Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663266
as CS has already stated above plenty of folks have been found guilty of equally heinous crimes and were later found not guilty.

As repugnant as those guilty of the killing of Lee Rigby are, killing them in the name of justice would serve no purpose.

Those convicted would be allowed umpteen costly reviews and appeals (as can be seen in the States - unless you think we need to adopt a Chinese or Iranian justice system), once killed they would achieve martyrdom amongst their equally deluded and brain washed idiot mates, and no doubt encourage them to undertake more crimes to achieve martyrdom.

We need to be the wiser, there is no point to stoop to their level of dumbness.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1663270
lobstaboy wrote:But it is important to realise that everybody is simply doing the best they can with the resources they have, in the environment that they are in.

I think you will have to define the best they can there, lobstaboy. :?

If you do define it as doing the best they can for themselves, their neighbours' and community, whilst remaining within the law, then it is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever read on here.

I'm all for seeing the best in people, but... :shock:

No personal offence intended, just telling the facts as I see them. :wink:
By Bill Haddow
#1663271
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Certainly there hasn't been a Dunblane type incident since they were banned.



For that matter, there were no "Dunblane type" incidents prior to Dunblane.

Bill H
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1663273
Miscellaneous wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:But it is important to realise that everybody is simply doing the best they can with the resources they have, in the environment that they are in.

I think you will have to define the best they can there, lobstaboy. :?

If you do define it as doing the best they can for themselves, their neighbours' and community, whilst remaining within the law, then it is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever read on here.

I'm all for seeing the best in people, but... :shock:

No personal offence intended, just telling the facts as I see them. :wink:


Obviously that's not how "best they can" is defined. It means "best they can for themselves". To some folk that might include breaking the law. But from their point of view, with the cards they hold, they are doing the best they can.

Some folk on here need to think a bit more and be a bit less dogmatic imho.
User avatar
By OCB
#1663274
Jim Jones wrote:
Social housing used to a perfetly acceptable choice for skilled and middle management. I grew up in one. Social pressure, not the law, kept miscreants in check
The right to buy skewed that, together with the notion that home ownership as early in life as possible was the way to go.
This led to a concentration of low aspiration, low education, low income low impulse control people in one place, who developed their own social norms unchallenged. Moving out from that environment has many barriers. Look at the effect post code has on insurance, loan rates etc as an example. Social division seems to be increasing at the moment.


One of my early part-time jobs was going door to door in many parts of North Lanarkshire "prospecting" social housing tenants to have a financial advisor come round to convince them to buy their house. I guess that was around 86 or 87*.

I can tell you that "sink estates" existed long before Right to Buy.

Speaking personally - my hometown had something like 87% or higher "cooncil hooses" in the early 80s. Owner-occupied was a rarity.

My father was a cop, we talked often about why some parts of our and neighbouring towns were like Deliverance. He said clearly he saw a policy in our area in the early 70s to stick (sink) "trouble families" all together. Maybe it was meant to make policing easier, but it drove some perfectly nice areas to hell - and this was a time where abundant heavy industry meant that all but the worst of work dodgers had an earned income.

The police and the courts could only do so much, reality was/is some people have no interest in living in a way the majority of us would consider acceptable ( he says, trying to remain diplomatic). Said areas had a constant flow of "social workers" - a profession my father had no love for, mainly because he'd spent a lot of effort getting scrotes into court - only for the social workers to get them back on the streets rather than behind bars (where at least they'd stop being a PITA to their long suffering neighbours and wouldn't be breaking into places, seriously assaulting folks etc).

*Before that I'd worked in the local Saturday market - building up, stocking up, then reverse later that day. Also, convincing local takeaways to do flyer delivery - mate and me did a couple of decent sized towns...got to see every nook and cranny of them, very revealing exercises
By Bill Haddow
#1663275
chevvron wrote:
Hungerford was a guy with a Kalashnikov 7.62 cal fully auto.
Now what possessed Thames Valley to grant him permission to acquire this weapon I can't imagine; you are supposed to 'prove' to the police that you have a genuine 'need' for all weapons which require an FAC and you need to get that permission before you can actually buy it.


His rifles were semi-autos, though how on earth he showed "good reason" for 1 semi-auto assault rifle let alone 2 beggars belief.

Bill H
User avatar
By romille
#1663277
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:as CS has already stated above plenty of folks have been found guilty of equally heinous crimes and were later found not guilty.

As repugnant as those guilty of the killing of Lee Rigby are, killing them in the name of justice would serve no purpose.

Those convicted would be allowed umpteen costly reviews and appeals (as can be seen in the States - unless you think we need to adopt a Chinese or Iranian justice system), once killed they would achieve martyrdom amongst their equally deluded and brain washed idiot mates, and no doubt encourage them to undertake more crimes to achieve martyrdom.

We need to be the wiser, there is no point to stoop to their level of dumbness.

I agree that there are plenty of folk that have had their conviction quashed on appeal after new evidence has been presented, that is why I choose the Lee Rigby case as there is no doubt asto who killed him.
As for costly appeals against the sentence handed down, they have already had what is probably the first of many as well as a compensation claim against prison oficers for injuries allegedly sustained,
As for martyrdom, they would soon be forgotten, a bit like Bobby Sands and other would be martyrs.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663281
romille wrote:As for martyrdom, they would soon be forgotten, a bit like Bobby Sands and other would be martyrs.


You seem to remember him, I don't think you had to google him.

Been 38 years - clearly too soon to be forgotten.
User avatar
By romille
#1663288
[youtube][/youtube]
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
romille wrote:As for martyrdom, they would soon be forgotten, a bit like Bobby Sands and other would be martyrs.


You seem to remember him, I don't think you had to google him.

Been 38 years - clearly too soon to be forgotten.

I remember him clearly, will never forget his name, but only because I was in a hotel on O'Connelly Street, Dublin, on the evening he died and there was a full blown riot going on outside the establishment with people baying for British blood! One of the scariest evenings of my life!
Last edited by romille on Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663289
Well I had to google him! A terrorist.

Anyone remember the names of the other 9?
User avatar
By romille
#1663293
Sooty25 wrote:Well I had to google him! A terrorist.

Anyone remember the names of the other 9?

Not a clue, unless I use Google, but frankly I wouldn't waste my time.
By Mike Tango
#1663295
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Violence begets violence and generally is not the answer.
By cockney steve
#1663301
The overriding factor, is the veracity of the evidence.... in the Lee Rigby case, it was total, unquestionable and witnessed. Once convicted, they should have been "quietly disposed-of " (army firing-squad would seem apposite!) With justice, we'd also have a cost-effectiveness. No need to make the guilty into martyrs. Quietly "export sympathisers as well....seems to have worked in the cases of ISIS jihadis who have either been eradicated or their citizenship (right to live in a civilised society) revoked.

The bar needs to be set extremely high, due to the afore-mentioned lack of probity among those entrusted to assemble and enforce a justice -system of integrity, honesty and fairness. The Rigby murderers pass easily under that bar, they should swing from it, unheralded and unannounced,
By chevvron
#1663303
Bill Haddow wrote:
chevvron wrote:
Hungerford was a guy with a Kalashnikov 7.62 cal fully auto.
Now what possessed Thames Valley to grant him permission to acquire this weapon I can't imagine; you are supposed to 'prove' to the police that you have a genuine 'need' for all weapons which require an FAC and you need to get that permission before you can actually buy it.


His rifles were semi-autos, though how on earth he showed "good reason" for 1 semi-auto assault rifle let alone 2 beggars belief.

Bill H

My brother in law, who was a farmer, wanted to buy a .22 rimfire auto rifle to control rabbits and the same police authrority grilled him for ages before agreeing he had 'good reason' to possess and use it.
When he retired from farming, he 'gave' it to my ATC squadron and we had no problems putting it on our FAC along with the other non - service rifle we had, presumably because all our shooting is controlled under PAM 15 rules.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8