Rant Fuck the UK :eek:

[Raven]

No he wouldn't. Claims like that need to be backed up by cases.

 

[Tom]

Your argument contradicts itself Tom.

In that case, keeping the tramp murder analogy going, the "general public feeling" could well be that "he's only a tramp" and the judge, in every single tramp murder case, would automatically give a lesser sentence based on the tramp's social status.

Justice is blind, remember? (Allegedly).

As for Myra Hindley. I don't know much about her tbfh - I'm not the sort of person to read up on the grizly shit that humans get up to - it's not going to make me like "us" any more

I'm bored of the tramp analogy. And no, justice is not blind. Justice is dished out by people, and none of them are unbiased.

 

[Tom]

Present a logical argument why burglary should be judged on the haul, rather than the action.

I presented the crime, as I see it, in easy-to-follow bullet points, shouldn't be hard.

The number of facepalms required to answer this would create a black hole.

 

[Scouse]

And no, justice is not blind. Justice is dished out by people, and none of them are unbiased.

I actually agree with you on this.

My original post was about a point of principle, a point of principle that is supposed to be. The reality is, of course, different from what we're taught.

 

[Mey]

Well considering there is only one *MANDATORY* sentence for murder we'll be alreet.

 

[Mey]

Also Scouse;

The value of the item/money is an impact factor on the severity of a crime.

Someone stealing a tenner is not the same as someone stealing a million pounds regardless of what you think.

 

[Scouse]

If you look at the burglary guidelines the amount is an aggravating indicator - related to the victim, however, so if he's a millionaire and you lift ten grand it's the same as a hundred quid off a poor bloke.

 

[Krazeh]

So if someone was caught shoplifting because they didn't have the money to pay for food they should recieve the same sentence as someone caught shoplifting dvds they're gonna flog to make some extra cash?

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh dear a selective quote from scouse and we've got another pointless thread of bullshit peddling.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's rare I agree with Tom but there's nothing I can argue back without facepalming so hard my hand goes through my skull, round the world, back through my skull, round the world, and then through my arse before gradually coming to a halt in Togo.

 

[Wij]

What if you also ate the tramp's cock at the board meeting of a large corporation ?

 

[georgie]

I think I love Wij.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

present a logical argument why burglary should be judged on the haul, rather than the action.

Life saving pharmaceuticals vs boxes of sweets.

 

[Scouse]

Life saving pharmaceuticals vs boxes of sweets.

You keep hordes of life saving pharmaceuticals in your house now Roo? You a distribution centre or something? Also, what theif burgles a box of sweets...


Anyway. I'm facepalming myself a bit today. Size of a haul, from a home, does make a difference to sentencing and the seriousness that the police take it - otherwise how would the rich be protected?

My mum gets burgled, the police turn up and say it's unlikely they'll ever find anything (because they won't look), Steven Gerrard gets burgled and they catch 'em

 

[old.Tohtori]

Teaches me to look at ignored threads that pop up on main page, now i feel like my braincells have been violated

And not in the good Wij way.

 

[Wij]

Dr Wij's Brain Training.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

You keep hordes of life saving pharmaceuticals in your house now Roo?

You asked for an example. You didn't state circumstances or specifics of situation. I also didn't make any of the claims you infer in your response. Wind your neck in.

 

[Scouse]

You asked for an example.

No, I asked for a logical example of why burglary should be judged on the haul rather than the act, not two random things picked out of the air that make no sense in the context of someone's house being burgled.


The only reason to take haul into account is to protect the rich which, I've already conceded, the law does.

Dr Wij's Brain Training.

Can you keep training Toht's brain to ensure I stay on ignore? It's been a much more pleasant experience around here lately as I recover from twelve months banging my head against that particular brick wall - I think we can see from this thread that my argument and deductive reasoning skills have somewhat deteriorated from long-term exposure to that troll

 

[Wazzerphuk]

No, I asked for a logical example of why burglary should be judged on the haul rather than the act, not two random things picked out of the air that make no sense in the context of someone's house being burgled.


The only reason to take haul into account is to protect the rich which, I've already conceded, the law does.

It's really, really simple.

The burglary is not judged on the haul. It's judged on the burglary. They're both the same offence.

You then have a secondary part to look at - which is the haul. All burglaries are illegal. Burglaries where more value is taken is not more illegal, like you seem to think, but it is more punishable. Do you honestly think that if for example two "poor" men (why you keep bringing rich and poor into this I don't know - oh wait, yes I do, it fits your pre-ordained agenda that you're pushing) were burgled, and one had a £20 note stolen, and the other had all his valuables (tv, money, jewllery, family heirlooms etc.) should be given the EXACT SAME punishment? Fuck your agenda for one minute and think about what you're saying.

 

[Scouse]

Fuck your agenda for one minute and think about what you're sayiing...

If you'd read my last few posts properly Waz, rather than just continuing ranting, then you'd understand I already have