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

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By defcribed
#1663359
Mike Tango wrote:The firearms used at both Dunblane and Hungerford were legally owned by the perpetrators at the time of the events.


Neither would have been in possession of firearms if the Police had been doing their job properly.

The fact that I am yet to receive an acknowledgement to a change of address I submitted 2 months ago, still possess a rifle I have not used for two years, and have not been a member of a Home Office approved club for about a year suggests that they are no better these days.
By Mike Tango
#1663361
PeteSpencer wrote:
Nothing can be 100% certain.



Fairly sure death can be (at time of typing anyway), though preferably natural and not judicially murdered.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663365
PeteSpencer wrote:
MachFlyer wrote:With regard to the bring back hanging argument I suspect that at the time there was “no doubt” in the public’s mind of the guilt of the Guildford Four & Birmingham Six


With any judicial system depending on the man in the street to give a verdict there's bound do be collateral damage from time to time.

Nothing can be 100% certain.

Fine by me.

Peter :wink:


I am truly shocked.
By cockney steve
#1663369
@Flyin'Dutch' I appreciate I appear to be repeating, but I added content and context. I see nothing morally wrong with eliminating murderers from a society, quietly, thus denying them the publicity and infamy.

One Myra Hindley suddenly found a religious fervour and repentance, when she thought that she could manipulate the whole system through Longford...Public opinion kept her incarcerated. It's arguable that it would have been kinder to extinguish both her and Brady, expeditiously, after their trial. in the event, both had years to reflect on their evil deeds. Denying all murderers the oxygen of publicity should, surely, make the crime less attractive as a premeditated option. (you don't go out armed with a killer-weapon, unless you intend to use it if you feel the situation demands.

They were certainly found guilty to the same standard as Lee Rigby's killers.

By corrupt people running a corrupt system attempting to hide their incompetence?

Where's the independent camera-footage showing them placing and arming the bomb?

were they "framed" or were they really guilty and exonerated by even more "bent" pollies then? :evil:
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663379
cockney steve wrote: I see nothing morally wrong with eliminating murderers from a society, quietly, thus denying them the publicity and infamy.


I do and luckily we live in a world were a majority takes the same view as I do.

There are umpteen good reasons why the death penalty is wrong, including moral ones.

It may be that for you and a few other forumites revenge and retribution are good enough reasons to hold those views, but that doesn't equate to a cogent argument let alone a moral justification.
By johnm
#1663383
Interested that Myra Hindley is used as an example. The parole board considered her situation and that of her partner in crime and concluded that they were in that category where permanent incarceration to protect the public was appropriate. The views of the public were of zero interest.
User avatar
By OCB
#1663390
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
OCB wrote:Still, after all these years, I do feel getting plod out his car and walking the streets night and day wouldn't hurt...


The old bobby on the beat argument.

No evidence that works.

What we need is a lot more officers and deploy them smart.

That means most of the time they should be dealing with crime reduction, prevention and dealing with reported crime so that rates of convictions go up and rates of crimes down.

And where appropriate be visible and work as a deterrent for smart ær5es on a Friday and Saturday night.


Funnily enough, I have I'd say that more cops being approachable and physically present (including bobby on the beat) did work in some of the worst 'schemes' of East Glasgow a few years back. A lot of kids only contact with Plod was when he was coming (in force) to lift their Dad, certainly not seen as a force for "good" - if not an enemy, certainly one to be very wary of.

The reason kids were carrying knives on those estates - simply the "law" had effectively abandoned their areas, and getting from the bus stop to front door was dangerous, one that meant "tooling up" was a risk worth taking.

Visible policing, with local officers who know the area, where the kids know them by name (and vice-versa) know who the real troublemakers are, get the confidence of their local community - working with them to reduce crime rather than deal with the aftermath, and not just zipping from one kpi point-scoring call to another...I'm sure there is evidence it "doesn't work", but then again that's probably because some have different ideas of what the police's place is in society than I do.
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1663402
Society will always have some people that have little opportunity to do anything useful/constructive.
Many social problems are linked to money supply. When money supply is good, can afford to buy the essentials and have money left over for leisure activities. When money supply is a problem, other problems occur.

Cramming more new build houses into a congested area does not improve job opportunity for those that are already unemployed or about to leave school/college/university. It might result in more applicants per job and allow employers to cherry pick more. Those that are required to apply for N jobs per week to get state benefits often end up dealing with N rejections per week, loss of confidence, stress, depression, medications ....

When people with little or no money get desperate for the basics they cant afford it is probably only a matter of time before they start begging or thieving once they have run out of people to borrow money from. It must be horrific for those that have built up sizeable debt on pay day loans on massive percentage rates.

I think too many people believe they are physically/mentally strong enough to try a "cheap" sample recreational drug and then stop at will. It is slippery slope to addiction, debt, crime.

In my student days I remember staying with friends I made in the previous academic year. Unfortunately one of their mates staying in the same house turned out to be a druggy and started stealing from me to pay for his minor habit. I got out of there once I realised what was happening.

I think there has always been knife crime. Throughout history groups of people have wanted to control other people or broaden their territorial influence, which always involved an element of violence. In ancient times it was likely to be the strongest fighter that became leader of the gang, tooled up with a variety of weapons through the ages. I dont think they all had a democratic vote to pick the leader.
I think what has changed in modern times is news of violent crime and gang related activity is communicated much easier and much quicker than in ancient times. People play up to their mates cameras for status/acceptance/promotion in their peer group, and also provoke other gangs with social media.
There are numerous computer/console games that are violent and consequently train people in tactics and to some extent they see a visualisation of so much fighting with guns and blades etc, blood and death that they possibly get normalised to seeing it such that it is less of a leap from a game to the real thing compared to the rest of the population that have not been in the military.

There are also people that have been killed by a single punch in the news over the last few years.
I also know someone that tried to break up a fight of 4/5 onto one and got stabbed with a Philips screwdriver in the front rib cage. i.e. the effect of knife crime can also be achieved using common tools.
The drugs problem is also fuelling import of illegal firearms every week so that might be more of a problem in future.

I am a victim of unprovoked knife crime from a complete stranger. These things can happen so fast. I dont carry a knife.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1663411
cockney steve wrote:you don't go out armed with a killer-weapon, unless you intend to use it if you feel the situation demands


I'm afraid that's simply not true, people carry knives because other people carry knives, not because they've thought through all of the eventualities and decided that, on balance, they are willing to use lethal force and accept the consequences.

The "other people" carry knives because in gangs and in drug disputes, intimidation and violence are the only possible means of resolution. This doesn't mean that those carrying knives have actually given a second's thought to whether and how they might be used.
User avatar
By OCB
#1663474
“Ah didnae mean tae kill him, yer Honour”, a well worn phrase used by many a young man before being banged up for the best years of his life, at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

No matter our pet theor(ies), whether it’s recreational substances, video games, poverty, lack of opportunity, violent upbringing, unmarried single parents etc – best stick to the actual peer reviewed evidence where it exists. So many arguments and counters to those arguments – and that’s before the likes of the Wail and uninformed vote-chasing politicians wade in.

No matter if you banned totally all substances (booze included), all video games (I grew up in the era of Pong and Space Invaders…correlation with local violence, <1% I’d say), had world beating education, eradicated poverty and offered plenty of opportunity, the necessary huge prison capacity for those contravened etc  there would still be violence.

There is a small but consistent part of pretty much any population who have violent psychiatric issues, or “normal” people who for one reason or another have violent psychotic episodes.

The latter, for example, I got marginally caught up in, in my early teens. Up at the local hospital with my mother (can’t remember why), and cops were searching back seats and boot of every car leaving.

The young cop recognized me (I’m the spitting image of my father – he laughed and said so without us uttering a word), and I found out later that day from my Dad he was on-site, as it was a potential murder scene.

Some local lad had a nervous breakdown, tried to get help by taking a bus to the hospital, waited a few hours at A&E – not sure exactly what happened after, but he ended up going outside and stabbed the first (male) white coat he saw.

It wasn’t the first time, and sadly not the last such occurrence at that hospital (or others I’m sure)

Coincidence that this was around the time of the great “care in the community” firesale.
By cockney steve
#1663528
I'm curious why at least 3 respondents have moral objections to a death- penalty.

If you are a Christian, I think your bible explicitly requires "A n eye for an eye"

Now, let' s look at the Rigby- killers' case. Maybe they were "out of their face" on drugs...no excuse. Just as , back in the days when LSD and flower-power were all the "go", some lay staring at the summer sun. it's still the only thing they ever see. Some "flew" out of a window,or off a convenient roof The flights ended abruptly, as did their drug consumption. They, too, were responsible for their own actions.

These fellows made sure they were seen and recorded. Now they're locked away, apart from one having the temerity to sue his jailers, we hear nothing about them. Good for us but a very expensive way to torture them with the thought that they are gagged and impotent in their "crusade".

I'd argue that there is no chance of rehabilitation,because they were never habilitated in the first place.
To subject these damaged creatures to years of incarceration and mental anguish is far more cruel than a quick despatch . Dumping them in a sandy place that shares their moral mores, is an unfair imposition on the innocent among the residents.

I agree that there have been some very questionable executions in the past and have referred to those situations in the past. Derek Bentley was mentioned and is, indeed a prime example of a victim of a corrupt /incompetent judicial system only one stage off hanging the goat that butted it's shepherd!
By JoeC
#1663534
cockney steve wrote:.

If you are a Christian, I think your bible explicitly requires "A n eye for an eye"


If you're Christian then you would know that the old testament eye for an eye was rejected by Mr Jesus Christ:

Matthew 5:38-42 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Didn't bother to read the rest of the post after such a piss-poor start!
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1663541
cockney steve wrote: If you are a Christian....!


I'm not.

Ah! LSD. Fond memories of my formative years. I particularly remember a night watching golden fishes jumping out of the sea ;)
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8