Should Blunket be able to control police chief's?

[budda]

Is it right that Blunket has the right to sack any police chief?

He seems to be getting more and more authorotarian and far right wing in terms of crime and punishment.

[Braineater]

If they are not doing their job properly then by all means, but I feel that Mr Blunkett does pander to a certain section of the press far too often.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Is it right that Blunket has the right to sack any police chief?

He seems to be getting more and more authorotarian and far right wing in terms of crime and punishment. not ring wing enough in my term, we still have all the yobs on the streets!

[budda]

Shall we go through the crime statistics again?

Do you understand the encroachments Blunket has made on the right to trial, inocent till proven guilty and other basic human rights?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Shall we go through the crime statistics again?

Do you understand the encroachments Blunket has made on the right to trial, inocent till proven guilty and other basic human rights?

YOU can go thorugh ALL the crime statistics you want, where I live, crime is bad, very bad!

[Aladdin]

Blunkett is a very scary and sinister man. He's media-obsessed and plays to the tune of the tabloids insted of doing his job.

When you get a right wing tosspiece like the S*n singing the praises of a Labour Home Secretary so often and freely, you know there must be something very wrong with the man.

This case is yet another example of knee-jerk reaction and exceeding one's powers in order to appeal to the populace and the Murdoch press. It is not the role of the Home Secretary to sack police chiefs (or increase jail sentences of inmates and otherwise interfere with the judicial process- something that Home Secretaries from both parties have taken a liking to).

[budda]

Technically though it is now his legal right.

I must say his comments about that man convicted during Euro 2004 were classic. 'I want to nail him'.

Given that the man in question was given no legal advice, the court was held in Portugese and he wasnt translated to and the trial lasted all of about 20 mins.

A shockingly unfair trial and for Blunket to wade in with comments like his is foul.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Blunkett is a very scary and sinister man. He's media-obsessed and plays to the tune of the tabloids insted of doing his job.

When you get a right wing tosspiece like the S*n singing the praises of a Labour Home Secretary so often and freely, you know there must be something very wrong with the man.

This case is yet another example of knee-jerk reaction and exceeding one's powers in order to appeal to the populace and the Murdoch press. It is not the role of the Home Secretary to sack police chiefs (or increase jail sentences of inmates and otherwise interfere with the judicial process- something that Home Secretaries from both parties have taken a liking to). The Sun speaks a lot of sense when it comes to crime.

Ever likely Blunkett is listening to the sun other than the Guardian, people who are affecte dby crimes are most likely to be reading a tabloid.

[budda]

If people listen to the Sun and they speak the truth about crime why is the fear of crime going up and up and actual crime rates going down?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
If people listen to the Sun and they speak the truth about crime why is the fear of crime going up and up and actual crime rates going down? do you realise how many unreported crimes their are? Millions. Scum Bags around my end, terroise people but no one reports it hardly. Why? Nothing gets done. we all want them locked up, but government ay no!

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
The Sun speaks a lot of sense when it comes to crime.

Ever likely Blunkett is listening to the sun other than the Guardian, people who are affecte dby crimes are most likely to be reading a tabloid. The S*n hasn't got a bloody clue what it's talking about.

On the one hand it predictably and pathetically adopts the full knee-jerk reaction ("Hang paedos!" "Lock criminals up and throw away the key!") without even attempting to comprehend the causes of crime, and on the other hand it supports other types of crime, such as the right to murder gypsy children if they enter your property or the right to drive at any speed one fancies without being punished for it.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
The S*n hasn't got a bloody clue what it's talking about.

On the one hand it predictably and pathetically adopts the full knee-jerk reaction ("Hang paedos!" "Lock criminals up and throw away the key!") without even attempting to comprehend the causes of crime, and on the other hand it supports other types of crime, such as the right to murder gypsy children if they enter your property or the right to drive at any speed one fancies without being punished for it. here we go again, liberal apprach.

what about the victems eh? we are always worse off with this stupid government.

[budda]

Originally posted by lukesh
do you realise how many unreported crimes their are? Millions. Scum Bags around my end, terroise people but no one reports it hardly. Why? Nothing gets done. we all want them locked up, but government ay no!

First of all the British Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting and they say that crime is falling.

Secondly just locking people up just doesnt work, its not as simple as that.

[budda]

Originally posted by lukesh
here we go again, liberal apprach.

what about the victems eh? we are always worse off with this stupid government.

But we're not, the NHS is improving, school standards are going up, personal wealth is going up, crime is falling....we havent had it this good for at the very least 15 years.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
First of all the British Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting and they say that crime is falling.

Secondly just locking people up just doesnt work, its not as simple as that. how can they record non-reported crimes?

how? My Sisters boy friend the pother week had his rings taken off him, he didn't report it, do they know about this?

I don't think so.


the views you guys come out with, it makes me upset to think that your always on scum bags side. what about us for once?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
But we're not, the NHS is improving, school standards are going up, personal wealth is going up, crime is falling....we havent had it this good for at the very least 15 years. in my world, schools are getting worse and getting ebtter, yes werid but teachers have no control over pupils but the funding is impressive. labour think that if you chuck bliions at something it can magically get better.

crime in my world is worse than ever before.

[budda]

Are you suggesting that Aladdin and I are 'on the side of the scum bags'?

Niether or us are in any way defending the actions of criminals, where did we say that?

The National Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting because it contacts people directly to ask if they have been a victim of crime. It is externaly audited and is seen as reliable.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Are you suggesting that Aladdin and I are 'on the side of the scum bags'?

Niether or us are in any way defending the actions of criminals, where did we say that?

The National Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting because it contacts people directly to ask if they have been a victim of crime. It is externaly audited and is seen as reliable. when are they in Stoke On Trent I'd love to know?


Well mate it seems that you rather believe scum bags to what Iam saying.

[budda]

What?!

I'm not believing scum bags, I am taking into account enternally audited figures which are backed up.

I'm sorry you have had personal experience of crime, so have I not so long ago. But I still firmly believe that crime is going down.

Of course there are daily horrible crimes, yes, and of course you can always produce a long list of those who have been victims. But thats not really how statistics work is it.

Statistically people are less likely to be a victim of crime now than they have been in a long while.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
What?!

I'm not believing scum bags, I am taking into account enternally audited figures which are backed up.

I'm sorry you have had personal experience of crime, so have I not so long ago. But I still firmly believe that crime is going down.

Of course there are daily horrible crimes, yes, and of course you can always produce a long list of those who have been victims. But thats not really how statistics work is it.

Statistically people are less likely to be a victim of crime now than they have been in a long while. I'll believe when crime is going down when I see them scum bags that make me sick and cry in a way, i'll be happy when they are locked up! they have done to much damage now.

can i live in your areas? they sound so nice.

[budda]

Do you know how expencive it is to lock someone up?

The amount we spend on prison is stupidly high, the re-offending rates are horrific.

If we put anywhere near the money we spend on prisons onto try to prevent crime we could make a huge impact.

But then prison goes down well with the electorate and trying to help young offenders doesnt.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
here we go again, liberal apprach.

what about the victems eh? we are always worse off with this stupid government. The victims? Yes let's talk about the victims shall we?

Case study number one: A 16 year old child is summarily executed by a gunshot to the back for the "hideous" crime of breaking and entering. The perpetrator took aim and shot to kill and by all accounts it is a cold blooded murder. But thanks to a hate campaign by the right wing tabloid press the murderer has his sentence commuted to manslaughter and freed after only 4 years.

Who was thinking about the victim and his family? Certainly not the S*n and the Daily HateMail!


Case study number two: a small child has been run down and killed by yet another speeding driver. The driver was driving at more than 40 mph in a 30mph limit but knew there were no cameras in the area. Thanks to the endless campaign by the S*n and the HateMail to "stop persecuting drivers" :rolleyes: , further deployment of speed cameras has stopped so Middle England can drive at any speed it deems convenient.

Who is thinking of the 1,400 or so victims who die every year on our roads due to speeding? Certainly not the Scum and the BlackMail!

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Do you know how expencive it is to lock someone up?

The amount we spend on prison is stupidly high, the re-offending rates are horrific.

If we put anywhere near the money we spend on prisons onto try to prevent crime we could make a huge impact.

But then prison goes down well with the electorate and trying to help young offenders doesnt. see your sticking up for them.

forget the costs, it's well worth it, lock them bloody up!

[budda]

Exactly, speeding drivers know what they are doing is wrong, they should be just as liable as any other criminal.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
The victims? Yes let's talk about the victims shall we?

Case study number one: A 16 year old child is summarily executed by a gunshot to the back for the "hideous" crime of breaking and entering. The perpetrator took aim and shot to kill and by all accounts it is a cold blooded murder. But thanks to a hate campaign by the right wing tabloid press the murderer has his sentence commuted to manslaughter and freed after only 4 years.

Who was thinking about the victim and his family? Certainly not the S*n and the Daily HateMail!


Case study number two: a small child has been run down and killed by yet another speeding driver. The driver was driving at more than 40 mph in a 30mph limit but knew there were no cameras in the area. Thanks to the endless campaign by the S*n and the HateMail to "stop persecuting drivers" :rolleyes: , further deployment of speed cameras has stopped so Middle England can drive at any speed it deems convenient.

Who is thinking of the 1,400 or so victims who die every year on our roads due to speeding? Certainly not the Scum and the BlackMail!

Case Study 1: Tony Martin law brilliant law, puts us, the victims first!

Case Study 2: This Government is obsessed with minor crimes and locking people up for driving at 30.01 MPH.


Just think of all them who are murdered, abused etc etc bullied. certainly not the left who think of them!

[budda]

Originally posted by lukesh
see your sticking up for them.

forget the costs, it's well worth it, lock them bloody up!

No, but your missing the point, locking them up does NOT work.

Most dangerous criminals are desperate people, they dont care about prison because they either a) dont think they'll get caught or b) need something badly enough to risk it what ever happens.

So what difference does it make to them whether the sentance is 5, 10 or 100 years.

And I am not sticking up for them. I dont want to spend money on criminals, I resent my tax money going on them. BUT I know, that treatment for addicts and help for offenders is far more cost effective than just locking them up.

Its simple really.

[budda]

Lukesh; If your in favor of the 'Tony Martin Law' are you in favor of the death sentance for all those guilty of breaking and entering?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
No, but your missing the point, locking them up does NOT work.

Most dangerous criminals are desperate people, they dont care about prison because they either a) dont think they'll get caught or b) need something badly enough to risk it what ever happens.

So what difference does it make to them whether the sentance is 5, 10 or 100 years.

And I am not sticking up for them. I dont want to spend money on criminals, I resent my tax money going on them. BUT I know, that treatment for addicts and help for offenders is far more cost effective than just locking them up.

Its simple really. I'm goign end up crying again in a minute.

What??

Lock them up, it will do society the world of goodness.

Come to my esate, they will all say lock them up.

you live with them if you don't wish that.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Lukesh; If your in favor of the 'Tony Martin Law' are you in favor of the death sentance for all those guilty of breaking and entering? they shouldn't be on someones property, it's NOT theirs! Simple Rule, Simple to understand.

[budda]

Your appear not to be listening.

I am suggesting that the evidence shows that if you help drug addicts and young offenders there will be much less crime.

So you wouldnt have to pay for them all to be 'locked up'.

So are you in favor of the death penalty for breaking and entering then?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Your appear not to be listening.

I am suggesting that the evidence shows that if you help drug addicts and young offenders there will be much less crime.

So you wouldnt have to pay for them all to be 'locked up'.

Agree with that but they need to pay for what they have done. We can't give them a free ride.


Originally posted by bongbudda

So are you in favor of the death penalty for breaking and entering then? If thats what you wantr to call it, I don't see it like that.

We ALL know that it is wrong for someone else to be in their property.

Is it ok for the thief to have a gun? Yes i hear you cry, well it's Ok for the victim then!

[budda]

No, of course its not alright for anyone to hold an ILLEGAL firearm, which I may remind you Tony Martin had.

What is the difference between Tony Martins Law and the death penalty for all those guilty of breaking and entering?

And of course offenders need to 'pay' for their crimes, but pure punishment alone doesnt bring down crime.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
Case Study 1: Tony Martin law brilliant law, puts us, the victims first! The victim here was the kid who was murdered.

Are you advocating the death penalty for burglary? Is that what you're saying? That practically anyone who commits a crime should be killed?

Case Study 2: This Government is obsessed with minor crimes and locking people up for driving at 30.01 MPH. Stop making things up.

Cameras don't make distinctions between day and night. Cameras don't flash at 31, 32 or even 34 mph in most cases. Cameras flash at those who are going at more than 10% + 2mph. That's > 35mph in a 30 mph area, > 46mph in a 40 mph area, > 57mph in a 50 mph area and so on.

If you think that's tough, well don't break the law and you won't get fined. Precisely what you and people like you like to say to others...

Just think of all them who are murdered, abused etc etc bullied. certainly not the left who think of them! Stop making things up. At no point has the government or "the left" (whoever they might be) said or thought victims of crime don't reserve support or recognition.

Give us some evidence that the government does not think of the victims then.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
they shouldn't be on someones property, it's NOT theirs! Simple Rule, Simple to understand. If a member of your family got into an argument with me over traffic or something, and they verbally assaulted me, can I murder them?

They shouldn't insult me, so presumably it's okay to murder them, correct?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by bongbudda
No, of course its not alright for anyone to hold an ILLEGAL firearm, which I may remind you Tony Martin had.

What is the difference between Tony Martins Law and the death penalty for all those guilty of breaking and entering?

And of course offenders need to 'pay' for their crimes, but pure punishment alone doesnt bring down crime. Lets keep it simple OK.

No one has a right to be in someones elses property.
Sime isn't it?

If they intrude on soemones property, they deserve what is coming to them.

They have NO right whats so ever being on someone elses land.

[Aladdin]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Nobody has the right to commit a crime- that's why it's illegal. Nobody has the right to insult you. Nobody has the right to punch you in the face. Nobody has the right to steal your wallet.

SO, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE SHOOTING SOMEONE DEAD BECAUSE THEY INSULT YOU, OR BECAUSE THEY'VE NICKED YOUR WALLET???

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
The victim here was the kid who was murdered.

Oh god, your not serious? He wa son someone elses property, he deserved what was coming to him. He was in the wrong.


Originally posted by Aladdin

Are you advocating the death penalty for burglary? Is that what you're saying? That practically anyone who commits a crime should be killed?

No, if someone on is on private property, they person in charge has the right to sort it out, if they impose a threat to the property owener such as violence than the owner has the right to use his/her gun but try not to hit the head.
This is afir in my eyes, the criminal has no right to be on the land, NO right! What do you keep trying to justify this?



Originally posted by Aladdin


Cameras don't make distinctions between day and night. Cameras don't flash at 31, 32 or even 34 mph in most cases. Cameras flash at those who are going at more than 10% + 2mph. That's > 35mph in a 30 mph area, > 46mph in a 40 mph area, > 57mph in a 50 mph area and so on.

If you think that's tough, well don't break the law and you won't get fined. Precisely what you and people like you like to say to others...

Agree, so why don't you agree with this...

if the criminal doesn't like the idea of being shot, why does he/she do wrong?


Originally posted by Aladdin


Stop making things up. At no point has the government or "the left" (whoever they might be) said or thought victims of crime don't reserve support or recognition.

Give us some evidence that the government does not think of the victims then. Well iam a Vitim and this system is a shambles. I am sick of living in fear!

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
If a member of your family got into an argument with me over traffic or something, and they verbally assaulted me, can I murder them?

They shouldn't insult me, so presumably it's okay to murder them, correct? your twisting it.

We are talking about protecting your self, property here mate.

If the criminal tries to hurt the family in any way then force should be allowed.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Nobody has the right to commit a crime- that's why it's illegal. Nobody has the right to insult you. Nobody has the right to punch you in the face. Nobody has the right to steal your wallet.

SO, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE SHOOTING SOMEONE DEAD BECAUSE THEY INSULT YOU, OR BECAUSE THEY'VE NICKED YOUR WALLET??? I havn't made my self clear, you don't even understand the law do you?

The law says that if the criminal tries to use force on the family then they are allowed to hit back!

What your saying there is daft and stupid.

If noone has the right to commit a crime why are scum bags still on the streets after 1,000 crimes made?

[Aladdin]

The point of Tony 'fat murdering bastard' Martin is that he was not defending his person or his property. The point with Martin's case is that he carefully took aim and shot at the kid as he was running away and out of the property.

Can't you really tell the difference?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
The point of Tony 'fat murdering bastard' Martin is that he was not defending his person or his property. The point with Martin's case is that he carefully took aim and shot at the kid as he was running away and out of the property.

Can't you really tell the difference? where did you get that from? The good old Guardian?

Which side are you on? poor Tony Martin who was scared, who was looking out for his family, his property, was scared, ina horrible position.

Or the scum bag who was in his property who was stealing his stuff etc.

[Aladdin]

If you are going to be talking about something Luke, try to know the basics of it.

Tony Martin was not in danger. Tony Martin was found to carefully take aim and shoot at the kid as he was running away. That is that the court found. That is why his original convinction was murder.

And no, that's not from the Guardian. That is from countless media outlets both left and right wing.

So what do you have to say now?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
If you are going to be talking about something Luke, try to know the basics of it.

Tony Martin was not in danger. Tony Martin was found to carefully take aim and shoot at the kid as he was running away. That is that the court found. That is why his original convinction was murder.

And no, that's not from the Guardian. That is from countless media outlets both left and right wing.

So what do you have to say now? Nothing really but havn't ypou changed the subject slightly? We were talking about Tony Martions Law which says owners of a property should be allowed to protect their family.

Do you agree with that?

[Aladdin]

Ah look who's changing subject now! :D

So do you admit now that Tony Martin is a murderer? Or do you still believe that a person deserves to die for burglary?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Ah look who's changing subject now! :D

So do you admit now that Tony Martin is a murderer? Or do you still believe that a person deserves to die for burglary? Sorry but he got what was coming to him, he shouldn't have been their in the first place. Sorry thats what I believe. he would be still alive now if he wasn't a thief.

Do you agree with Tony martins Law or do you think We have no right to protect our family and Home?

[Aladdin]

There is already provision in the law for using reasonable force. The so-called 'Tony Martin's law' is a load of nonsense and those who coined the term are simply seeking for the right to shoot people dead simply for being on their property, even if their lives are not in any kind of danger.

If you or your family are being threatened then I don't have a problem. But to say that anyone who steals or attempts to steal should be killed is fucking disgusting and atrocious.

So I put it to you again: should we give the death penalty to common thieves and pickpockets?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
There is already provision in the law for using reasonable force. The so-called 'Tony Martin's law' is a load of nonsense and those who coined the term are simply seeking for the right to shoot people dead simply for being on their property, even if their lives are not in any kind of danger.

If you or your family are being threatened then I don't have a problem. But to say that anyone who steals or attempts to steal should be killed is fucking disgusting and atrocious.

So I put it to you again: should we give the death penalty to common thieves and pickpockets?
yet again, your showing that you don't understand the Tony Martin law. it says that you can use force such as a gun ONLY when they are attacking you, thats what it says. It doesn't at all say that you should shoot someone for stepping one toe on yor property.
As that would correctly be "disgusting and atrocious".



Originally posted by Aladdin


So I put it to you again: should we give the death penalty to common thieves and pickpockets?

Of course not!

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
yet again, your showing that you don't understand the Tony Martin law. it says that you can use force such as a gun ONLY when they are attacking you, thats what it says. It doesn't at all say that you should shoot someone for stepping one toe on yor property.
As that would correctly be "disgusting and atrocious".
Well that is EXACTLY what the tabloid press (and even broadsheets that should know better such as the 'illustruous' Daily Telegraph have been campaigning.

Stealing something or burgling a house, repugnant crimes as they are, do not merit being murdered for.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Well that is EXACTLY what the tabloid press (and even broadsheets that should know better such as the 'illustruous' Daily Telegraph have been campaigning.

Stealing something or burgling a house, repugnant crimes as they are, do not merit being murdered for. How would you know what tabloids have been saying if you don't even read them? You'll be called the Daily Telegraph every name under the Sun soon as it doesn't hold your Political Correct views. Just get sued to what people believe, we all have different opinions, lets accept them, please.

they have not said that at all, they have pledged their support for the Tony Martin law to protect familes when an intrudger is on their property. If the intrudger attacks the family, the family would have the right to attack back. Thats all it's about!

[marv]

The law at the moment states that you can defend yourself and your property with REASONABLE FORCE.

In the Tony Martin's Case he delibrately used his gun which he SHOULD NOT OF HAVED and SHOT SOMEONE IN THE BACK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AWAY.

He was very lucky in my opinion

[lukesh]

Originally posted by marv
The law at the moment states that you can defend yourself and your property with REASONABLE FORCE.

In the Tony Martin's Case he delibrately used his gun which he SHOULD NOT OF HAVED and SHOT SOMEONE IN THE BACK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AWAY.

He was very lucky in my opinion aww I'm not going through this again.


Show me a document about Tonty Martins Law where it says you can shoot people?

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
How would you know what tabloids have been saying if you don't even read them? Have you heard of the internet Luke? It's an amazing invention that allows you to check and share documents, files and images. ;)

Yes I have read many column inches from the tabloids and the broadsheets regarding Tony Martin. To this day the aformentioned papers are still spitting blood about the fact that their hero was even imprisoned for one day. Even though they're fully aware of the situation in which he shot the kid.

You make of it what you want- I think the message from these papers is clear...

[Renzo]

Lukesh, you have no idea what your on about. You live in this deluded world where everything your pathetic tabloid says.

Would you rather see children killed by speeding motorists or see some speed cameras on the roads?

As others have stated, Blunkett is already far to right wing and has eroded many civil rights, i dont see how you can think this is a good thing.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Have you heard of the internet Luke? It's an amazing invention that allows you to check and share documents, files and images. ;)

Yes I have read many column inches from the tabloids and the broadsheets regarding Tony Martin. To this day the aformentioned papers are still spitting blood about the fact that their hero was even imprisoned for one day. Even though they're fully aware of the situation in which he shot the kid.

You make of it what you want- I think the message from these papers is clear... well we are all allowed our own personal opinion arn't we?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
Lukesh, you have no idea what your on about. You live in this deluded world where everything your pathetic tabloid says.
Please explain to me what this pathetic tabloid is? Tell me how it runs my life? please, I'd love to know.

Originally posted by Renzokuken


Would you rather see children killed by speeding motorists or see some speed cameras on the roads?
More Cameras of course. How ever you don't understand why many people are stick of them. people are getting fined for stupid things and are ebing put in prison. This is soft crime. People want scum bags who make the hard crime to be banged up.


Originally posted by Renzokuken
As others have stated, Blunkett is already far to right wing and has eroded many civil rights, i dont see how you can think this is a good thing. I don't like left wing ideas when it comes to fighting crime. It makes me sad if the Liberal Democrats ever got in power. i would have to make my self murder someone, it would kill me but I would have to, as the criminals turn out to be the victims.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
well we are all allowed our own personal opinion arn't we? Yes. And it is still a fucking disgrace and an abomination that some newspapers are advocating the right to murder a person for entering your property. Don't you agree?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
Please explain to me what this pathetic tabloid is? Tell me how it runs my life? please, I'd love to know.

More Cameras of course. How ever you don't understand why many people are stick of them. people are getting fined for stupid things and are ebing put in prison. This is soft crime. People want scum bags who make the hard crime to be banged up.


I don't like left wing ideas when it comes to fighting crime. It makes me sad if the Liberal Democrats ever got in power. i would have to make my self murder someone, it would kill me but I would have to, as the criminals turn out to be the victims.

You beleive everything AN AUSTRALIAN AMERICAN says out of his arsehole. I dont think he should have any role in deciding what should be in the British press personally.

A Crime is a crime lukesh, Speeding is a crime.

And your last thing, what a stupid thing to say :mad: You are truely messed up in the head.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Yes. And it is still a fucking disgrace and an abomination that some newspapers are advocating the right to murder a person for entering your property. Don't you agree? Yep but from what I have read in the Sun, I have never seen that written.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
You beleive everything AN AUSTRALIAN AMERICAN says out of his arsehole. I dont think he should have any role in deciding what should be in the British press personally.


lol, idiot! Who do you prefer some Europeans?


Originally posted by Renzokuken


A Crime is a crime lukesh, Speeding is a crime.

theifing is a crime!

Originally posted by Renzokuken

And your last thing, what a stupid thing to say :mad: You are truely messed up in the head.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: ok, what ever! Your opinion.

[Whowhere]

The man didn't even do anything wrong.
By the laws of the Data Protection Act it would have been illegal for him or anyone else in his force to keep legally binding records about Huntley on file.
If someone is found innocent of their previous crimes (like he was) then there is no reason to keep information like this on file. It would also be completely illegal for any employer to look at any remaining intelligence files and to use them to give reason not to employ someone.

it doesn't matter how much of a bastard someone can be, you cannot judge them on something they MIGHT have done in the past.
Blunkett is trying to take too much power away from individual police forces instead of taking away the beuracracy that make's the police force's job harder than it needs to be.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
lol, idiot! Who do you prefer some Europeans?


theifing is a crime!

ok, what ever! Your opinion.

I did not say that, but The Murdoch press is a foul institution.

Yeah, theiving is a crime whats the point? So is shooting someone in the back...in fact ts a worse crime

and do everyone a favour and:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/stfu.jpg

:)

I thought you would appreciate a fellow right winger telling you ;)

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
I did not say that, but The Murdoch press is a foul institution.

Yeah, theiving is a crime whats the point? So is shooting someone in the back...in fact ts a worse crime

and do everyone a favour and:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/stfu.jpg

:)

I thought you would appreciate a fellow right winger telling you ;) do me a favour and into the real world, come to my street yeah? I'd love to show you around, prehaps you would like to stake some things home with you? :D

everyone get this into yuor head, The Sun which i DO read, does nto rule my life and does not account for my opinions.

You guys and papers, geee you think some papers rule this world?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
do me a favour and into the real world, come to my street yeah? I'd love to show you around, prehaps you would like to stake some things home with you? :D

everyone get this into yuor head, The Sun which i DO read, does nto rule my life and does not account for my opinions.

You guys and papers, geee you think some papers rule this world?

I would rather not meet you :no: I *am* in the real word fool. And what are you accusing me of being a thief now? :rolleyes:

and yes newspapers do have an influence on what people think, i have studied voting behavior and newspapers have an influence on how people vote. As i said One foreigner is controlling what people think.

[Aladdin]

I don't think you're fully aware of the workings and the power of Rupert Murdoch.

As a matter of fact, you should be disgusted as a proud English patriot that Mr. Murdoch, an Australian-born US citizen who dodges this country of countless millions in tax thanks to his offshore company registrations, should think he has a right to dictate how this country is run.

The man is an enemy of this nation and the S*n is his mouthpiece. The S*n does not speak for its readers or for this country. It speaks for that nasty ultra right wing, tax dodging, europhobe, god-bothering neo-con.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
I would rather not meet you :no: I *am* in the real word fool. And what are you accusing me of being a thief now? :rolleyes:

Well it's your choice whether you like me or not.

pardon? Calling you a thief? When?

Originally posted by Renzokuken
Iand yes newspapers do have an influence on what people think, i have studied voting behavior and newspapers have an influence on how people vote. I agree there what you just said that newspapers do influence what people think. How ever The Sun doesn't influence me at all. A lot what I read in the paper is bull shit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renzokuken
. As i said One foreigner is controlling what people think.
Mr. Murdoch should step up in the elections then if he is that good. :D

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
I don't think you're fully aware of the workings and the power of Rupert Murdoch.

As a matter of fact, you should be disgusted as a proud English patriot that Mr. Murdoch, an Australian-born US citizen who dodges this country of countless millions in tax thanks to his offshore company registrations, should think he has a right to dictate how this country is run.

I am more digusted with Europeans eating our tax thank you.

Originally posted by Aladdin
The man is an enemy of this nation and the S*n is his mouthpiece. The S*n does not speak for its readers or for this country. It speaks for that nasty ultra right wing, tax dodging, europhobe, god-bothering neo-con. The man is an enermy to Guardian readers thats all.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
I am more digusted with Europeans eating our tax thank you.

The man is an enermy to Guardian readers thats all.

Europe only takes about 0.2p out of every pound in tax. Im sure Murdoch is avoiding paying in more than that into the British economy.

I would say he was a threat to Democracy personally, with one man having such an influence when he shouldnt have

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
Europe only takes about 0.2p out of every pound in tax. Im sure Murdoch is avoiding paying in more than that into the British economy.

I would say he was a threat to Democracy personally, with one man having such an influence when he shouldnt have Mr. Murdoch is not using the system illegally is he? Breaking no rules so whats wrong with making money?

You have problems with right wing people, you think we are all bad to this world etc. Grow up will you!

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
Mr. Murdoch is not using the system illegally is he? Breaking no rules so whats wrong with making money?

You have problems with right wing people, you think we are all bad to this world etc. Grow up will you!

He is tax dodging, im sure thats a crime.

and the right does represent the flaws in human nature such as greed, racism, intolerance etc

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
He is tax dodging, im sure thats a crime.

and the right does represent the flaws in human nature such as greed, racism, intolerance etc if it's a crime it wouldn have been delt with. :)



You are stupid, every right man/woman is either racist, intolerant etc, do some homeowork. iam all of these too arn;t I/

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
if it's a crime it wouldn have been delt with. :)



You are stupid, every right man/woman is either racist, intolerant etc, do some homeowork. iam all of these too arn;t I/

I think you will find more rascism and intolerance within the Conservative Party than the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat party....

[Aladdin]

He's a tax dodger who not only is completely and utterly loaded but also employs a team of tax experts to study and exploit loopholes in the law and avoid paying as much tax as possible. A typical case of unlimited greed and breath-taking selfishness exploiting the law and making the country poorer as a result.

And at the same time this tax avoiding foreigner thinks it is perfectly reasonable to hold Prime Ministers and other politicians at ransom and dictate how they should run the country.

How could you be not utterly disgusted at him? Regardless of what his politics might be?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
I think you will find more rascism and intolerance within the Conservative Party than the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat party.... I think you'll find more loonies in the Liberal Democrats than other party.


Hey with an attitude like that i can understand.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
He's a tax dodger who not only is completely and utterly loaded but also employs a team of tax experts to study and exploit loopholes in the law and avoid paying as much tax as possible. A typical case of unlimited greed and breath-taking selfishness exploiting the law and making the country poorer as a result.

cheers for putting a smile on my face, i need that as I have been feeling rock bottom lately. :)


Originally posted by Aladdin
And at the same time this tax avoiding foreigner thinks it is perfectly reasonable to hold Prime Ministers and other politicians at ransom and dictate how they should run the country.

How could you be not utterly disgusted at him? Regardless of what his politics might be? Give me evidense Ok on these claims?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
I think you'll find more loonies in the Liberal Democrats than other party.


Hey with an attitude like that i can understand.

whats so loony about the Liberal Democrats then Lukesh?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
whats so loony about the Liberal Democrats then Lukesh? I was just copying you.


As you called the Conservatives racist, please expalin this?

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by lukesh
cheers for putting a smile on my face, i need that as I have been feeling rock bottom lately. :) I'm glad these things make you happy. Please note that this is no difference from people living on the dole or claiming all sorts of benefits.

So from now on please spare us your regular moans about people on the dole and so on.


Give me evidense Ok on these claims? :rolleyes:

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
I was just copying you.


As you called the Conservatives racist, please expalin this?

The Conservatives have a history of rascism, look at people like Lord Tebbit. I remember a story of how a Conservative safe seat turned non-Conservative because the Conservatives put up a black candidate. There are plenty of stories.

and finally from my Politics revision notes on 'Conservatism it says there that conservatives occasionly tend to be rascist

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
I'm glad these things make you happy. Please note that this is no difference from people living on the dole or claiming all sorts of benefits.

So from now on please spare us your regular moans about people on the dole and so on.


:rolleyes: lol.



I shouldn't be on here, makes me so depressed.

[Aladdin]

If only it could open your eyes...

But that's asking too much clearly.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
The Conservatives have a history of rascism, look at people like Lord Tebbit. I remember a story of how a Conservative safe seat turned non-Conservative because the Conservatives put up a black candidate. There are plenty of stories.

and finally from my Politics revision notes on 'Conservatism it says there that conservatives occasionly tend to be rascist Wasn't recently when a Liberal Democrat showed her support for terroists?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
Wasn't recently when a Liberal Democrat showed her support for terroists?

She said she could understand there plight or something. I dont think that counts as rascism though.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
If only it could open your eyes...

But that's asking too much clearly. pardon?

[Aladdin]

What on earth are you on about now?

And how would that have anything to do with racism?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
She said she could understand there plight or something. I dont think that counts as rascism though. she was supporting terroists!

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
What on earth are you on about now?

And how would that have anything to do with racism? Iam really confused now. sorry.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
she was supporting terroists!

is that rascism though? because thats what you were attemping to say that the Conservatives are not, which you still havnt done.

Erk i dont know why im bothering you, im going to go and revise of all things conservatism :(

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
is that rascism though? because thats what you were attemping to say that the Conservatives are not, which you still havnt done.

Erk i dont know why im bothering you, im going to go and revise of all things conservatism :( you were calling conervatives racist, so i decided to call liberals supporters of terroists. even though it's a tiny minority who are.


If the conservatives are terroists then that makes me one and a great amount of the British populution.

[Aladdin]

Typical right wing derailing attempts.

When everything else fails, when found cornered, try to take the debate away from the issue at hand by throwing irrelevant questions.

You'd do well at mil.com Luke! :) ;)

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
you were calling conervatives racist, so i decided to call liberals supporters of terroists. even though it's a tiny minority who are.


If the conservatives are terroists then that makes me one and a great amount of the British populution.

What the fuck are you on about? How is being a terrorist and being a rascist the same thing? :eek2:

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Typical right wing derailing attempts.

When everything else fails, when found cornered, try to take the debate away from the issue at hand by throwing irrelevant questions.

You'd do well at mil.com Luke! :) ;) Can we gte back on track and stop this please?

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
What the fuck are you on about? How is being a terrorist and being a rascist the same thing? :eek2: :confused:

WHO SAID IT WAS YOU DICKHEAD!

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
:confused:

WHO SAID IT WAS YOU DICKHEAD!

You said it was. You jumped from rascism to terrorism in an effort to avoid yet another question.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
You said it was. You jumped from rascism to terrorism in an effort to avoid yet another question. pLEASE QUOTE ME WHEN I SAID THIS "How is being a terrorist and being a rascist the same thing?"


THEN I'LL SAY SORRY!

[Aladdin]

This is the exact quote:

you were calling conervatives racist, so i decided to call liberals supporters of terroists

There's only one thing to say to such statement:

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
pLEASE QUOTE ME WHEN I SAID THIS "How is being a terrorist and being a rascist the same thing?"


THEN I'LL SAY SORRY!

You did not, but you avoided responding to my evidence that the Conservatives are occasionly rascist to the Liberal Democrats supporting terrorism.

Jeez

[Renzo]

Originally posted by Aladdin
This is the exact quote:

you were calling conervatives racist, so i decided to call liberals supporters of terroists

There's only one thing to say to such statement:



aaaaaaaaaaw ^^

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
This is the exact quote:

you were calling conervatives racist, so i decided to call liberals supporters of terroists

There's only one thing to say to such statement: WHEN DID I SAY THEY WERE SIMILAR?



THIS CONVO IS FUCKIAN STUPID PATHETIC ETC


ALL YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IS CREATE CORRUPTION OVER WHO READS WHAT, WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ETC


DO YOU LIKE MAKING FRIENDS OR ENERMIES? POLITICS MAKES US ALL ENERMIES, IT SUCKS!

[Aladdin]

You left your caps lock on.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
You did not, but you avoided responding to my evidence that the Conservatives are occasionly rascist to the Liberal Democrats supporting terrorism.

Jeez WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY? AGREE THAT TORIES ARE RACIST? I DON'T THINK SO.

SEE WHAT I MEAN, BULDING ENERMIES AS SOMEONE WON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Aladdin
You left your caps lock on. I HAVE. IT'S BECAUSE IAM SO PISSED OFF AND DEPRESSED TO GO WITH IT.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY? AGREE THAT TORIES ARE RACIST? I DON'T THINK SO.

SEE WHAT I MEAN, BULDING ENERMIES AS SOMEONE WON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

You cant deny that the Conservatives have rascist tendancies though, it even says it in my 'British Politics in Focus' textbook its right there on page 28 :)

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
You cant deny that the Conservatives have rascist tendancies though, it even says it in my 'British Politics in Focus' textbook its right there on page 28 :) HERE WE GO AGAIN. FUAKCIN HELL!!!

LETS ME FRIENDS NOT ENERMIES PLEASE!


i NEED TO SEE A DOCTOR.

[Aladdin]

If I might say so Luke you have dug yourself into it.

If you start making wild and totally untrue accusations such as "Labour and the Left don't want to punish crime and don't care about the victims", or "the government is out to fine people go at 30.01 mph", then you can expect people to lay on to you.

Then as the debate moves on towards tabloids and the upholding of the law you initially appear to support people shooting intruders because "they brought it onto themselves", then claim that you don't support killing people for stealing (which is fair enough) but then claim that the tabloid you read and a number of other papers don't support that either. When it is universal knowledge that they did indeed support such thing through the actions of Tony Martin.

Then you go on to offer your blind support to a man who is detested by the entire political spectrum in this country and who is acknowledged to have far too much control over the government and to have deprived this nation of many tens of millions of Pounds of due taxes- while at the same time demanding to determine how the country should be run, which as well as anything else stinks of hypocrisy and double standards.

Then an accusation of racism and intolerance is made against the Conservative Party (and whereas the Conservative Party itself might not be racist, there are racist elements within it) and you respond by accusing the Lib Dems of being supporters of terrorists.

What do you expect to happen?

[lukesh]

I have tried to answer this, just getting more dper

[wheresmyplacebo]

i feel luke deserves this

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/spam5.gif


dont make non-sensical replies to questions please luke - just answer the question - youd make a briliant politician!!

[lukesh]

SORRY IAM CONFUSED.


MY REPLIES MAY SEEN SHITE ON THIS IT'S BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SHIT!

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
SORRY IAM CONFUSED.


MY REPLIES MAY SEEN SHITE ON THIS IT'S BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SHIT!

Your replies i not seen as that valid because you just make wild statements without any actual evidence or just completely avoid a question and change the subject

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
Your replies i not seen as that valid because you just make wild statements without any actual evidence or just completely avoid a question and change the subject but saying the tories are racist sin't wild?

[Renzo]

Originally posted by lukesh
but saying the tories are racist sin't wild?

members of the Conservatives and Conservative voters do have a higher tendancy to be rascist. I gave my reasons above, I can even quote the text book if you want

[ladymuck]

Christ, that flashing img almost gave me an epilleptic fit!

Renzokuken . you seem to believe NuLab when it says a)educatonal standards are improving- most ppl believe the opposote with a dilution of standards to get kids through

b)crime-we're in an era when gun crime, for example is on the rise, violent crime. too. Plus, given the general hassle of London streets, much crime is ignored by police, if ppl are coming up to you selling'weed/crack' they're not being arrested because it's police policy to ignore it

Plus, given the difficulty of actually contacting police (waiting on a phone)the under-reporting is under-estimated

[lukesh]

Originally posted by Renzokuken
members of the Conservatives and Conservative voters do have a higher tendancy to be rascist. I gave my reasons above, I can even quote the text book if you want do so and make sure you ring a newspaper to expose all of this, we can't having at least 35% of the population voting a racist party next year.

[Renzo]

Originally posted by ladymuck

Renzokuken . you seem to believe NuLab when it says a)educatonal standards are improving- most ppl believe the opposote with a dilution of standards to get kids through

b)crime-we're in an era when gun crime, for example is on the rise, violent crime. too. Plus, given the general hassle of London streets, much crime is ignored by police, if ppl are coming up to you selling'weed/crack' they're not being arrested because it's police policy to ignore it

Plus, given the difficulty of actually contacting police (waiting on a phone)the under-reporting is under-estimated

When did i say any of that stuff? I dont know about education standards that much, my views are going to be skewed though. I went to a grammar school where of course the standards are high. Compared to the local comprehensive (which i also attended because i actually failed the 12+) it has a much better standard of teaching. All in all though i am against the selective education system as it basically determines what people can do with their lives at a low age. Seem to have gone off on a tangent here...

Violent crime may be on the up, but that does not mean everyone can defend themselves with arms. We wouldnt want incidents like Columbine happening in the UK because of easily accessable arms.


Originally posted by lukesh
do so and make sure you ring a newspaper to expose all of this, we can't having at least 35% of the population voting a racist party next year.

Im sure the majority of Conservative voters are not rascist Lukeh, but as i said it is known that a proportion of them are. For example my Grandma to use an example is quite overtly rascist. I am merely saying it is Conservative voters by proportion who are more likely to be racist.