Printable View
I have read something similar regarding the lack of reporting. However, surveys are conducted to kinda make up for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
About half of England's burglaries are home invasions compared to a tenth of the USA's being home invasions. Home invasions also include rape, murder, etc., which get treated more seriously.
We have more gun violence in general but a correlation can be made that burglars are less likely to pay a visit while we're home.
The BCS (British Crime Survey) shows the same percentage drop in burglaries, as the recorded crime figures. I see no reason for people to lie on a survey.. :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Also, as Manker said, to claim on the insurance after a burglary, you need to have a police crime number.
@busyman - I think we are now in sort of agreement! ;)
We have an offence known as Hamesucken
How kewl is that.
And you've got buggery. :blink:
I don't think we (the USA) call it that.
I take it you mean "you've" in a plural type of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
F*ng Crime Number.:ph34r: I cant even find a wee pink off the shoulder number for this wedding I'm going to.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The last crime I reported, stolen Strimmer, the police were not interested in the number of the strimmer. His reply was your insurance will pay for it. Considering you pay the first £50/100 pound of any claim it is not worth the bother.
@Barbara:) People dont lie?:ohmy:
I don’t think that any one could be charged with treason for this bombing as it was not a political or state target but if it had of been aimed at government or Royal family. Then they could be charged with treason, if they were the sentence would be death by hanging and it would probably have be public execution. If the government wanted to avoid this they would have to change the law
:shutup:
Where did Sara's, mine, Dave's and Busy's posts go from the end of this thread that we posted last night?
Does it have to be a political or royal target then? Isn't waging war against your own country treason?Quote:
Originally Posted by marlboroman1
The government would have to re-introduce the death penalty for treason.
Deleted it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Either Sara or Deletion IKE.
Oh well. :rolleyes:
they broke the mod-member confidentiality rule :dry:
where they good?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Well someone (who shall remain nameless) snitched to a mod that the thread had gone "off-topic" instead of making an on-topic post.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
Nevermind that there were ongoing discussions in the thread and, as manker pointed out, an evolution into something else.
Nevermind also that no post had been made, on or off-topic, for a bit. :ermm:
I was probably pointed out as well that the person who snitched was named and pointed out by the snitch. :lol: :lol:
Ah, teh heavyhandedness.
Was it vid?
i just wanted to know if it was possible to split the thread as there were clearly two different arguements
noQuote:
Originally Posted by DanB
heh heh sorry vid :P
Did they have their post deleted too?
He wouldn't bother with shit like that. :dry: Just make an on-topic post...problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
No they wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
They would merely have to withdraw from a certain EU treaty, which they would have to do anyway before trying to introduce any legislation for a death penalty for anything :P
Its still on the books, however the EU Human Rights treaties have precedence..
So in reality the difference is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Anywhere from 6 months to forever...
The existing legislation would automatically come into effect on withdrawing from the treaty.
It takes forever to get those bastards in Parliament to pass any new legislation not in their own direct interests :rolleyes:
You've gone off on a tangent. i just asked how what you wrote differs from what i said...that it would need to be re-introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
However I think you may be incorrect about it still being on the books. The Crime and Disorder Act.1998 (googled :) ) removed it as far as i can tell. The treaty you are talking of was a "never again" treaty.
Edit: this would have save me some reading :angry: :lol:
Thanks for that. :)
I hadnt realised that the The Crime & Disorder Act abolished the death penalty, it wasnt even mentioned in the summary we were given about it. :lol:
If that BBC thing is right, then the only Capital Offence now is Mutiny, which means only in the Armed Services in time of war probably....
If we ever withdraw from that treaty that is... :blink:
I withdraw my comment sir ;)
Treason still carries the death penalty
where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Voetsek
I thought as you did until I used google.with it being the treaty..(busy/j2... it can serve to educate as well as make us appear "learned" :lol: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I knew it had been abolished but not the details as to how.
I think where we got confused was that the treaty removed the military crimes thing...I think. :unsure:
An interesting read but doesn't answer the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Voetsek
Looking at the arrests in hackney today it doesn't look like those two at least were ready to die.
could you sign the paper/push button/do the deed of putting them to death?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 99%
If one believes in something such as the death penalty then one must be willing to stand by those beliefs.
Take in though that although I support the death penalty I do believe that it should only be an option where there is no doubt whatsoever. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough.
@vidcc - ironical to your last reply is ofcourse that you posses a shark as your signature..killer guilty of no doubt whatsoever.
in the spur of anger i could probably indulge in my revenge anger for justice sake
(no i didnt take this from a movie (i think/hope..)
but once conciousness is back what greater punishment is there than to be put in a cell for the rest of your life - the mind is all you have.
problem is that humans adapt - adapting to a cell life is possible which then becomes normal life... which ofcourse is unjustifiable to the victims of the pain.
death sentence should be at the moment of criminality not when he/she is "normal" conciounse non killer mode. (although it would enhance awarness of "mortality")
Awarness of what you are missing or have missed due to your "action" could be a form of treatment in a sick calvinist guilt way- implement this in prisons and the victims might get some justice...
a friend (psycologist) of mine's job is to analyze whether criminals in prisons who are on the verge of committing suicide - interesting job - lots of stories.
where is/ how can you /how much justice is enough for the action?
impossible
Can you tell me how you equate a shark to murder carried out by humans?Quote:
Originally Posted by 99%
exactly
is there such a thing as "natural born killers"?
at the moment it seems that the naive, believe islam is ment for that purpose (damn tabloids)
humans do kill for food - everyday & ALOT
but not cannibalism..
humans kill humans for Reason (whatever definition their "reason" may have)
is not HomoSapians prime difference the ability to think?
then the difference between a shark and a human is very similar - sharks kill for a function - humans kill for "reasonable" function.
do sharks kill sharks? i don't know i doubt it
hence my little theory is obsolete
vidcc is full of shit. he couldn't execute someone, he just thinks it justifies his stupid arguement
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
As you have no idea who I am or my past how can you say that.
Some people don't deserve to live. the difference between myself and a vigilante is that I would only do it by legal process with fair trial.
I agree Vid. When there is absolutely no doubt, then the death penalty should be carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
@ 99% The difference between human beings and sharks, other than the obvious ones, is that some 'human' beings kill other human beings for fun, profit, plain cruelty and various other reasons. Sharks kill for food. There may still be a few humans that kill other humans for food, but they are few and far between.
P.s. when killing on vigilante and sudden revenge rampages , mistakes can be made.:ph34r:
When could you say that there was "absolutely no doubt". The person saying "I didn't do" it raises a doubt. That's the whole point of the word "reasonable" being used.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.
There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul