Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So the lunatics run the asylum? Can't see anything going wrong with that state of affairs.

Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?

In fact, they give them skyTV and playstation 3's.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?
.

Avoiding the Daily Mail as best I can.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?
.

Avoiding the Daily Mail as best I can.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8789233/Prisoners-demand-more-Sky-Sports.html

Mr Hyena wrote:

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?
.

Avoiding the Daily Mail as best I can.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8789233/Prisoners-demand-more-Sky-Sports.html

Load of tosh, which Article of the ECHR does this contravene? None.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.

The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.

Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.

So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.

Mr Hyena wrote:

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?
.

Avoiding the Daily Mail as best I can.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8789233/Prisoners-demand-more-Sky-Sports.html

Don't bother trying to argue mate, screaming liberals dont want to be refuted, they want to convince themselves that being in an increasingly small minority of people makes them appear nuanced and intelligent.

For the record, invoking the Daily Mail doesn't mean its fictional either! They pick and choose their stories and present them in a manner that invokes your ire, but they don't fully make gak up. Try a Google on one of their stories and you will usually see it on the BBC or some other reputable paper as well.

Be it Somalians beating the gak out of women whilst yelling "kill the white slag" getting let off with a slapped wrists, rapists and murderers eating jelly and ice cream or asylum seekers living in 1.6 million pound houses, the fact of the matter is, this gak actually happens. Far less than avid Mail readers might think, but it actually happens. Just because its relatively rare is it the height of stupidity to complain about it?!

Ian fething Huntley lives a pleasant, well fed, stress free existence, and we are all supposed to be pleased about it.

No wonder they are in a fething minority!

@mattyrm At least you have the self awareness to realise they are rare cases. Being in a minority does not make someone intelligent, white supremacists are a minority and they seem a few spanners short of a toolbox.

We have been going down the route of harsher sentencing for years, are we in any better a position? Not at all. We should start by taking out from prison those that belong in mental institutions, then we make prison itself a horrible place to be so there goes all the luxuries, then for minor offences we use halfway houses with very strict guidelines and curfews after 6pm and before 9am (break that and you do go inside), this keeps people from going in a minor criminal and coming out a habitual one. But we'll never see something picked for effectiveness because the tabloids have the two main parties over a barrel, and they are scared to do the right thing. Its exactly the same with disability benefits, they are cutting them by 20% when fraud is said to be 0.5% because the papers hate scroungers because they found a few cases of people scamming the system and think that applies to every disabled person in the country. It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.

Mate how have we been getting harsher with sentencing?! Surely its the exact opposite?!

I cant put any effort into research mind, I'm running between the kitchen making Catalan Chicken.

mattyrm wrote: Mate how have we been getting harsher with sentencing?! Surely its the exact opposite?!

I cant put any effort into research mind, I'm running between the kitchen making Catalan Chicken.

Used to be judges could "take into account" sentencing guidelines, now they "must follow." Now disregarding the fact this blurs the line between the lawmakers of Parliament and the law enforcers of the CPS, it's leading to massive overcrowding and doesn't allow judicial discretion.

Figures show that average sentences are already getting longer. Last year 33 per cent of jail terms were for at least six months, against only 15 per cent in the previous year.

From 2010

Source
Graphs

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.

The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.

Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.

So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.

Again, like I said in my post, I'm not saying that they were right to release him. My post had actually zero to do with the decision to release him.

My only point was that "he is going to die in 3 months" is a very hard thing to predict.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Joey wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Justice implies a fairness

Right, but again, 9 times out of 10 with the current system, the victim is always the one who is punished.

That has literally never happened.
Were you not aware that many newspapers outright make up the stories that they print? Because they do.
Here's an example:
Someone's house gets broken into to, they bash the burgler's face in and call the police. The police come round, arrest the burgler, but because he's been injured, they have to talk to the homeowner too, to find out what happened. Since it's obvious that the homeowner was acting in self defence, they release him without charge, and the burgler is prosecuted. Here's what happens when it reaches the press:
"HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR TACKLING BURGLER"
Seriously, what do they teach kids these days? Oh yeah, feth all

And about the short sentences many criminals are given for murder and rape? How exactly can that be justified when they get out usually half-way. That is punishment of the victim - lack of justice.

I would agree that many sentences are too short, where the feth do you get the leap from there to "life sentence for everything bar petty shoplifting"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The son of a bitch that helped blow up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie that was released back to Libya and lived there for years before he died, just this month.

The lack of dying is actually pretty understandable. Having worked with hospice for quite a while you learn that death is hard to predict. One of the requirements for hospice is that you are certified to die "in 3 months", similar to Lockerbie guy. We have had people who were certified to die for years and just never did.

Not saying that they were right to release him, but if they released him thinking that he was terminal it would not be unusual for him to live as long as he did.

So what?
1. He shouldn't have been let out regardless. His hundreds of victims had no such luxury to go home and be with their family.
2. It makes a mockery of justice and the earlier argument that murderers never get let out. Its a mockery.

Again, like I said in my post, I'm not saying that they were right to release him. My post had actually zero to do with the decision to release him.

My only point was that "he is going to die in 3 months" is a very hard thing to predict.

Yup. Doctors never said he would be dead in 3 months. They gave a broad diagnosis ranging from 3 months to 5/6 years. I think the average was about 2 years.
Disregarding the fact that he had nothing to do with the bombings, obviously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

So the lunatics run the asylum? Can't see anything going wrong with that state of affairs.

Lunatics DO run the asylum. Where have you been?

In fact, they give them skyTV and playstation 3's.

For good behaviour they might get access to a TV and some consoles. Sky is unlikely since it would cost the prisons millions of pounds in subscriptions, I'd guess Freeview.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9287633/We-must-defy-Strasbourg-on-prisoner-votes.html

Should prisoners have the right to vote?

The right to vote??? Hells NO.

Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.

Toast36 wrote:The right to vote??? Hells NO.

Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.

Personally, I feel that it is okay to not let them vote while incarcerated. But after their sentence is served, they should get to vote again.

Either that or they should never have to pay taxes again. Didn't we start a war about the whole "no taxation without representation" thing?

This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

d-usa wrote:

Toast36 wrote:The right to vote??? Hells NO.

Prisoners should have practically no rights what-so-ever (except the very, very basic of human rights) they forfitted their rights when they became criminals. Deciding to work outside of society by breaking the law should mean they get no say in the direction that society takes.

Personally, I feel that it is okay to not let them vote while incarcerated. But after their sentence is served, they should get to vote again.

Either that or they should never have to pay taxes again. Didn't we start a war about the whole "no taxation without representation" thing?

The Contemporary Union of Noble Tobacco Smokers does not approve.

dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

I don't know about other countries, but I think in the US prison populations count towards the general population in an area when it comes to assigning district boundaries.

dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

Such as the BNP.

Toast36 wrote:

dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

Such as the BNP.

I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?

I'd be fine with letting Prisoners vote...as long as we keep it fair and allow sociopaths to become Prime Minister/Presidents.

dæl wrote:

Toast36 wrote:

dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

Such as the BNP.

I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?

He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.

Mr Hyena wrote:I'd be fine with letting Prisoners vote...as long as we keep it fair and allow sociopaths to become Prime Minister/Presidents.

Pretty sure we do as long as they went to the right school.

Chowderhead wrote:

dæl wrote:

Toast36 wrote:

dæl wrote:This article is on how harsher sentencing doesn't bring down reoffending rates.

As to prisoners right to vote, if you remove the problem of which constituency they vote in (a large prison in a small town would affect the overall result quite badly), I can't see any problem with prisoners voting, what do you achieve by not giving them the vote? And what do people fear if you do? There isn't going to be a Crime Party running for office.

Such as the BNP.

I'm pretty sure not letting people vote because you don't like their political views is kind of undemocratic. Also, are you trying to say that all prisoners are racists?

He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.

That's right.

Toast36 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

He's saying the BNP is a crime party, not that they shouldn't vote.

That's right.

Apologies, wrong end of the stick.

Totally agree that their entire raison d'etre is tantamount to a hate-crime, but as we learned from the Question Time they let Nick Griffin on, if you give them a platform they make themselves look like idiots.

The thing is...the BNP wouldn't have increased in support without a reason. The core of their party is corrupt and IS tantamount to a hate crime however.

Its probably the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.

dæl wrote:

Spoiler:

Griffin is from 4 minutes on

The moderator is determined to slam a panel member. Not that he's wrong but it's bad form.
The Moslem sounds Scottish...is that right?
This Video is Fascinating...This Nick guy is a moron...love it! The First guy that talks though, he could bore a boulder.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Its definitely the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.

FTFY

They've increased in support because their methodology is one of blame and using scapegoats. And people are much happier to think that someone else is to blame rather than maybe all of us are to a degree.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Its definitely the shortcomings of the trio of inept parties that we have.

FTFY

They've increased in support because their methodology is one of blame and using scapegoats. And people are much happier to think that someone else is to blame rather than maybe all of us are to a degree.

Or its the silly policies the government does that causes it. Its neither natural brits nor immigrants.

The moderator on that QT was gak, and the whole show was farcical. If your going to have fringe elements on, just fething have them on, dont turn the whole shot into a circus.

The way they just let audience members fully stand up and shout at the bloke as well, it was just ridiculous.

Basically thanks to the BBC being ridiculous, I wound up feeling sorry for the racist dick head.