Ridiculously out of touch judge.

[thejackal]

One thing is for certain... the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them... I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

We had an insect overlord. He was called Tony B-LIAR and he oversaw the creation of over 3000 new criminal offences in this land, as well as being a war criminal, by Nuremberg standards, but that's for another thread.

 

[maffew]

I really think this guy deserved what he got, its human nature to react when someone fucks with your family, it should be put through as gbh and let off on diminished responsibilty or something, tough shit, anyone messed with my family/gf then if I was hard enough I'd do the same

 

[User removed 4]

I really think this guy deserved what he got, its human nature to react when someone fucks with your family, it should be put through as gbh and let off on diminished responsibilty or something, tough shit, anyone messed with my family/gf then if I was hard enough I'd do the same

believe me mate, when it comes to family, you'd be hard enough.

 

[Simster]

tootings anti bankers rant was complete bollocks thats why, by the way what constitutes a banker , surely that includes you, you work for an investment bank , or are you going to employ a " i was only following orders" nuremberg style defence ?

No it wasn't. Like you, I didn't agree with Tooting, but you were the one acting like a sixth former with your inability to fight back with a coherent argument. You chose the "you're talking out of your arse" option. Which is fine, as long as you provide an alternative, which you failed to do.

You seem to prefer getting stroppy and ranty on these threads whenever someone disagrees with your Daily Mail point of view. Every single time.

 

[User removed 4]

No it wasn't. Like you, I didn't agree with Tooting, but you were the one acting like a sixth former with your inability to fight back with a coherent argument. You chose the "you're talking out of your arse" option. Which is fine, as long as you provide an alternative, which you failed to do.

You seem to prefer getting stroppy and ranty on these threads whenever someone disagrees with your Daily Mail point of view. Every single time.

You're making it up as you go along , ive never known anyone duck questions and go on the missing list as much as you when it suits him, i did provide an alternative, now back to the question about those nasty bankers ?

 

[Simster]

I really think this guy deserved what he got, its human nature to react when someone fucks with your family, it should be put through as gbh and let off on diminished responsibilty or something, tough shit, anyone messed with my family/gf then if I was hard enough I'd do the same

Spot on. But of course I suspect if you saw the burgular motionless on the floor, I doubt you'd hit him again over the head with a cricket bat for good measure.

Not sure whether that's quite what happened here, but you can see what I mean when I say that the law has to draw the line somewhere because it really shouldn't be open season on a burgular.

 

[Bwian]

you can quote from books all day long if you like,if some fucker breaks into your home he deserves all he gets from that householder end of

Well you'd better hope that a similar pair of idiots looking to cave somebody's head in don't mistakenly identify you or one of your family as a burglar while they're smashing a skull with a cricket bat and a metal pole. I suspect your opinion might differ if anything like that happened.

We all know that the burglar is an habitual criminal who should be in jail for a long time. We also know that the two lunatics who attacked him should also be in jail-and thankfully they are. Their idea of being judge, jury and potential executioner has no place in this country.

 

[thejackal]

" The 'law' of which they speak are statutes, not laws. Statutes are legal instruments (not the use of the word 'legal' not 'lawful') which are given the force of law by the consent of the governed. "

Complete drivel, it is the assent of HM The Queen that gives an Act of Parliament the force of law.

In a Crown Court, a Judge sits below a Royal Coat of Arms, and dispenses THE QUEENS justice.

Black's Law Dictionary: Statute

"A legislated rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed."

Even if you want to get into the whole monarchy aspect, they only govern us by our consent.

You are entitled, under article 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215, one of our oldest surviving laws, to peacefully and LAWFULLY withdraw you support for the monarch's representatives if you believe them to be corrupt, i.e. fleecing you or giving away our sovereignty to Brussels.

 

[Simster]

You're making it up as you go along , ive never known anyone duck questions and go on the missing list as much as you when it suits him, i did provide an alternative, now back to the question about those nasty bankers ?

Not really. I've re-read the thread and you come across as a hot-headed self interested muppet whereas he doesn't. And I say that despite agreeing more with you than him.

 

[Scoffers]

why not? why are you stopping at a beating. summary execution for wrong doing, surely that'll learn 'em.

I assumed you would be wanting a sensible debate, clearly not.

At the point at which someone breaks into someone else's home the law should be against them, not for them. At things stand, if they break in and get caught, in most cases they are not stopped from doing so again.

That needs to change.

 

[CHAPPERS]

We all know that the burglar is an habitual criminal who should be in jail for a long time. We also know that the two lunatics who attacked him should also be in jail-and thankfully they are. Their idea of being judge, jury and potential executioner has no place in this country-or do we now endorse Shari'ah Law? Only the bits we like though.

True say.

 

[User removed 4]

Not really. I've re-read the thread and you come across as a hot-headed self interested muppet whereas he doesn't. And I say that despite agreeing more with you than him.

for the third time , are you or arent you one of those nasty bankers ??

**simster proves my point about ducking questions**

 

[Simster]

for the third time , are you or arent you one of those nasty bankers ??

**simster proves my point about ducking questions**

I avoid it because it's not relevant. But in answer to your question, as I'm in IT on the front desk, I guess I am in some people's eyes. So what?

Now go back to answering something relevant on THIS thread. How is my stance "double standards"?

 

[Bwian]

True say.

I wasn't quick enough in removing the last bit

 

[User removed 4]

I avoid it because it's not relevant. But in answer to your question, as I'm in IT on the front desk, I guess I am in some people's eyes. So what?

Now go back to answering something relevant on THIS thread. How is my stance "double standards"?

it was relevent on the bankers thread, its double standards because you get all screechy about people taking the law into their own hands, and when shown to be a hypocrite about a 70 plus year old man being seriously assaulted it somehow becomes "funny", i mean i dont know what to make of much of what you post, you slate premiership plastic fans blah blah blah, you tell me what a "real football man " you are, and it transpires you havent even been to an albion game for three years

 

[beorhthelm]

I assumed you would be wanting a sensible debate, clearly not.

At the point at which someone breaks into someone else's home the law should be against them, not for them. At things stand, if they break in and get caught, in most cases they are not stopped from doing so again.

That needs to change.

but why does that give you licence to chase them down the street and beat them? short of actually killing them, it does not stop them from doing it again. what needs to change is the judicial system that allows someone who repeatedly offends to be out on the street, a problem sidlined by this story. self defense, even forcefull ejection from a property is one thing. chasing down the street to dispense vigilante justice will not solve anything.

 

[Simster]

it was relevent on the bankers thread, its double standards because you get all screechy about people taking the law into their own hands, and when shown to be a hypocrite about a 70 plus year old man being seriously assaulted it somehow becomes "funny" blah drone blah :dailymail: hahaha

Not really. It was funny, but I found it funny in the full knowledge that his attacker will be brought to justice. Obvious to most people I'd have thought.

 

[User removed 4]

Not really. It was funny, but I found it funny in the full knowledge that his attacker will be brought to justice. Obvious to most people I'd have thought.

funny, i could have sworn there was a comment about "real football man " simster not having been to an albion game for three years , anyone would think you're no different to some of these fairweather premiership fans, wouldn't be ducking something like i mentioned earlier would you ??surely not

 

[maffew]

but why does that give you licence to chase them down the street and beat them? short of actually killing them, it does not stop them from doing it again. what needs to change is the judicial system that allows someone who repeatedly offends to be out on the street, a problem sidlined by this story. self defense, even forcefull ejection from a property is one thing. chasing down the street to dispense vigilante justice will not solve anything.

you say it wont solve anything, but this guy had 50 other offences, no doubt to some vunerable people, nothing deterred him from reoffending, maybe he'll think twice before doing anything else now, problem hopefully solved

 

[Simster]

funny, i could have sworn there was a comment about "real football man " simster not having been to an albion game for three years , anyone would think you're no different to some of these fairweather premiership fans, wouldn't be ducking something like i mentioned earlier would you ??surely not

Not quite true I'm afraid.

This is your Daily Mail rant thread. I'll let you get back to your stupidly simplistic ideas and losing your rag at anyone who disagrees with you. I need to get back to work.