in still pictures |
Metal theft. The biters bit
Cynic :
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:10:27 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote: This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are killed as a result of their criminal action, therefore whether or not the driver's act was or was not criminal is indeed relevant to this thread - and that in turn depends on the speed limit in force. To me the relevant criminal action here - what caused the death - is dangerous driving. That would be the same even if the speed limit was 70 mph. Exceeding a speed limit is not in itself dangerous. Exceeding a safe speed *is* in itself dangerous. "Dangerous" is simply a line in the sand separating what is subjectively considered to be an acceptable risk from what is subjectively considered to be an unacceptable risk. That line will be in different places for different people. Agreed. One person who is driving at a speed that you consider to be "safe" might have or cause a fatal accident, whilst another person driving at a speed that you consider to be "dangerous" may complete every journey without incident. Perhaps due purely to chance. Perhaps due to the faster driver having superior driving skills, or having a car with superior handling characteristics. After all, you can only assess what speed is "safe" by reference to your *own* driving ability and experiences, or what you perceive as being an average driving ability. A person with problems of cognition or concentration, or slow reflexes might be dangerous when driving far below a speed that you would consider perfectly safe. And vice-versa. Quite so. But if someone was killed, chances are that that was not a safe speed. Regardless of the speed limit. -- Mike Barnes |
Metal theft. The biters bit
Cynic wrote:
Could be all sorts of reasons. It is quite common for children who were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things, Far less likely than the children of the feckless, by a ratio of 100:1 or more I'd say. If any of my friends' kids got into trouble we'd all be astonished and shocked, whereas on the dodgy estates if a kid gets into trouble no-one thinks it's worth a mention. Bill |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Faced with a definitely deprived individual waving a loaded gun, are you going to have a social philosophical discussion, or just fire first... If he's really deprived offer him breakfast then shoot him. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
|
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:38:22 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: I could make prison work. MFI's gone out of business. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: No-one would want to go in my prisons. They already have rubbish bogs. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:20:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: Certainly true when they take to crime to feed their habit, as many do. The drug prices being artificially high purely because they are illegal. The ones who rob and mug for a fix should be given free smack. Soon sort the arseholes out, with self-administered overdosing. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:11:50 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote: AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in Camp Hill You've said so already. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent. Yes it is. A secure prison completely deters a criminal from committing crime in the community. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 26/01/2012 00:42, Steve O wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote: In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent. Yes it is. A secure prison completely deters a criminal from committing crime in the community. Only to those who believe, falsely, that a secure prison (any prison) is not part of the community. WM |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 5:45*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , Clive George escribió: Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment, only that the death penalty is inappropriate. The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. *Quite a different matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone. So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a railway line? -- Cynic Parents fault. *They had not been subjected proper discipline. Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog owner Mike -- ................................... I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.. ...................................- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Usually true but no talways. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 6:16*pm, charles wrote:
In article , * *Mike Barnes wrote: Cynic : On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:04:28 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote: Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH in a 40 MPH limit? *It could result in death. If 45 mph is too fast for the conditions, death could result. But the 40 mph speed limit is not relevant. This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are killed as a result of their criminal action, therefore whether or not the driver's act was or was not criminal is indeed relevant to this thread - and that in turn depends on the speed limit in force. To me the relevant criminal action here - what caused the death - is dangerous driving. That would be the same even if the speed limit was 70 mph. Exceeding a speed limit is not in itself dangerous. Exceeding a safe speed *is* in itself dangerous. The problem with these 'modern' speed limits is that people think they are the "safe speed". *When I learned to drive there were only 2 speed limits: 30 mph in 'built-up areas' and 20mph in Royal Parks. The driver was responsible for deciding on the safe speed for the conditions. "Nanny State" has stepped in and, possibly, made the situation worse since drivers now only look at the local limit and not at the road conditions. That is true. Also people feel invulnerable in modern cars. There is little sensation of speed. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 6:22*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote: On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive *wrote: On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote: My prisons would be cheap. *They would work and pay for their keep. They would remain there working until they had paid *(in cash) full compensation for their crimes to their victims. They would not be a nice place to be in either. Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal working people to get your work? They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing. They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares? I expect there's people here could think of other similar work. That's answered none of my questions. How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 6:32*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
Please post where I said "I" was a prisoner Kind regards. -- ................................... I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.. ................................... "Clive George" wrote in message o.uk... On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote: "Clive George" wrote in message news:vOGdnQqsfuxZor3SnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@brightview .co.uk... On 25/01/2012 17:31, 'Mike' wrote: Your strong feeling is wrong. Have you ever 'actually' talked to a prisoner about a 'harder and more deterrent' sentence? Have you 'actually been inside' a prison? Do you think your prison sentences were too easy? What would you have changed about them to encourage you to not re-offend? Yes Make them a deterrent Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when you did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the typical sentence had been hard labour?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I got that impression too. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 6:58*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 18:32, 'Mike' wrote: "Clive George" wrote in message news:qI6dnbns2e_21L3SnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk... On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote: "Clive George" wrote in message news:vOGdnQqsfuxZor3SnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk... On 25/01/2012 17:31, 'Mike' wrote: Your strong feeling is wrong. Have you ever 'actually' talked to a prisoner about a 'harder and more deterrent' sentence? Have you 'actually been inside' a prison? Do you think your prison sentences were too easy? What would you have changed about them to encourage you to not re-offend? Yes Make them a deterrent Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when you did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the typical sentence had been hard labour? * * Please post where I said "I" was a prisoner Well, I did ask you if your prison sentences were too easy, and you did say yes. If you could learn to quote properly such confusions might not arise. I'd hoped you might be able to offer some useful insight into why people offend and what's necessary to deter them, but it seems you can't. Remember the tales of people pickpocketing in the crowds for the gallows? The death penalty wasn't a sufficient deterrent, why do you think other things will be Simple. They were starving in them days. Nobody's starving now. They go out thieving to feed drug habits and to buy fancy clothes, Ipods etc. You aren't very clever are you? This is just regurgitated liberal trash. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 7:33*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 11:36 am, "dennis@home" wrote: "harry" wrote in message .... Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH in a 40 MPH limit? *It could result in death. *Even parking in a no-parking area could result in death. *Do you therefore similarly wish death on drivers who break the speed limit, and people with parking infringements? -- Cynic If they kill someone then yes. Why should someone that is speeding and has a child run out and get killed be treated differently to a speeder who doesn't have a child run out? The crime is the same only the outcome is different. The difference is not under the control of the driver and is an easily foreseen circumstance. They are equally guilty. Consequences. You can close your eyes and walk across a highway. Just because you get away with it the first time doesn't mean you will again. The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is going, the better chance of survival. The circumstances are exactly the same, its only by chance that the one driver kills someone. Now why should the two be treated differently? If the driver were the only one at risk I wouldn't worry. But you are too selfish to see that he puts everyone at risk. Its you who is assuming I think the one that kills should be treated less harshly.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is not chance. It is statistics which is a science. And by driving at a safe speed we cana ffect out comes. ie improve survivabilty. Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". It is a deliberate action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action.. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 7:36*pm, Frank Erskine
wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:31 -0000, "'Mike'" wrote: Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence is totally lost. -- Frank Erskine It's caused by his stupid top posting. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 7:48*pm, charles wrote:
In article om, * *dennis@home wrote: "Cynic" wrote in message news:4f203583.961988000@localhost... On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:22:14 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?= wrote: So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a railway line? Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake. If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up. The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to protect the public from danger. If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault. If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get hurt its their own fault. some 'children' are quite capable of breaking and entering. *Their parents fault? Yes, definitely. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 8:12*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:38 -0800 (PST), harry wrote: I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that they were killed. Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the imagination to see how victims feel. You would be wrong on both counts. Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the subject of vigilante attacks? -- Cynic Ah. Moving the goal posts again? The "vigilantes" are criminals too. Especially if acting on rumour. If a criminal is caught in the act, I don't blame anyone for beating the **** out of them these days of half wit judges and greedy lawyers. So tell us your first hand experiences then. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 8:17*pm, ŽiŠardo wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote: On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote: In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent. But we know neither is the death penalty. If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been? That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their harder prisons aren't a deterrent either. Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times bigger than ours. They do lock up a larger percage than us. But they don't have the same benifits culture we have. You can starve in America. Especially these days. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 8:18*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home" wrote: The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is going, the better chance of survival. Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all. For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a certain threshold. *Most things we do contains *some* element of risk. The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the circumstances or not. If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of causing death, modern society would not be able to survive. -- Cynic There are plenty of people out there who are not sensible. There are people out there (seemingly beyond your ken) who are evil *******s and don't give a toss about anyone else. Taking a risk that effects yourself is one thing. If it effects someone else,that's another. You can't get that into your thick head can you? |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 8:27*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:10:27 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote: This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are killed as a result of their criminal action, therefore whether or not the driver's act was or was not criminal is indeed relevant to this thread - and that in turn depends on the speed limit in force. To me the relevant criminal action here - what caused the death - is dangerous driving. That would be the same even if the speed limit was 70 mph. Exceeding a speed limit is not in itself dangerous. Exceeding a safe speed *is* in itself dangerous. "Dangerous" is simply a line in the sand separating what is subjectively considered to be an acceptable risk from what is subjectively considered to be an unacceptable risk. *That line will be in different places for different people. One person who is driving at a speed that you consider to be "safe" might have or cause a fatal accident, whilst another person driving at a speed that you consider to be "dangerous" may complete every journey without incident. *Perhaps due purely to chance. *Perhaps due to the faster driver having superior driving skills, or having a car with superior handling characteristics. *After all, you can only assess what speed is "safe" by reference to your *own* driving ability and experiences, or what you perceive as being an average driving ability. A person with problems of cognition or concentration, or slow reflexes might be dangerous when driving far below a speed that you would consider perfectly safe. *And vice-versa. -- Cynic Ah your usual trick of moving the goal posts. Retards don't pass their driving tests. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
"harry" wrote in message ... Driving at dangerous speeds is not "chance". It is a deliberate action so anyone who is killed was killed by a deliberate action.. You are really trying aren't you. The deliberate action is driving too fast. It is the same action even if the consequences are different. Assuming neither driver has gone out to deliberately kill someone why are the crimes different and why should one be less harshly dealt with? |
Metal theft. The biters bit
harry wrote:
[snip] Simple. They were starving in them days. No they weren't. Nobody's starving now. They go out thieving to feed drug habits and to buy fancy clothes, Ipods etc. And in previous eras people stole to have fancy clothes, a flashy horse, to feed their ale, gin and opium habit... You aren't very clever are you? Oh. The irony. This is just regurgitated liberal trash. And your post is the usual knuckle-dragging right wing trash. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 9:05*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
"Cynic" wrote in message news:4f206867.975016218@localhost... On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:26:26 -0000, "dennis@home" wrote: Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support after release. And when that fails? Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. *Because it's clear that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far harsher system that we used to have. -- Cynic It was tried in the 1970's and it failed. I know because I was involved. I was on the Training Scheme. I wrote a course for them which gave them a City and Guilds Certificate. "I" was the writer of the course and "I" was the City and Guilds Assessor and it was rolled out over the whole Prison System. I left the Prison Service and went into Industry. I employed an ex prisoner. He lasted less than six months before he was back inside again. Even before I came out, a prisoner who had completed a course, was back inside again within a few months. I saw him in the nick on his return. "What the hell are you doing here?" I asked him 'Two and a half years', "Why?", 'I went back home and doffed the bloke who put me inside last time' One of the prisoners was in for taking cars. "It would be cheaper for the Government to buy me a car" he said one day. I politely told him that he should get a job and pay for his car as I had done. I then put a deterrent scheme to him. "If you were sentenced to 14 days with the proviso that next time it would be 28 days and when you got to prison all you were doing was shifting a pile of sand from one end of a corridor, and when that was done you would shift it all back again, would you think twice before putting your hand on a car door handle with the view to pinching it, knowing you will be shifting sand for 28 days and the next term 56 days etc?" He agreed it would be a deterrent. Why do you believe him when he says that though? The truth is, not only would shifting sand be unlikely to solve his problem, but nor would buying him a brand new supercar. The reality is that you would buy him a new supercar, and pretty soon he would be bored with it, and he would go back out even stealing cars that were inferior to the one that he alreday had, because that activity provides a challenge and a context for applying his skills, and a context for social participation with other crooks. So too, the threat of shifting sand would hit hard as a deterrent at first, but eventually the boredom of not stealing cars would become irresistible, and before you know it he's actually in jail again and shifting sand. At that point, the unreasonableness of the task (which ideally was supposed to be a deterrent, and not actually imposed) provokes strong opposition, and then the prison service either has to fold on its threat (which can only embolden the crook), or it has to redouble the unreasonableness of its penalty (which will likely cause psychological adaptations that are crimogenic, and may only involve further deprivation of essential psychological needs which only redoubles the crooks' opposition to the structure that is being imposed). People in their everyday lives are accustomed to punishment having some corrective effect on others' behaviour. What they don't realise, is that the structure of their everyday lives has at times in the past involved great struggle over what form that structure can reasonably take. It is only within a broadly reasonable structure, that punishment seems to be the panacea to all misbehaviour - because the reward for compliance is already implicitly present. Ungovernable behaviour in the face of significant punishment is almost always a sign that the reward for compliance is absent - that the structure offers too little to satisfy reasonable needs, and must therefore be defied (and weakened). When that happens on a large scale, revolutions occur - and they often carry on occurring until a satisfatory structure arises. In the extreme, behaviour reaches seizure-like unresponsiveness to pain and punishment. Almost all societies have a certain number of individuals who cannot be fitted into the prevailing structure - sometimes for quite idiosyncratic reasons. On a small scale, that can be managed by incapacitation - it cannot be managed reliabily by deterrence. Deterrence only works on those who *can* be fitted into the prevailing structure. On a large scale, it cannot be managed, because management then overwhelms social and economic resources. To then attempt to use deterrence in place of incapacitation (because threats of punishment are cheaper than actally imposing punishment, so additional deterrence at first appears to be an economy measure), and to therefore be forced to impose further suffering on that individual when the deterrence tactic inevitably fails, will only increase the pressure on that individual to defy (and so magnify the social and economic resources that must be input to manage that individual). In the extreme it will only provoke the seizure-like behaviour, when individuals become so badly treated that they start to behave in ways that are consistently observed in those circumstances of extreme mistreatment, but those circumstances are completely outside the everyday experience of people who live in a stable society and which may well therefore be completely unexpected reactions (even the mistreated individual, might not have predicted their own reaction ahead of time, since they have only their past behaviour to extrapolate from in circumstances where they were not so badly mistreated). Such reactions are likely to strike extreme fear into the hearts of those who were not expecting it. If those who are imposing such structures do not recognise what process is occurring, and if they continue to attribute the reaction to a defect with the individual rather than a product of their mistreatment, or they continue to put their faith in the idea that additional punishment can hope to repress the reaction, then it can easily become fatal for them. Our society is currently treading a very fine line. It has managed to liberalise conditions inside prison since the mid-20th century, and the UK is largely managing to resist popular demands for more severe treatment of criminals (which as described above, can only magnify the cost of managing them whilst also paradoxically leading to a deterioration in their behaviour). Doing so has allowed for a massive expansion of the criminal justice system without the social and economic penalty that would be borne under a more severe regime. However, the underlying causes of crime have also been aggravated, so crime is now reaching proportions where it is becoming increasingly socially and economically unmanageable - even at the 'cheap rate' where life in prison is in many respects not appreciably worse than on the outside. It is relatively common today (certainly, amongst people I know) to hear otherwise decent and law-abiding people discuss the circustances in which they would happily go to prison. That is not so much a function of how pleasant prison now is, but a function of just how little alliegence people now have to the system - how little it meets their reasonable needs. They are at the stage of contemplating the circumstances in which the system is in early course likely not going to meet their needs, and that they are going to be forced to defy the system. Or they are at the stage in which they are already actively defying the system in one way or another - and they are either just below the radar (i.e. their crimes are undetected), or the system is tacitly accomodating them by letting them off relatively lightly, or even a mixture of both. Even those who have relatively comfortable lives today, feel that this is largely despite this society's fundamental nature, rather than because of it. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
In article
, harry wrote: How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. So they won't actually be in prison, then, while working? Would they go to McDonalds for lunch? How about the loo etc while working in the streets? -- *Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
In article
, harry wrote: That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their harder prisons aren't a deterrent either. Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times bigger than ours. They do lock up a larger percage than us. But they don't have the same benifits culture we have. You can starve in America. Especially these days. Right. Is this an admission that basic benefits for all reduces crime? -- *I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 5:01*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0000, "dennis@home" wrote: So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a railway line? That would indicate that vandals had broken the security fences, etc. and that police action was required to find them. How do you know it was not the children who did it? -- Cynic I was on jury service on a case like this although no one was killed or injured, but those tresspasing were 'let off'' because the railway authorities hadn;t bothered to repair such fencies in 3 years. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Jan 25, 5:45*pm, "'Mike'" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artículo , Clive George escribió: Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment, only that the death penalty is inappropriate. The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. *Quite a different matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone. So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a railway line? -- Cynic Parents fault. *They had not been subjected proper discipline. Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog owner And what do we do with such dogs, what should we do with them ? What should we do with their owners or trainers ? |
Metal theft. The biters bit
"harry" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 6:22 pm, Clive George wrote: On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote: On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote: On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote: My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep. They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash) full compensation for their crimes to their victims. They would not be a nice place to be in either. Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal working people to get your work? They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing. They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares? I expect there's people here could think of other similar work. That's answered none of my questions. How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. But that would infringe their human rights dontcha know ... -- http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/ |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 23/01/2012 04:08, Windmill wrote:
writes: But were the signs in 20 different languages, judging by their colour, they might not have been able to read the signs. Or able to read. Full stop. Isn't this the reason why such signs also carry pictures these days? -- Moving things in still pictures |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 25/01/2012 20:35, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 20:17, ŽiŠardo wrote: On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote: On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote: In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent. But we know neither is the death penalty. If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been? That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their harder prisons aren't a deterrent either. Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times bigger than ours. And how much bigger is their prison population? Yup, it's 22 times bigger. UK 140-odd per 100,000 people, US 740-odd per 100,000 people. Ah, just what I was hoping you would post. Thank you. -- Moving things in still pictures |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On 26/01/2012 08:25, harry wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:22 pm, Clive wrote: On 25/01/2012 18:15, harry wrote: On Jan 25, 5:44 pm, Clive wrote: On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote: My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep. They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash) full compensation for their crimes to their victims. They would not be a nice place to be in either. Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal working people to get your work? They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing. They wouldn't get much but so long as it covered their keep who cares? I expect there's people here could think of other similar work. That's answered none of my questions. How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. So where does the money come from? |
Metal theft. The biters bit
In article ,
Clive George wrote: How are you going to do this work without putting other people out of work yet still being paid? They would do work that was not economically viable elsewhere. Work that needs doing but doesn't get done. There are canals to clear out. Litter to pickup. Graffiti to remove. Waste to recycle. Chewing gum to remove from pavements. So where does the money come from? From the taxpayer, of course. Public money being used to pay prisoners to work. You know it makes sense... -- *i souport publik edekashun. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Metal theft. The biters bit
In message , tony sayer
writes In article o.uk, Dave Liquorice scribeth thus On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:55:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: So, what was the greatest good for the greatest number? Would his simple death have not in fact been a whole lot better? I agreed. It's not an easy decision. When my mother had a major stroke (completely out of the blue) and was in hospital only able to mumble and move a couple of fingers on one hand we decided that "Do not resuscitate" was the best course of action. She died in her sleep a few days later. Seeing some one trapped within a body that they can longer use is not very pleasant. You could tell from her eyes that she was still in there, how she felt I can't even begin to imagine. Poor lady;( When I was in hospital recovering from a coma a few years ago after a fall from a power line, long story;!, my bro in laws dad was in there too after suffering from a stroke. It was "decided", quite by whom I don't know, that they weren't going to feed him or give him any water even, he was in fact going to be starved to death the death happening sooner through the lack of water.. One young new to the ward nurse there took pity on him, shall we say, and seeing him staring at the water jug on the bed next to his gave him a few sips for which as she said he seemed so bewildered that they were treating him so, seemed as he couldn't speak properly!. She also gave him some mashed up food which he managed to eat after a fashion and in fact after a few weeks was sent home , well back to the town where he lived to live out his days in a nursing home where he did pass away from other causes some months later.. I heard that the nurse got a bit of a ticking off for doing this but she said her conscience couldn't let someone deliberately die. However at the same hospital and in the same ward they treated me in they have to make decisions like that, heres a clip from the excellent TV film "Between life and death" of someone who was thought be almost brain dead and was about to have his life support switched off .. then they make an interesting discovery!... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I1RBiDKDbA No, its not a lot of fun getting old;!... This process is referred to as the Liverpool Pathway and happens regularly. Your own experience is by no means unique. Euthanasia by another name. Recent report found 25 people per day on average die in hospitals from thirst and/or malnutrition. In one hospital doctors actually prescribed water as a medicine just to ensure the patient got a drink. -- hugh |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:43:26 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that they were killed. Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the imagination to see how victims feel. You would be wrong on both counts. Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the subject of vigilante attacks? Ah. Moving the goal posts again? No, I am simply asking you the same sort of question as you asked me. The "vigilantes" are criminals too. Yes - which rather makes the sort of vigilante attitudes expessed by posters on this thread a bit questionable, don't you think? Especially if acting on rumour. How about a newspaper article? If a criminal is caught in the act, I don't blame anyone for beating the **** out of them these days of half wit judges and greedy lawyers. So you *do* approve of vigilante action. I thought so. Consider that even if "caught in the act" it is seldom 100% certain that the person is in fact guilty of what he appears to be guilty of. Misinterpreting someone's actions is quite common. Not to mention the fact that if someone were to catch you in the act of taking vigilante action, then by the same principles they would also be justified in taking action against you - and so on and so on. So tell us your first hand experiences then. Done to death in this group - use Google. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:23:49 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote: Always amuses me when the unions say that they 'Will work to rule'. Why aren't they 'always' working to rule and setting an example? What are 'rules' for? ....... Not that I have much time for unions anyway. They want to run a business without putting their neck on the block and taking the risk. My understanding of "work to rule" means that the workers will do the *absolute minimum* that the rules dictate they are obliged to do. It does not imply that they usually break the rules, only that they usually do a bit more than they absolutely have to do. i.e. they become ridiculously inflexible in their attitude. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:59:46 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote: The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is going, the better chance of survival. Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all. Just to point out that you have removed the author of what you quoted and left me in. Please try harder. Yes Dad. Sorry Dad. -- Cynic |
Metal theft. The biters bit
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:51:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote: Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all. For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a certain threshold. =A0Most things we do contains *some* element of risk. The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the circumstances or not. If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of causing death, modern society would not be able to survive. There are plenty of people out there who are not sensible. "Sensible" is a subjective rather than an objective criterion. A huge number of major advances have been made by people who the majority did not consider to be behaving very sensibly. Personally I don't think it is very sensible to pay money to watch a group of men kicking a ball around a field, but obviously many people would disagree. There are people out there (seemingly beyond your ken) who are evil *******s and don't give a toss about anyone else. *Very* few people fall into that category - probably under 0.01% It is however common to dismiss a *large section* of people as being unworthy of consideration. In fact, such an attitude is even *necessary* in certain circumstances (such as for soldiers in warfare). Perhaps you yourself "don't give a toss" about anyone who is considered to be a criminal? Taking a risk that effects yourself is one thing. If it effects someone else,that's another. Yes, they do indeed merit different considerations, but it is routinely necessary to make decisions that will affect and put at risk other people besides yourself. You do so every time you drive. Parents must routinely make risk assessments on behalf of their children, and make decisions that put the child at some degree of increased risk. You can't get that into your thick head can you? Ad-hominem is a very childish way to debate any topic, Harry. Please try to act a bit more grown-up. -- Cynic |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004 - 2014 DIYbanter