Pram Rage Incident
 

This was in the Evening Standard last night

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...by-her-hair.do

I think you just have to say that there is no excuse for this type of
behaviour, and I hope the couple responsible are caught and punished.
I would also be very sorry for the child of the couple responsible, it
is not a very good example to set. What must it be like to grow up
with such aggressive and rude parents.

I travel on buses all the time, and sometimes I have to get out of my
seat to make way for a buggy. Probably no-one likes having to give up
a set, but sometimes there are things you have to do in a civilised
society.

On the other hand, there is only so much space that can be provided
for buggies, and sometimes you just have to accept that the space is
full up and try to be as accomodating as possible.

I travelled on a 55 from Leyton to Holborn during the Boxing Day tube
strike, and there were two buggies plus my small suitcase in the space
reserved for buggies. However, we all managed to get along fine, so
where there is a will, there is a way.

Sadly I think that this incident is a comment on society in general,
where it is "me, me me" all the time, and "s*d anyone else.

I just repeat my earlier comment that this behaviour is totally
unacceptable.

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:48:10 -0800 (PST)
Paul wrote:
This was in the Evening Standard last night

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-thug-drags-mo
her-off-london-bus-by-her-hair.do

I think you just have to say that there is no excuse for this type of
behaviour, and I hope the couple responsible are caught and punished.
I would also be very sorry for the child of the couple responsible, it
is not a very good example to set. What must it be like to grow up
with such aggressive and rude parents.

That behaviour was beyond aggressive, it was psychotic. Even a "normal"
thug doesn't beat up a woman with a child on a bus in full view of dozens
of witnesses just for trying to manouver her pram. He's probably some ****ed
up cannabis or steroid abuser with some equally messed up loser girlfriend who
tags along with him.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Feb 23, 9:48*am, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:48:10 -0800 (PST)

Paul wrote:
This was in the Evening Standard last night

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-pram-rage-thu...
her-off-london-bus-by-her-hair.do

I think you just have to say that there is no excuse for this type of
behaviour, and I hope the couple responsible are caught and punished.
I would also be very sorry for the child of the couple responsible, it
is not a very good example to set. What must it be like to grow up
with such aggressive and rude parents.

That behaviour was beyond aggressive, it was psychotic. Even a "normal"
thug doesn't beat up a woman with a child on a bus in full view of dozens
of witnesses just for trying to manouver her pram. He's probably some ****ed
up cannabis or steroid abuser with some equally messed up loser girlfriend who
tags along with him.

B2003

If they are caught and brought before the courts, I would like to see
them punished by being banned from ever travelling on a bus again.
Presumably these days that would be against their "human rights". But
in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Paul wrote:
If they are caught and brought before the courts, I would like to see
them punished by being banned from ever travelling on a bus again.

A couple of years in prison first I would hope. Won't happen of course.

Presumably these days that would be against their "human rights". But

No doubt. Though hopefully as the baby boomer generation of idiots currently
sitting at the top of the legal profession slowly retire and die off one can
only hope sanity will return.

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

In article , d ()
wrote:

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

That's the bit which is, to say the least, disappointing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Pram Rage Incident
 

wrote in message

In article , d
() wrote:

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human
being, which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there
and did nothing.

That's the bit which is, to say the least, disappointing.

Pity Ann Timson wasn't on board...

Pram Rage Incident
 

In article ,
wrote:

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

That's the bit which is, to say the least, disappointing.

Indeed. My son was mugged for his mobile at 2.30pm by four hoodies on
Monday 100 metres from our house - people just walked by. I guess though
they were wise not to intervene as a knife may have been pulled.
Amazingly, having popped into a nearby shop to call the police, he was
driven up to some nearby phone shops and they caught them trying to flog
the phone.

E.

Pram Rage Incident
 

wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

That's the bit which is, to say the least, disappointing.


I both have got and would get involved - it is indeed disappointing when
people choose to look away, and somewhat galling when you dive in yet no
assistance from those around you is forthcoming - that said I've also seen
(and been on the edge of) situations where bystanders have got involved,
where it was made clear to the ne'er do weller(s) that bad things would
happen upon them unless they desisted and made themselves scarce.

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

wrote:

In article , d ()
wrote:

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

That's the bit which is, to say the least, disappointing.


I both have got and would get involved - it is indeed disappointing when
people choose to look away, and somewhat galling when you dive in yet no
assistance from those around you is forthcoming - that said I've also seen
(and been on the edge of) situations where bystanders have got involved,
where it was made clear to the ne'er do weller(s) that bad things would
happen upon them unless they desisted and made themselves scarce.

I was assaulted (not badly thankfully) outside Maze Hill station just over a
year ago by 2 teenage girls and am very grateful to the people who
intervened to help, especially the woman who got on the train with me and
encouraged me to report the incident to BTP. Upon watching the CCTV, they
agreed that it was a nasty incident - sadly no result!

I have also intervened in the past, although would be reluctant probably
these days with the threat of being stabbed more in the mind

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Feb 23, 9:02*pm, Paul wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:48*am, wrote:









On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:48:10 -0800 (PST)

Paul wrote:
This was in the Evening Standard last night

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-pram-rage-thu....
her-off-london-bus-by-her-hair.do

I think you just have to say that there is no excuse for this type of
behaviour, and I hope the couple responsible are caught and punished.
I would also be very sorry for the child of the couple responsible, it
is not a very good example to set. What must it be like to grow up
with such aggressive and rude parents.

That behaviour was beyond aggressive, it was psychotic. Even a "normal"
thug doesn't beat up a woman with a child on a bus in full view of dozens
of witnesses just for trying to manouver her pram. He's probably some ****ed
up cannabis or steroid abuser with some equally messed up loser girlfriend who
tags along with him.

B2003

If they are caught and brought before the courts, I would like to see
them punished by being banned from ever travelling on a bus again.
Presumably these days that would be against their "human rights". *But
in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

The whole point about "human rights" is precisely the opposite - it's
about saying that no matter how scummy someone is, there are certain
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.

However, contra the lies of the tabloids and far-right motormouths,
the concept doesn't prevent people being justly punished in line with
the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.

In this case, it would be completely reasonable, and completely legal
under existing laws for TfL to take out an ASBO against these
individuals, banning them from using public transport. This is done on
a regular basis, with about 80 ASBOs a year taken out by TfL.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.

Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decision
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Nicola Redwood" wrote in message
...

I both have got and would get involved - it is indeed disappointing when
people choose to look away, and somewhat galling when you dive in yet no
assistance from those around you is forthcoming - that said I've also seen
(and been on the edge of) situations where bystanders have got involved,
where it was made clear to the ne'er do weller(s) that bad things would
happen upon them unless they desisted and made themselves scarce.

I was assaulted (not badly thankfully) outside Maze Hill station just over
a year ago by 2 teenage girls and am very grateful to the people who
intervened to help, especially the woman who got on the train with me and
encouraged me to report the incident to BTP. Upon watching the CCTV, they
agreed that it was a nasty incident - sadly no result!

I have also intervened in the past, although would be reluctant probably
these days with the threat of being stabbed more in the mind

I am glad you were assisted on this occasion but whilst it is easy to
condemn those who apparently sit idly by, it is a problem for the average
citizen whose life is not filled with hate and violence, as it appears a
small minority's is. When you see violence suddenly burst out in front of
you, unless you are trained by the Army or in martial arts, you (i.e. me)
will probably be struck dumb and immobile because the situation is so alien
and unnatural. Years of watching actors thump each other on TV is no
training for reacting EFFECTIVELY in such a situation.

I hope, in such a case, I would know immediately who was right/wrong and
that I could physically assist, but I am not sure that would be the case.
Working out afterwards what I should have done is, of course, much easier.

MaxB

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:49:23 -0000
"MaxB" wrote:
small minority's is. When you see violence suddenly burst out in front of
you, unless you are trained by the Army or in martial arts, you (i.e. me)
will probably be struck dumb and immobile because the situation is so alien
and unnatural. Years of watching actors thump each other on TV is no
training for reacting EFFECTIVELY in such a situation.

If its a whole gang then theres not much anyone can do short of calling
the police. If you try anything you'll probably end up in hospital yourself.
But if its just one guy having a go at someone then if it looks like he's
unarmed then it shouldn't be too hard getting him in a neck lock if he's
distracted. And once in said lock its quite easy to control him. Avoid a fist
fight, even the worst fighter can get in a lucky punch and cost you a few
teeth.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Feb 24, 8:59*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)

john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.

Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decision
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

I assume you mean the second line on acceptable punishments, in which
case let's agree to differ. I hope you agree with the first line (fair
trial and due process), though, which is the main point.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

Again, we differ on that, but let's be clear: he'll never see the
outside world again, and he'll never go anywhere in his life without
the fear that someone will throw acid in his face or gouge his eyes
out.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:07:06 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decisi=
on
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

I assume you mean the second line on acceptable punishments, in which
case let's agree to differ. I hope you agree with the first line (fair
trial and due process), though, which is the main point.

Absolutely.

But once proven guilty, and not just on a balance of probabilities and
circumstantial but proven with solid evidence then I tend to vear towards the
style of punishment used in the USA.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

Again, we differ on that, but let's be clear: he'll never see the
outside world again, and he'll never go anywhere in his life without
the fear that someone will throw acid in his face or gouge his eyes
out.

Thats a fair point and I believe its already happened to him. But IMO he
doesn't deserve any sort of life. Still, swings and roundabouts, the death
penalty has only been gone 50 years out of the tens of thousands that humans
first walked on this island, I'm sure it'll be back again one day.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

On 23 Feb, 10:24, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:02:49 -0800 (PST)

Paul wrote:
If they are caught and brought before the courts, I would like to see
them punished by being banned from ever travelling on a bus again.

A couple of years in prison first I would hope. Won't happen of course.

Presumably these days that would be against their "human rights". *But

No doubt. Though hopefully as the baby boomer generation of idiots currently
sitting at the top of the legal profession slowly retire and die off one can
only hope sanity will return.

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

B2003


You say that people sat there and did nothing but sometimes in that
situation it takes a few seconds for onlookers to realise what is
going on, there is a danger of somebody wading in and it turning out
to be just a bit of harmless fun.

Hopefully with the CCTV and possible witness accounts those
responsible will be bought to justice.

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. I
hope you remember that if you're unfortunate enough to be accused of a
crime. To be accused, charged and tried is bad enough, but to be
accused, tortured, and just locked up for ever would be infinitely
worse.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.
If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.
If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files.
I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have
a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby.
-- Fritz Anderson

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:26:10 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. I

I'm talking about unpleasentaries AFTER they're convicted , not before.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.

Usually because the original conviction was on a balance of probabilities,
not on hard evidence.

If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

The state still does "murder" (a very emotive word , used in its wrong
context as usual) people - its called war. I see no moral difference
between a soldier executing someone or a hangman.

And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:26:10 +0000





David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. *Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. *I

I'm talking about unpleasentaries AFTER they're convicted , not before.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. *Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.

Usually because the original conviction was on a balance of probabilities,
not on hard evidence.

If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

The state still does "murder" (a very emotive word , used in its wrong
context as usual) people - its called war. I see no moral difference
between a soldier executing someone or a hangman.

And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

B2003- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well seeing as you have bought Huntley into this debate could I just
point out that even his own mother said he deserves the death penalty
for what he has done.

Huntley apparently wanted to commit suicide anyway................just
let him get on with, that is the one 'human right' I wouldn't want to
deny him!

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, George wrote:

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
[snip]
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for
moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.


Well seeing as you have bought Huntley into this debate could I just
point out that even his own mother said he deserves the death penalty
for what he has done.

Huntley apparently wanted to commit suicide anyway................just
let him get on with, that is the one 'human right' I wouldn't want to
deny him!

I'm of the 'make them live and suffer' school of thought - my take is that
death (whether execution or suicide) is just the easy way out, and the
torment of being made to live with it is real punishment.

Not quite sure how this thread has turned to discussion of capital
punishment though.

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Feb 25, 4:59*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:

Not quite sure how this thread has turned to discussion of capital
punishment though.

"If there was proper justice he'd be dead already." - Boltar

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:59:22 -0000
"Mizter T" wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, George wrote:

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
[snip]
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for
moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

In message , d
writes
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not guilty,
would you be happy about that?
--
Clive

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:23:23 +0000
Clive wrote:
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS thought up by libtards deliberately to make
people feel guilty about wanting suitable punishment for offenders so they
can advance their brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to
incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not guilty,
would you be happy about that?

Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any evidence
comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be reserved for convictions
where there is no doubt at all, not just beyond reasonable doubt.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:23:23 +0000
Clive wrote:
I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion.
I find the whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better
than the criminals" argument a load of specious BS thought up by
libtards deliberately to make people feel guilty about wanting
suitable punishment for offenders so they can advance their
brainless hippy , sorry - enlightened approach to incarceration.
So, on appeal after you've been hanged, you're found to be not
guilty, would you be happy about that?

Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any
evidence comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be
reserved for convictions where there is no doubt at all, not just
beyond reasonable doubt.

That's one way to ensure that no-one ever, ever confesses to killing
someone. Every case would have to be a hard fought battle, and there
would still probably be some scintilla of doubt.

Pram Rage Incident
 

In message , d
writes
Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any evidence
comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be reserved for convictions
where there is no doubt at all, not just beyond reasonable doubt.
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
recent DNA evidence did the right person come to light and the wrong
person released from goal.
Capital punishment is State Murder, it's no more than "An eye for an
eye". Proof is never absolute.
--
Clive

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:44:56 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Why do you think people sit on death row for so long? In case any
evidence comes to light that clears them. But IMO it should be
reserved for convictions where there is no doubt at all, not just
beyond reasonable doubt.

That's one way to ensure that no-one ever, ever confesses to killing
someone. Every case would have to be a hard fought battle, and there
would still probably be some scintilla of doubt.

Who cares? How many murderers and rapists are convicted only because they
pleaded guilty? Did Huntley plead guilty? Did Fred West? Harold Shipman?

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Capital punishment is State Murder,

Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.

it's no more than "An eye for an eye".

And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.

Proof is never absolute.

Total BS.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

In message , d
writes
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.
Capital punishment is State Murder,
Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.
it's no more than "An eye for an eye".
And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.
Proof is never absolute.
Total BS.
Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.
--
Clive

Pram Rage Incident
 

wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=uk+murder+guilty+pleas&sourceid=navcl ient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2Buk +-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0cc530c3619

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:31:35 +0000
Clive wrote:
In message , d
writes
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.
Capital punishment is State Murder,
Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.
it's no more than "An eye for an eye".
And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.
Proof is never absolute.
Total BS.
Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.

What should I discuss it? "Proof is never absolute" was such a ludicrous
statement that it wasn't worth wasting time. As for the rest of your post,
just standard issue libtard drivel.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:15 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u...=navcl ient-f
&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2B
k+-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0c
530c3619

Oh FFS , did I need to write it out in full so the class dunces can understand?

No one is going to admit to murder or rape if they didn't do it (apart from a
few head cases but who gives a **** about them anyway) - given that he was
talking about weak people breaking down under questioning I'd have thought
the meaning was obvious.

Of course some people admit guilt if they've done it, theres dambing evidence
in front of them and they can get a lighter sentence if they please guilty.

B2003

Pram Rage Incident
 

Pram Rage Incident
 

wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:15 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u...=navcl ient-f
&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2B
k+-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0c
530c3619

Oh FFS , did I need to write it out in full so the class dunces can
understand?

No one is going to admit to murder or rape if they didn't do it
(apart from a few head cases but who gives a **** about them anyway)
- given that he was talking about weak people breaking down under
questioning I'd have thought
the meaning was obvious.

Of course some people admit guilt if they've done it, theres dambing
evidence in front of them and they can get a lighter sentence if they
please guilty.

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt. Just
because someone did it, doesn't mean it's easy to prove. And juries
would be more reluctant to convict (not every juror thinks like you).

Result: more murderers would be found not guilty and released
immediately, rather than in, say, 15 years. Another well thought-out
Boltar plan.

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Adrian" wrote in message

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and they
hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please guilty.
Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the judge can
set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to regotiate a
manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death sentence, why
would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and they
hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please guilty.
Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the judge can
set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to regotiate a
manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death sentence, why
would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for conviction
to the effects of different penalties?

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Adrian" wrote in message

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty,
so the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable
doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet
people plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and
they hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please
guilty. Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence,
the judge can set the minimum time to be served. They may also be
able to regotiate a manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a
death sentence, why would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for
conviction to the effects of different penalties?

They're closely linked -- plea bargaining makes convictions much easier.
Many crimes are hard to prove, but criminals will plead guilty to a
lesser crime to avoid the risk of a more severe penalty.

Pram Rage Incident
 

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and
they hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please
guilty. Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the
judge can set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to
regotiate a manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death
sentence, why would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for
conviction to the effects of different penalties?

They're closely linked

Don't be so ****ing stupid.

plea bargaining makes convictions much easier.

Ooh, look, another red herring thrown in to try to confuse the issue - or
is it just because you don't actually understand it?

Many crimes are hard to prove

If there's insufficient evidence to prove the crime, then don't charge it
in the first place. Simples.

B'sides, we don't have "states" over here, and the government (if that's
what you mean by "state") don't decide the charge or run the prosecution.
And we don't (officially, legally) do plea-bargaining over here.