That headline is just pure lies. She was given an indeterminate sentence and told she would not be out for at least seven years and even then only if she could be proven to be no longer a danger to children. Betcha the usual foaming mail website commentators don’t get that distinction though.
So just like the whole mother of Baby P then, where it’s an indefinite sentence but they pick the hypothetical minimum sentence as what it will actually be. Which is like saying Chelsea or Man Utd might potentially win the Treble this season, but that doesn’t mean it will bloody happen.
For Christ’s sake, that is a flat-out fucking LIE. Whereas in the real world, R5L listeners would have heard yesterday that the judge was at pains to point out that it’s 7 years before the extremely unlikely prospect of parole.
But, unfortunately, they are right to point out that many sentences in the UK are reduced to laughably low terms, and that the system is inadequate to protect the public.
Want an example? Why was the burglar who was the object of the ‘let’s kill burglars’ story – who held a knife to the throats of the family concerned – free to commit burglary after committing over 50 offences?
Until there is a proper justice system in this country, with prolific and serious offenders locked up in practice until they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer pose a threat to the public, I – and many others – will continue to argue for the freedom to mete out appropriate punishments ourselves, in order to prevent criminals from committing further offences. We only gave up the right to do this on condition that the State did the job properly. It doesn’t, so we’re taking this right back.
Bishop – fine. But most burglars/intruders etc are wankers who just want to nick stuff rather than people out of the movie Funny Games, so you might be waiting a while.
I agree with Bishop Brennan on this, maybe we should all read his post and see what WE would do in the situation he mentions, rather than just kicking him up the arse about it.
I’d urge anyone to find out EXACTLY what the definition of “reasonable force” is, you might be surprised at how far the homeowner can go (Mr Hussain went too far, clearly).
When I read the comments by such as ‘bishop brennan’ I understand how a country can degenerate into lawlessness. Like most Pcs I was assaulted in my time but overcame the assailant. Using the logic of ‘bishop brennan’ I should have been correct in then beating the shit out of the prisoner. What a lovely society he wants us to live in. His opinions must never prevail.
Regards,
Dave
Does Bish Bren also agree with the best rated comments accomanying todays DM headline of ‘Female armed robber stripped, beaten and set alight by angry lynch mob’ I wonder?
Having just seen both the highest and lowest rated comments accomanying this article, I now feel sick. Utterly revulsed, saddened and quite ashamed to be human.
I can usually get a good laugh out of the DM, in all its ignorant, moronic glory, but this time I really can’t.
“Until there is a proper justice system in this country, with prolific and serious offenders locked up in practice until they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer pose a threat to the public, I – and many others – will continue to argue for the freedom to mete out appropriate punishments ourselves, in order to prevent criminals from committing further offences. We only gave up the right to do this on condition that the State did the job properly. It doesn’t, so we’re taking this right back.
”
Sadly, that’s all ideology. If we lived in a world where personal morals and ideology ruled law, then society would fall apart.
You have to accept what fair criminal justice is. Handing out a sentence to a single crime. And then once the sentence is served, allowing them to get on with their lives.
If law involves personal judgements on what is or isn’t a bad crime, then you have chaos.
People that promote mob mentality don’t realize that you are accepting that someone can do the exact same things to you.
Once we have a system where people decide the law based on their own personal morals, then you have chaos.
As in, I’m walking down the street and you bump into my wife knocking her over. I then decide that “if the law isn’t going to punish you then I will” and beat you up.
You have to accept that not everyone shares your morals. And if you have this system of “violent” retribution for preceived rule breaking, then you have to accept that you are leaving yourself open to a society of mob violence.
As in, I’m driving in my car, and you cut me up in a lane. I get out and stab you.
I had kids in the back of the car. You nearly killed them. So I hurt you.
That’s the issue. And why criminal law exists.
People can’t be trusted. History has proven so.
You are legally allowed to hit a burglar in truth. And you are legally allowed to fight a burglar to protect your family.
But if you then use this oppurtunity to take the law into your own hands, and punish the burglar, then you deserve to be arrested.
Chris – I would prefer to have a system where the law did its job. My point is that it doesn’t. I suspect that you are in a tiny minority if you truly believe that it does.
If people that committed repeated or serious offences were put in prison, in safe but uncomfortable conditions (it is supposed to be a punishment, after all!), for a sufficient period of time that they did not pose a threat to others, then I would have every sympathy for a judge that punished those that took the law into their own hands.
But also remember that when someone is attacked, they are unlikely to be thinking entirely rationally, so may well use more force than you or I might regard as ‘reasonable’. In such circumstances, it is not ‘justice’ to send them to prison – particularly when they have committed no previous offences, they seem unlikely to be a threat to others.
And, no, I don’t hate foreigners or immigrants (I’m married to one); nor do I hate Muslims, although I do hate those who wish to remove my freedoms and impose Sharia law in my country. For similar reasons, I would like England to leave the EU (I think the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish should be free to do as they choose, as is their right in a democracy). Nor do I hate asylum, but I do think it is wrong not to expel those that seek to take advantage of the system.
I can’t see why any of that is unreasonable. But, then, I might be foolish to expect reason from lefties
I think its unreasonable to compare the EU with Sharia Law. I think its unreasonable to mention hatred of a tiny, almost insignificant group of hardliners when there are a million other viewpoints out there – why pick that one? Sharia Law is as likely to come to pass in Britain as we are to all talk Klingon or all suddenly become obsessed with Doctor Who. There are hardline adherents, madmen and women, in every walk of life – its just that Sharia muddies the waters of race and immigration. It’s unreasonable to talk about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (especially Northern Ireland) as if they are homogenous masses who can get by on separate democracies. We need to come together more, not create more borders.
Bish. If someone nicked my drink in a pub and I, being a bit drunk and annoyed and more than a little irrational, hit them so hard that I caused severe damage to their face, would you say that that would be acceptable behaviour in the eyes of your law?
I always find it hilarious that some of those who claim to be so anti-Sharia Law etc seem to love the reality of it in terms of the harsh punishments it permits.
Funny that?
Sharia Law is just a wet-dream for that tiny minority who imagine it is a serious worry to more than themselves.
The Mail cannot even tell the truth about their “free” offers:- http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_47807.htm
Indefinite sentence = 7 Years, apparently.
I blame ZaNuLiebore’s failed education system.
Allison Pearson’s husband must be one of those real men I’ve heard so much about.
That headline is just pure lies. She was given an indeterminate sentence and told she would not be out for at least seven years and even then only if she could be proven to be no longer a danger to children. Betcha the usual foaming mail website commentators don’t get that distinction though.
So just like the whole mother of Baby P then, where it’s an indefinite sentence but they pick the hypothetical minimum sentence as what it will actually be. Which is like saying Chelsea or Man Utd might potentially win the Treble this season, but that doesn’t mean it will bloody happen.
And we also have a absurdly moralistic ‘message’ to an adulterer and the usual ‘we should be able to kill burglars!’ nonsense.
For Christ’s sake, that is a flat-out fucking LIE. Whereas in the real world, R5L listeners would have heard yesterday that the judge was at pains to point out that it’s 7 years before the extremely unlikely prospect of parole.
Browns Broken Britland innit!
But, unfortunately, they are right to point out that many sentences in the UK are reduced to laughably low terms, and that the system is inadequate to protect the public.
Want an example? Why was the burglar who was the object of the ‘let’s kill burglars’ story – who held a knife to the throats of the family concerned – free to commit burglary after committing over 50 offences?
Until there is a proper justice system in this country, with prolific and serious offenders locked up in practice until they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer pose a threat to the public, I – and many others – will continue to argue for the freedom to mete out appropriate punishments ourselves, in order to prevent criminals from committing further offences. We only gave up the right to do this on condition that the State did the job properly. It doesn’t, so we’re taking this right back.
Every night I sit awake with a bread-knife in my hands waiting for a burglar to come through the door for me to kill.
It hasn’t happened yet, but soon…
Yeah Bishop Brennan, the law has failed us, so you go do your best Dirty Harry impression!
The DM front page, cretinous & deliberate inaccurate garbage from top to bottom.
As usual.
Charlie – if someone is foolish enough to threaten me or my family, I won’t hesitate!
Guardian-reading judges can go f*** themselves.
Ooh, Bishop Brennan, you’re sooooo manly!
Bishop – fine. But most burglars/intruders etc are wankers who just want to nick stuff rather than people out of the movie Funny Games, so you might be waiting a while.
And I pity any judge that reads the Guardian.
I agree with Bishop Brennan on this, maybe we should all read his post and see what WE would do in the situation he mentions, rather than just kicking him up the arse about it.
I’d urge anyone to find out EXACTLY what the definition of “reasonable force” is, you might be surprised at how far the homeowner can go (Mr Hussain went too far, clearly).
When I read the comments by such as ‘bishop brennan’ I understand how a country can degenerate into lawlessness. Like most Pcs I was assaulted in my time but overcame the assailant. Using the logic of ‘bishop brennan’ I should have been correct in then beating the shit out of the prisoner. What a lovely society he wants us to live in. His opinions must never prevail.
Regards,
Dave
Does Bish Bren also agree with the best rated comments accomanying todays DM headline of ‘Female armed robber stripped, beaten and set alight by angry lynch mob’ I wonder?
Having just seen both the highest and lowest rated comments accomanying this article, I now feel sick. Utterly revulsed, saddened and quite ashamed to be human.
I can usually get a good laugh out of the DM, in all its ignorant, moronic glory, but this time I really can’t.
Regards all
Nicky
The Mail make it sound like criminal justice have actually changed much in the last decade.
She’d have got the same sentence if she did that in 1990.
Purely on the basis that sentences are not judged on the morality of the case. Just law.
“Until there is a proper justice system in this country, with prolific and serious offenders locked up in practice until they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer pose a threat to the public, I – and many others – will continue to argue for the freedom to mete out appropriate punishments ourselves, in order to prevent criminals from committing further offences. We only gave up the right to do this on condition that the State did the job properly. It doesn’t, so we’re taking this right back.
”
Sadly, that’s all ideology. If we lived in a world where personal morals and ideology ruled law, then society would fall apart.
You have to accept what fair criminal justice is. Handing out a sentence to a single crime. And then once the sentence is served, allowing them to get on with their lives.
If law involves personal judgements on what is or isn’t a bad crime, then you have chaos.
People that promote mob mentality don’t realize that you are accepting that someone can do the exact same things to you.
Once we have a system where people decide the law based on their own personal morals, then you have chaos.
As in, I’m walking down the street and you bump into my wife knocking her over. I then decide that “if the law isn’t going to punish you then I will” and beat you up.
You have to accept that not everyone shares your morals. And if you have this system of “violent” retribution for preceived rule breaking, then you have to accept that you are leaving yourself open to a society of mob violence.
As in, I’m driving in my car, and you cut me up in a lane. I get out and stab you.
I had kids in the back of the car. You nearly killed them. So I hurt you.
That’s the issue. And why criminal law exists.
People can’t be trusted. History has proven so.
You are legally allowed to hit a burglar in truth. And you are legally allowed to fight a burglar to protect your family.
But if you then use this oppurtunity to take the law into your own hands, and punish the burglar, then you deserve to be arrested.
“I can usually get a good laugh out of the DM, in all its ignorant, moronic glory, but this time I really can’t. ”
I don’t blame the readers. They just aren’t very intelligent. And intelligent people don’t take the Daily Mail seriously.
The Mail try and incite this reaction. A lot of stories they print aren’t relevant or newsworthy.
They are only there to incite hatred, and change the political landscape.
The Mail’s editorial policy is this in my opinion:
1: Incite hatred of foreigners
2: Incite hatred of muslims
3: Incite hatred of EU
4: Incite hatred of immigrants
5: incited hatred of asylum
You may consider it a news outlet. It’s just a political tool for right wing politics
Chris – I would prefer to have a system where the law did its job. My point is that it doesn’t. I suspect that you are in a tiny minority if you truly believe that it does.
If people that committed repeated or serious offences were put in prison, in safe but uncomfortable conditions (it is supposed to be a punishment, after all!), for a sufficient period of time that they did not pose a threat to others, then I would have every sympathy for a judge that punished those that took the law into their own hands.
But also remember that when someone is attacked, they are unlikely to be thinking entirely rationally, so may well use more force than you or I might regard as ‘reasonable’. In such circumstances, it is not ‘justice’ to send them to prison – particularly when they have committed no previous offences, they seem unlikely to be a threat to others.
And, no, I don’t hate foreigners or immigrants (I’m married to one); nor do I hate Muslims, although I do hate those who wish to remove my freedoms and impose Sharia law in my country. For similar reasons, I would like England to leave the EU (I think the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish should be free to do as they choose, as is their right in a democracy). Nor do I hate asylum, but I do think it is wrong not to expel those that seek to take advantage of the system.
I can’t see why any of that is unreasonable. But, then, I might be foolish to expect reason from lefties
I think its unreasonable to compare the EU with Sharia Law. I think its unreasonable to mention hatred of a tiny, almost insignificant group of hardliners when there are a million other viewpoints out there – why pick that one? Sharia Law is as likely to come to pass in Britain as we are to all talk Klingon or all suddenly become obsessed with Doctor Who. There are hardline adherents, madmen and women, in every walk of life – its just that Sharia muddies the waters of race and immigration. It’s unreasonable to talk about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (especially Northern Ireland) as if they are homogenous masses who can get by on separate democracies. We need to come together more, not create more borders.
Bish. If someone nicked my drink in a pub and I, being a bit drunk and annoyed and more than a little irrational, hit them so hard that I caused severe damage to their face, would you say that that would be acceptable behaviour in the eyes of your law?
I always find it hilarious that some of those who claim to be so anti-Sharia Law etc seem to love the reality of it in terms of the harsh punishments it permits.
Funny that?
Sharia Law is just a wet-dream for that tiny minority who imagine it is a serious worry to more than themselves.