marc_p Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 If someone ran over one of your family members or girlfriend would you want them to just walk away with a £60 fine? and 3 points;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 If someone ran over one of your family members or girlfriend would you want them to just walk away with a £60 fine? Yeah, course I would! Why would you want to ruin someone elses life just because you've had an unfair hand dealt to you!! How friggin selfish is that!!!! It's only a speeding offence, it's something we all do every day, unless the person aimed at my family member of didn't even attempt to slow down or avoid them then I'd have no problems at all in putting all of the blame (except the speeding part) on the family member in question, they should have been more aware of the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 If someone ran over one of your family members or girlfriend would you want them to just walk away with a £60 fine? I think you have to take the implication is that speeding penalties should be a lot harsher too..... which would be no bad thing. A punishment of 3 points and £60 for an offence is pretty much stating that they're not really that bothered if you break the rules or not..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 I think you have to take the implication is that speeding penalties should be a lot harsher too..... which would be no bad thing. A punishment of 3 points and £60 for an offence is pretty much stating that they're not really that bothered if you break the rules or not..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Surely in those circumstances it would depend on the degree of stupidity and damager involved. Look at the lad on this forum for example who died when his 'mate' was being a complete twit in his car. Compare that to someone who was doing 5mph over the limit and just didn't stop in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Yeah, course I would! Why would you want to ruin someone elses life just because you've had an unfair hand dealt to you!! How friggin selfish is that!!!! It's only a speeding offence, it's something we all do every day, unless the person aimed at my family member of didn't even attempt to slow down or avoid them then I'd have no problems at all in putting all of the blame (except the speeding part) on the family member in question, they should have been more aware of the road. The unfair hand was them speeding in the first place. I don't understand how you can lay the blame on the person that got run over by someone speeding in perhaps a built up area in this weird scenario. You've got issues dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In Japan if you break the law the police call your parents, family and your employers and it brings great shame upon you. Nobody likes to be shown as being a lawbreaker, it's dishonourable and shameful. That is a key thing, the honour system in Japan is still fairly strong, over here, an ASBO is an honour badge... The problem we face in the UK at the moment is that many people who commit crimes don't appear to feel any shame, nor care about their victims. I think this is because of a lack of discipline and morals instilled into children by their parents and teachers, who have increasingly had their hands tied in this regard in recent years by human rights legislation and the pc brigade. See above really I sincerely hope that the death penalty will NEVER be allowed in this country. To allow it again will be a backwards step towards the dark ages. It prevents nothing, it solves nothing. Go and live in Iran if you want public floggings and death penalties. Hmmm, that is an interesting point, so if you are against floggings and death penalties, what would suggest is suitable punishment. PS : Not poking holes or trying to wind anyone up, just interested in a different POV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 You've got issues dude. No, I'm normal, everyone else in the world is wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 No, I'm normal, everyone else in the world is wrong! I loved Charlotte's use of the word 'dude'! - Not heard that word in ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Yep - I meant it. If they really want you to not speed, they should make it an instant ban. The problem with speeding as an offense is that what is and isn't dangerous is a grey area: 30mph for a granny in a clapped-out metro on a tight bend in the snow is totally different to 30mph for a skilled driver in a performance car on a straight road in good conditions. Speeding is just used because it's easy and cheap (ie. automated) to enforce (with cameras). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 So if you were minding your own business and were arrested because your dna happened to be somewhere near a murder scene and you were accused of the said murder, you'd be happy to be killed? Would this be instead of getting banged up for 25 years in a 6 x 8 cell with another chap who could well be a nutter, getting attacked on the wings/yard over a packet of cigarettes and if you have a certain attractive quality you could even be raped too. After 25 years you get out, try to find a job that will accept applications for a convicted murderer and you may also want to clear your name and get a conviction quashed, you might need some money incase you fail and have to pay for costs, and even if you succeed then you will have to pay back "Bed and Board" to the prison service, which is what £6000 a year? That's £150k assuming B&B isn't capped. Sounds fantastic Charlotte. Hand me the needle I'll do it myself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris2o2 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Best deterrent ever . eye for an eye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I loved Charlotte's use of the word 'dude'! - Not heard that word in ages. please tell me that was saracastic. aslo my previous post- in response-- yeh your rite it isnt that simple.. but u say bout the knife thing.. what bout the old man who shot a buglar on his property witha shotgun he went down for like 15 years!! so and englishmans home is not his castle.. what bout the buglar who fell threw a roof landed on a kitchen knife and sued the women!! u have put signs up for barbed wire or garden mines(if uve seen them) if u attack someone in your home and u injur them their either gonna back for you or sue you! the law doesnt seem to be on the our side but favourably on the criminal-- not sayin they dont get punished but sometimes the punishment dont fit the crime... most coppers ive talked to have said they know what will happen once they haul someone in.. they find a few pills ... so they get bail that nite.. rite go b4 a judge and they claim they are addicts.. get a rehab!.. and thast frm coppers mouths! they are stretched cos theirs only so much they can do.. its the judges also not handing out tougher sentences..cos of overcrowding!! how does that work.. not enuff room so oh well go free..;. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 please tell me that was saracastic. aslo my previous post- in response-- yeh your rite it isnt that simple.. but u say bout the knife thing.. what bout the old man who shot a buglar on his property witha shotgun he went down for like 15 years!! so and englishmans home is not his castle.. what bout the buglar who fell threw a roof landed on a kitchen knife and sued the women!! u have put signs up for barbed wire or garden mines(if uve seen them) if u attack someone in your home and u injur them their either gonna back for you or sue you! the law doesnt seem to be on the our side but favourably on the criminal-- not sayin they dont get punished but sometimes the punishment dont fit the crime... most coppers ive talked to have said they know what will happen once they haul someone in.. they find a few pills ... so they get bail that nite.. rite go b4 a judge and they claim they are addicts.. get a rehab!.. and thast frm coppers mouths! they are stretched cos theirs only so much they can do.. its the judges also not handing out tougher sentences..cos of overcrowding!! how does that work.. not enuff room so oh well go free..;. There are certainly flaws in the judicial service, it's well documented. But I don't understand your point and how it relates to capital punishment. Are you saying the man (Tony Martin) that killed the boy that entered his home should have been put to death? Maybe you mean the 'boy' that was killed should have been killed before he re-offended and therefore he wouldn't have been in his house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 please tell me that was saracastic. ..;. Think you misunderstood my post mate.... I was just commenting on how I liked the word 'dude'. Just seemed funny to me that such a word was used by Charlotte. I had images of her calling her senior partner 'dude'. what bout the old man who shot a buglar on his property witha shotgun he went down for like 15 years!! ..;. If it's the guy who was a farmer (Tony Martin)... I think the point was that he shot the burglar in the back as the burglar was running away. Hardly protecting your property now is it? what bout the buglar who fell threw a roof landed on a kitchen knife and sued the women!! u have put signs up for barbed wire or garden mines(if uve seen them)..;. Yes that is called occupational liability and is a civil matter... i.e. is is not a criminal offence. The person who fell through the roof sued the person and won. The court however will have lowered his winnings to almost £0 due to the fact that he was in the process of committing an illegal act. the law doesnt seem to be on the our side but favourably on the criminal)..;. Well I do agree with you in a sense, but what I think we miss here is a degree of perspective... cases where a person legally defends their home doesn't go to court and thus we don't hear about them. We only ever hear in the news of the cases where the person defending their property have gone too far. you can protect your property but you can't defend it with an shotgun shell to the back when the 'invader' is a 15 year unarmed old kid who is running for his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firestorm Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 There are certainly flaws in the judicial service, it's well documented. But I don't understand your point and how it relates to capital punishment. Are you saying the man (Tony Martin) that killed the boy that entered his home should have been put to death? Maybe you mean the 'boy' that was killed should have been killed before he re-offended and therefore he wouldn't have been in his house? actually i didnt mean that at all - i was making the point about manslaughter.. see im not gonna lie.. im fairly on the fence bout capital punishment- there are pros and cons for both- and its a fiarly well talked bout subject- especially as the times we live in and especially and guys like Sophie Lancaster and her bf Robert Maltby are beaten up and killed for no reason ... and cos of this i fell like ya know what they have some much hate in them why shouldnt they die for what they did they aint benfiting society.. on the other side of the coin.. if that happens the poor guy that accidently ran someone over serving a drunken idiot sumbling on the road is being hauled over the coals for accidently death.. so its 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 No we shouldn't bring it back. They should have hard labour and no privilidges, make them suffer like their victims until they die in pain. Death unless they go to hell of course is the easy way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L33 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 ive been saying for ages we should bring it back! bringing back a fear of the death penalty might make people think twice! fine example, on the news this week the goth girl that died as a result of being beaten up, fair enough the kid will go down but so what, he is hardly going to have a hard life and being young he wil be let out in no time for good behaviour! because there is no fear any more little scrotes like this think they can go around acting like complete animals, beating up, shooting or stabbing who ever they like cuz its "cool" to have done time in there "hood" life for a life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.