Dangerous Driving
26 January 2000, 01:54 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel a rant coming on....
I saw an article in the newspaper today, concerning a bloke who had killed another motorist by illegal driving. In summary:
A crossroads with traffic lights. Lights are on red. Our bloke (Andrew Deveson, 23) drives up the outside of the waiting traffic at - and this is important - 100MPH and straight through the red light. Unfortunately other vehicles are crossing and he hits a car - which explodes due to the impact - throwing its occupant (who is, by now, on fire) out of the sunroof to burn to death 184ft from the impact. The body of the victim (Diana Chamberlain) had to be identified by finger prints.
Deveson was no stranger to illegal driving. You see, his first conviction was at the tender age of 12 (taking a vehicle without consent). At the age of 14, he was banned. At 15, he was prosecuted for reckless driving. At 18, he was convicted of dangerous driving after a 59-minute chase at speeds between 60 and 100mph. And between 1991 and 1998 he was convicted of driving while disqualified SEVEN TIMES.
Amazingly, despite what he has done in the past AND the killing of an innocent woman. He was sentenced to five years. Probably out in two and a half for 'good' behaviour.
I am starting to feel sick with the state of this country....what the f*ck is going on? And it's not just car crime - it's burglaries, muggings, robberies, rapes. Half the time the offender gets a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. And it seems all the political parties in this country are so far up their own **** arguing about f*cking Euros and beef bans that they don't want to do anything about what's really wrong with this country.
And if I take a baseball bat to someone trying to nick my car, how quick do you think the police would be around to arrest me? Pretty damn quick I'd imagine...
It's days like these that I honestly consider trying to get into politics just try and do something rather than ranting about it.......rant over. Sorry.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot....they banned him for five years. So, by the time he SHOULD be out, he can go and do the same f*cking thing again. Makes you feel sake and secure, eh?
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 26-01-2000).]
I saw an article in the newspaper today, concerning a bloke who had killed another motorist by illegal driving. In summary:
A crossroads with traffic lights. Lights are on red. Our bloke (Andrew Deveson, 23) drives up the outside of the waiting traffic at - and this is important - 100MPH and straight through the red light. Unfortunately other vehicles are crossing and he hits a car - which explodes due to the impact - throwing its occupant (who is, by now, on fire) out of the sunroof to burn to death 184ft from the impact. The body of the victim (Diana Chamberlain) had to be identified by finger prints.
Deveson was no stranger to illegal driving. You see, his first conviction was at the tender age of 12 (taking a vehicle without consent). At the age of 14, he was banned. At 15, he was prosecuted for reckless driving. At 18, he was convicted of dangerous driving after a 59-minute chase at speeds between 60 and 100mph. And between 1991 and 1998 he was convicted of driving while disqualified SEVEN TIMES.
Amazingly, despite what he has done in the past AND the killing of an innocent woman. He was sentenced to five years. Probably out in two and a half for 'good' behaviour.
I am starting to feel sick with the state of this country....what the f*ck is going on? And it's not just car crime - it's burglaries, muggings, robberies, rapes. Half the time the offender gets a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. And it seems all the political parties in this country are so far up their own **** arguing about f*cking Euros and beef bans that they don't want to do anything about what's really wrong with this country.
And if I take a baseball bat to someone trying to nick my car, how quick do you think the police would be around to arrest me? Pretty damn quick I'd imagine...
It's days like these that I honestly consider trying to get into politics just try and do something rather than ranting about it.......rant over. Sorry.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot....they banned him for five years. So, by the time he SHOULD be out, he can go and do the same f*cking thing again. Makes you feel sake and secure, eh?
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 26-01-2000).]
26 January 2000, 02:13 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was a case in the papers last year about a bloke who got three years for belting a burglar who had broken into his house and trashed it before turning on the owner!!
You are right in everything you say. But most of the time, judges feel the most frustrated as they cannot impose stricter sentences.
5 years is a joke. I mean ask yourself this. That womoen had family. My stomach turns when I think it could have happened to my family, friends or girlfriend (I can only feel deepest sympathy to her relatives).
How many lives has that person destroyed. Accidents can happen and people do die as a result. But this!.
The law says it has to be manslaughter. The fact that this nutter has had so many convictions is scarey.
Hope he rots.
....sorry, but I've gone on a bit there also. Guess we both feel the same way.
KRS
You are right in everything you say. But most of the time, judges feel the most frustrated as they cannot impose stricter sentences.
5 years is a joke. I mean ask yourself this. That womoen had family. My stomach turns when I think it could have happened to my family, friends or girlfriend (I can only feel deepest sympathy to her relatives).
How many lives has that person destroyed. Accidents can happen and people do die as a result. But this!.
The law says it has to be manslaughter. The fact that this nutter has had so many convictions is scarey.
Hope he rots.
....sorry, but I've gone on a bit there also. Guess we both feel the same way.
KRS
26 January 2000, 02:31 PM
#3
I totally agree, but help calm myself by thinking that he is going to be gang raped whilst in the showers - hopefully by a bunch of big mother f*ckers with barbed wire rapped round their *****.... 
(sorry to offend!).
Wonder what DA has to say on the subject, him allegedly being a high court judge and all that......
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Rainbird (edited 26-01-2000).]
(sorry to offend!).Wonder what DA has to say on the subject, him allegedly being a high court judge and all that......
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Rainbird (edited 26-01-2000).]
26 January 2000, 02:39 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5,485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use copy and paste on all the above and stick it in here, gets my goat too 
Use copy and paste on all the below as well, now ive read em
[This message has been edited by Ian Cook (edited 26-01-2000).]
Use copy and paste on all the below as well, now ive read em
[This message has been edited by Ian Cook (edited 26-01-2000).]
26 January 2000, 02:59 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grrr, blood about to boil! What kind of farce is our judical system? life imprisonment does not equal life, it should do, this is one thing the americans have got right.
Another think the yanks have is the 3 strikes you're out policy, which if memory serves correct, means that on your third strike your in the pen for a *very* long time. A good example of this system is in the film 'Alcatraz'. It would mean that repeat offenders might get the idea that they will be stuffed if they keep breaking the law.
Another think the yanks have is the 3 strikes you're out policy, which if memory serves correct, means that on your third strike your in the pen for a *very* long time. A good example of this system is in the film 'Alcatraz'. It would mean that repeat offenders might get the idea that they will be stuffed if they keep breaking the law.
26 January 2000, 03:08 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KRS
I've just looked at the article and it said there was a max sentance of 10 years for the offence!!
Why is it the innocent that get killed and not the scum?
I know somebody who caught a theif having a go at their Lotus. He damaged the scumbags head on the rear spoiler and got 2 years probation for his efforts. The scum walked away!
I've just looked at the article and it said there was a max sentance of 10 years for the offence!!
Why is it the innocent that get killed and not the scum?
I know somebody who caught a theif having a go at their Lotus. He damaged the scumbags head on the rear spoiler and got 2 years probation for his efforts. The scum walked away!
26 January 2000, 03:42 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 3,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, 5 years may not be so bad actually.
The sooner the f****** c*** gets out, the sooner we can send the heavies to his house for a nice chat with a pair of pliers and a bunsen burner.
Blowdog
The sooner the f****** c*** gets out, the sooner we can send the heavies to his house for a nice chat with a pair of pliers and a bunsen burner.
Blowdog
Trending Topics
26 January 2000, 03:58 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 years made up of:
4.5 years for speeding
0.5 for other minor factors (murder/red light)
Moral - if anyone kills/rapes/burgles/mugs/attacks you - just hope he speeds as he drives home - thats the only way he is likely to get nicked and prosecuted.
4.5 years for speeding
0.5 for other minor factors (murder/red light)
Moral - if anyone kills/rapes/burgles/mugs/attacks you - just hope he speeds as he drives home - thats the only way he is likely to get nicked and prosecuted.
26 January 2000, 04:30 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These people contribute nothing to society. They are just leeches. I agree; three strikes and out. This scumbag has murdered someone and he will be out in a few years and onto the next crime. Words fail me.
26 January 2000, 04:54 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad that the article has had the same effect on others as it has had on me. Just thinking about it (and substituting my wife and 18 month old son) makes me so angry (and scared).
But, if people do feel like this (and I'm sure a lot of people do) - why is it that there is not a political party who is making a stand against it? If someone came forward with a policy that meant scumbags like that would NEVER walk the streets again then I'd happily give them my vote. As far as I'm concerned, that's a far bigger reason to cast my vote than whether they support a single currency or not.
Maybe I'm being too right-wing - but what benefit to society is there for that bloke to being alive? He's broken the law (and been caught) for half his life and now he's killed someone....the fact he's been caught for other similar offences shows that rehabilitation isn't going to happen and he's only costing the taxpayer (i.e. you and me) money while he's in jail. And, while he's in there, he probably gets more leisure time than any of us ever do....
Is there a pressure group that is commited to getting the government to be harder on criminals? If not, I think I may well start one....
But, if people do feel like this (and I'm sure a lot of people do) - why is it that there is not a political party who is making a stand against it? If someone came forward with a policy that meant scumbags like that would NEVER walk the streets again then I'd happily give them my vote. As far as I'm concerned, that's a far bigger reason to cast my vote than whether they support a single currency or not.
Maybe I'm being too right-wing - but what benefit to society is there for that bloke to being alive? He's broken the law (and been caught) for half his life and now he's killed someone....the fact he's been caught for other similar offences shows that rehabilitation isn't going to happen and he's only costing the taxpayer (i.e. you and me) money while he's in jail. And, while he's in there, he probably gets more leisure time than any of us ever do....
Is there a pressure group that is commited to getting the government to be harder on criminals? If not, I think I may well start one....
26 January 2000, 05:13 PM
#11
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, let's lobby the government, get the death penalty started up again! Logical conclusion, gatsos with short range guided missile capability to deal with constant offenders! Penalty points would be renamed "lives"!
Seriously though, the government should toughen up their approach to serious crime (violent crimes against people, not property related stuff). However, your implication ("what use is the guy alive?") about death penalty/lifetime behind bars being an acceptable way of dealing with society's wayward members is going too far. The ultimate sanction, taking someones life through "legal" murder simply cannot be pardoned if new evidence arrives. How can you justify society murdering people because they have murdered another person, isn't that just fundamentally hypocritical?
My point is, just because the government get it wrong and go too far to one extreme doesn't make it a good idea to go to the opposite extreme!
Moray
[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 26-01-2000).]
Seriously though, the government should toughen up their approach to serious crime (violent crimes against people, not property related stuff). However, your implication ("what use is the guy alive?") about death penalty/lifetime behind bars being an acceptable way of dealing with society's wayward members is going too far. The ultimate sanction, taking someones life through "legal" murder simply cannot be pardoned if new evidence arrives. How can you justify society murdering people because they have murdered another person, isn't that just fundamentally hypocritical?
My point is, just because the government get it wrong and go too far to one extreme doesn't make it a good idea to go to the opposite extreme!
Moray
[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 26-01-2000).]
26 January 2000, 05:40 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moray >>>
I agree with Oz. Just get rid of these scumbags and society as a whole will benefit. Yes, of course, there may be some mistakes made, but what about the lives saved and improved from just removing this element of society?
I don't believe in any universal right and wrong, or good and evil. In this murderers own mind, he is probably quite as justified in doing what he does as we think we are trying to stop him (I cannot argue against this). We think that our outlook is "right" due to the fact that we are in the majority in condemning this sort of behaviour through social conditioning.
Hypocrisy with regard to "legalised murder"? We are just making a stand and saying "these are our values, this is the sort of society we want to live in" and carrying it through. At the end of the day, we are all hypocrites, and our value judgements are all fundamentally based on what leads to our own self-advancement.
I've written this quickly, but hopefully I've got across some sort of point.
Gary.
I agree with Oz. Just get rid of these scumbags and society as a whole will benefit. Yes, of course, there may be some mistakes made, but what about the lives saved and improved from just removing this element of society?
I don't believe in any universal right and wrong, or good and evil. In this murderers own mind, he is probably quite as justified in doing what he does as we think we are trying to stop him (I cannot argue against this). We think that our outlook is "right" due to the fact that we are in the majority in condemning this sort of behaviour through social conditioning.
Hypocrisy with regard to "legalised murder"? We are just making a stand and saying "these are our values, this is the sort of society we want to live in" and carrying it through. At the end of the day, we are all hypocrites, and our value judgements are all fundamentally based on what leads to our own self-advancement.
I've written this quickly, but hopefully I've got across some sort of point.
Gary.
26 January 2000, 05:52 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
changing the subject slightly - but still on the same tack....
...what about that poor woman who couldn't get her cancer operation in time to save her life .... yet they could find time and funds to operate on Myra Hindley, and I don't believe that was on the NHS.
Speaking from first hand experience - the criminal in this country can write his own script / cheque / do what they like and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Who said - Crime doesn't pay - sorry but it does - sometimes big time.... you can't defend yourself - your home - your family -
one day I know I'm going to end up swinging for someone that's to damn sure...
now you've got me going as well ....
...what about that poor woman who couldn't get her cancer operation in time to save her life .... yet they could find time and funds to operate on Myra Hindley, and I don't believe that was on the NHS.
Speaking from first hand experience - the criminal in this country can write his own script / cheque / do what they like and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Who said - Crime doesn't pay - sorry but it does - sometimes big time.... you can't defend yourself - your home - your family -
one day I know I'm going to end up swinging for someone that's to damn sure...
now you've got me going as well ....
26 January 2000, 07:20 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 2,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have wanted to say several times before on assorted posts to various people. STOP APOLOGISING.
You have nothing to be sorry about because you feel strongly about something.
The problem is that we (and I mean our society) apologises too much to these ar$ehole$. Sorry you got such a bad start in life, sorry you couldn't get a job etc etc.
These are people who find this hugely funny and given an inch will take the country mile.
Rant all you want. You know we are right (and I mean the majority in society). Stop being apologetic and nice to people who would "rob your snot".
If they were uneductaed animals they would be destroyed by lethal injection.
To paraphrase Derek and Clive "why she would we care, 4uck 'em".
You have nothing to be sorry about because you feel strongly about something.
The problem is that we (and I mean our society) apologises too much to these ar$ehole$. Sorry you got such a bad start in life, sorry you couldn't get a job etc etc.
These are people who find this hugely funny and given an inch will take the country mile.
Rant all you want. You know we are right (and I mean the majority in society). Stop being apologetic and nice to people who would "rob your snot".
If they were uneductaed animals they would be destroyed by lethal injection.
To paraphrase Derek and Clive "why she would we care, 4uck 'em".
26 January 2000, 07:42 PM
#16
I don't agree with the idea that an eye for an eye type punishment is just as bad as the offence. Not only is there the effect of stopping the criminal himself/herself from performing the same crime again during the imprisonment time (or forever if we are talking capital punishment !)but there is the deterent effect on other people who know what will happen if they get caught. There is also the long term effect of deleting these genes from the genepool !!!
Mick
!!!Mick
26 January 2000, 08:04 PM
#17
What are you people on?
To say that legal murder under the death penalty is acceptable for any offence is absurd.
To say that it is acceptable to kill the odd inocent person because it will stop more similar crimes is both heartless and nieve.
Do you honestly think it is acceptable to murder an inocent person and devastate their entire family in the name of crime prevention? You lot have lost the plot.
The overwelming evidence in countries that still have the death penalty is that it has NO effect on crime rates of any kind.
Do you honestly believe that sacrificing your own life for an unproven effect on crime is worthwhile, I for one dont.
Get a grip people, I know it hurts when an innocent person dies due to the irresponsible acts of a moron, but the death penalty is not the answer, never was and never will be.
To say that legal murder under the death penalty is acceptable for any offence is absurd.
To say that it is acceptable to kill the odd inocent person because it will stop more similar crimes is both heartless and nieve.
Do you honestly think it is acceptable to murder an inocent person and devastate their entire family in the name of crime prevention? You lot have lost the plot.
The overwelming evidence in countries that still have the death penalty is that it has NO effect on crime rates of any kind.
Do you honestly believe that sacrificing your own life for an unproven effect on crime is worthwhile, I for one dont.
Get a grip people, I know it hurts when an innocent person dies due to the irresponsible acts of a moron, but the death penalty is not the answer, never was and never will be.
27 January 2000, 12:48 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
totally agree with all the anti-scum points made here - except for the bit about 'a few innocent people getting killed'. If you substitue you wife / baby in for that one instead of being dead in the car it doesnt seem so appealing...
Johnf - whilst you will NEVER decrease murder /rape rates whatever you do, 'minor crime' - like joyriding, (which is minor as people do it 'bacause they're bored and its a laugh) is at a much lower rate in countries where they have very serious penalties. In this case it happened to kill someone - as muggin old people frequently does to them..
I think if you are caught for the same crime 3 times you should lose a hand - or similar. The idea, after all, is protecting the general public who arent all scum. If this was followed, Mr Deveson would never have killed that woman - cos he wouldnt be able to drive.
The judicial system is coming in for the biggest review for a long long time this year - may see abolition of magistrates, juries and all sorts - lets hope they make sentences fit the crimes. Its always amazed me that the crimes which carry the harshest sentences are usually those with money involved - wonder if thats cos the people who originally set the laws were all rich???
Oh yeah - and they will never bring back corporal punishment in a serious way, because for every one of use who hates to see peoples liberties smashed and lives ruined by people like the **** in this post theres 10 bleeding heart liberals who have nothing better to do than wail about how unjust life is for some people. Yes it is, but people should be forced to take some sort of f**king responsibilities for their actions. I swear to god, it was someone in my family he had killed he wouldnt ever get as far as jail....
Johnf - whilst you will NEVER decrease murder /rape rates whatever you do, 'minor crime' - like joyriding, (which is minor as people do it 'bacause they're bored and its a laugh) is at a much lower rate in countries where they have very serious penalties. In this case it happened to kill someone - as muggin old people frequently does to them..
I think if you are caught for the same crime 3 times you should lose a hand - or similar. The idea, after all, is protecting the general public who arent all scum. If this was followed, Mr Deveson would never have killed that woman - cos he wouldnt be able to drive.
The judicial system is coming in for the biggest review for a long long time this year - may see abolition of magistrates, juries and all sorts - lets hope they make sentences fit the crimes. Its always amazed me that the crimes which carry the harshest sentences are usually those with money involved - wonder if thats cos the people who originally set the laws were all rich???
Oh yeah - and they will never bring back corporal punishment in a serious way, because for every one of use who hates to see peoples liberties smashed and lives ruined by people like the **** in this post theres 10 bleeding heart liberals who have nothing better to do than wail about how unjust life is for some people. Yes it is, but people should be forced to take some sort of f**king responsibilities for their actions. I swear to god, it was someone in my family he had killed he wouldnt ever get as far as jail....
27 January 2000, 08:29 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, but if you thought you could be executed for committing a serious offence, it'd make you think about doing it wouldn't it?
Maybe public flogging is the way to go. Seriously, there are a number of countries that do this and the crime rates in these countries are typically much lower than the UK eg Saudi, Singapore. I know there are other factors involved but again, if you knew that by doing something unacceptable to society, you ran the risk of being punished in front of your neighbours/friends/whoever, it'd deter you wouldn't it?
Yeah this all sounds rather extreme but I wonder how people who object to the death penalty would feel if it was their wife/son/daughter that were killed by a maniac.
[This message has been edited by Richard F (edited 27-01-2000).]
Maybe public flogging is the way to go. Seriously, there are a number of countries that do this and the crime rates in these countries are typically much lower than the UK eg Saudi, Singapore. I know there are other factors involved but again, if you knew that by doing something unacceptable to society, you ran the risk of being punished in front of your neighbours/friends/whoever, it'd deter you wouldn't it?
Yeah this all sounds rather extreme but I wonder how people who object to the death penalty would feel if it was their wife/son/daughter that were killed by a maniac.
[This message has been edited by Richard F (edited 27-01-2000).]
27 January 2000, 08:54 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago I saw a suggestion as follows:
each crime has a number of points allocated, i.e speeding 1 point per mph speed exceeded
burgularly 50
murder was very high, like 175 or something
points would drop off at a steady rate, like 5 per year
at 100 you would serve a jail sentence, but this would not reduce your points
at 200 something very nasty would happen
I liked the idea, but admit it would be a bugger to implement
robski
each crime has a number of points allocated, i.e speeding 1 point per mph speed exceeded
burgularly 50
murder was very high, like 175 or something
points would drop off at a steady rate, like 5 per year
at 100 you would serve a jail sentence, but this would not reduce your points
at 200 something very nasty would happen
I liked the idea, but admit it would be a bugger to implement
robski
27 January 2000, 09:17 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BarryK
"If they were uneductaed animals they would be destroyed by lethal injection"
What a stupid statement. Animals don't do this sort of thing. They kill for survival, not becuase they are spitefull, lazy, evil thieving scumbags like the man described in the posts. I hate that descriprion..."like animals"....always gets my tail up !!!
(ok...I'll come clean...i'm a warewolf!
Gethin.
"If they were uneductaed animals they would be destroyed by lethal injection"
What a stupid statement. Animals don't do this sort of thing. They kill for survival, not becuase they are spitefull, lazy, evil thieving scumbags like the man described in the posts. I hate that descriprion..."like animals"....always gets my tail up !!!
(ok...I'll come clean...i'm a warewolf!
Gethin.
27 January 2000, 09:48 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>johnfelstead
>To say that legal murder under the death penalty is acceptable for any offence is absurd.
-Hmmm....so, if it were your loved ones in that car. Your loved ones burning to death at the side of the road, you'd be quite happy to see that bloke driving around, getting on with his life, five years later? B*llocks! And with regard to it being unproven......this bloke was spotted at the scene, crashed his car, ran off and was caught trying bury his soiled clothes in his garden. He's made no attempt to deny it. Why bother? Five years isn't much for robbing someone of their life and future.
>The overwelming evidence in countries that still have the death penalty is that it has NO effect on crime rates of any kind.
-Which countries are you talking about? The Islamic nations - who adopt a very severe system - have a much lower level of crime than here. The US is a strange example because it's one of the few countries where owning a firearm is a god-given right.
Take Myra Hindley. Guilty of murdering and torturing children. Definitely guilty. But the tax payer not only pays for her accommodation, her food, her leisure but also her priority medical care. It stinks. She's going to be locked up for her entire life, never freed. So what's the point of her being alive? None. None whatsoever.
If sentences were much harder (and not just for major offences) then crime would be reduced. I've known plenty of people who've got into crime because, as kids, they were given a slap on the wrist and effectively got away with it. Later in life they carried on assuming they could get away with it and, by then, it was too late to go back. Many of them believe that, if they'd been punished more severely when they first offended, they'd not have continued.
I couldn't believe that maniac was let off with five years because of `the suffering a longer sentence would cause his family, partner and children'. Jesus, what about the suffering caused to the family of the victim?
It's time this country started sticking up for victims of crime rather than sticking the boot into them by letting the criminals get away with it.
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
>To say that legal murder under the death penalty is acceptable for any offence is absurd.
-Hmmm....so, if it were your loved ones in that car. Your loved ones burning to death at the side of the road, you'd be quite happy to see that bloke driving around, getting on with his life, five years later? B*llocks! And with regard to it being unproven......this bloke was spotted at the scene, crashed his car, ran off and was caught trying bury his soiled clothes in his garden. He's made no attempt to deny it. Why bother? Five years isn't much for robbing someone of their life and future.
>The overwelming evidence in countries that still have the death penalty is that it has NO effect on crime rates of any kind.
-Which countries are you talking about? The Islamic nations - who adopt a very severe system - have a much lower level of crime than here. The US is a strange example because it's one of the few countries where owning a firearm is a god-given right.
Take Myra Hindley. Guilty of murdering and torturing children. Definitely guilty. But the tax payer not only pays for her accommodation, her food, her leisure but also her priority medical care. It stinks. She's going to be locked up for her entire life, never freed. So what's the point of her being alive? None. None whatsoever.
If sentences were much harder (and not just for major offences) then crime would be reduced. I've known plenty of people who've got into crime because, as kids, they were given a slap on the wrist and effectively got away with it. Later in life they carried on assuming they could get away with it and, by then, it was too late to go back. Many of them believe that, if they'd been punished more severely when they first offended, they'd not have continued.
I couldn't believe that maniac was let off with five years because of `the suffering a longer sentence would cause his family, partner and children'. Jesus, what about the suffering caused to the family of the victim?
It's time this country started sticking up for victims of crime rather than sticking the boot into them by letting the criminals get away with it.
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
27 January 2000, 10:58 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut his f*****g hands off and he won't do it again. Does anyone honestly believe this lowlife will return to society a reformed character in 5 years. Why give persistant offenders the chance to do it again.
27 January 2000, 11:12 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just seen a sign in the old kitchen in our building: "No smoking allowed in food room containing uncovered food. Fine 2000 pounds and/or 2 years in prison". Que?
Another instance where the punishment and crime don't quite match up. Hmmmm. Sod the PC lobby, if someone breaks into my house they'll get what they deserve - that baseball bat will get some use.
Dave
Another instance where the punishment and crime don't quite match up. Hmmmm. Sod the PC lobby, if someone breaks into my house they'll get what they deserve - that baseball bat will get some use.
Dave
27 January 2000, 01:21 PM
#27
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been browsing the ScoobyNet bulletin board avidly for the past two months while I make my mind up whetherto go for one or not. Ive been very impressed by the helpful and imformative nature of the threads and the general sense of camaraderie which comes across. Up until now! This thread has virtually made up my mind NOT to go for one. Obviously the car is an amazing machine but if the views expressed in this thread are generally representative of the type of people who drive these cars then count me out. Apart from Moray Mackenzie and John Felstead (who incidentally appear to be two of the most regular and informative of contributors) I have never read such right wing reactionary clap trap since "Mein Kampf". I really thought that these sort of political, moral and social views had been left in the last generation. My father and grandfather came out with this "eye for an eye- rot in hell" drivel 30 years ago. I really thought that the next generations would be more enlightened. And as for "deleting genes from the gene pool" I think that the author of the above mentioned book had similar ideas to this and look what happened there.It may be that most of the contributors to this thread have jumped on the bandwagon and the more moderate and free thinking members havent bothered to reply. Please reassure me if Im right.Just a final thought. Just Imagine if your son or daughter was the perpretator of a fatal accident rather than the victim (stupid moment, peer pressure etc) Support death penalty? I think not.
27 January 2000, 01:21 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nightmare - I disagree that for every one person who feels like this, there are ten bleeding heart liberals. I think it's just that it's generally the liberals who make the most noise.....
That's why I'm all for joining/organising a pressure group that speaks up for the average bloke in the street. The only way to stop this country going even further down the pan is for people who believe we should make a stand to speak louder. I'm fed up with the PC climate that seems to want us to 'understand' the offender, to feel bad about wanting to punish them - after all, it's not their fault they steal cars and kill people - it's either capitalism, society or something else equally bogus that's to blame. All together now.....Ah diddums!
KrisW: What kind of person makes a decision about buying a car based upon the beliefs of some of those who buy them? Most bizarre....
But, you've fallen into confusing beliefs on justice with politics. Wanting the streets safe isn't right-wing. Wanting harder sentences for those who commit crime isn't right-wing.
As for your comments that compare these beliefs with those put forward by the ***** - I, personally, (and I'm sure a good many others here) feel insulted that you would even try to compare the wholesale genocide of an entire ethnic group with the desire for stricter laws and punishments.
As for your last question. If a son of my had the past record of that bloke and had did what the bloke did (which, if you've forgotten - was to drive at 100mph through a red light, hitting another car and killing an innocent woman in a blazing inferno) then:
a) I'd have totally failed as a parent.
b) I wouldn't consider him any son of mine.
If it was your wife/girlfriend/mother/sister in that car I think you'd find yourself taking a different line.
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
That's why I'm all for joining/organising a pressure group that speaks up for the average bloke in the street. The only way to stop this country going even further down the pan is for people who believe we should make a stand to speak louder. I'm fed up with the PC climate that seems to want us to 'understand' the offender, to feel bad about wanting to punish them - after all, it's not their fault they steal cars and kill people - it's either capitalism, society or something else equally bogus that's to blame. All together now.....Ah diddums!
KrisW: What kind of person makes a decision about buying a car based upon the beliefs of some of those who buy them? Most bizarre....
But, you've fallen into confusing beliefs on justice with politics. Wanting the streets safe isn't right-wing. Wanting harder sentences for those who commit crime isn't right-wing.
As for your comments that compare these beliefs with those put forward by the ***** - I, personally, (and I'm sure a good many others here) feel insulted that you would even try to compare the wholesale genocide of an entire ethnic group with the desire for stricter laws and punishments.
As for your last question. If a son of my had the past record of that bloke and had did what the bloke did (which, if you've forgotten - was to drive at 100mph through a red light, hitting another car and killing an innocent woman in a blazing inferno) then:
a) I'd have totally failed as a parent.
b) I wouldn't consider him any son of mine.
If it was your wife/girlfriend/mother/sister in that car I think you'd find yourself taking a different line.
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 27-01-2000).]
27 January 2000, 01:36 PM
#29
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krisw,
I hardly think that the social/political/moral standing of contributors to this forum would have any effect on whether you buy a Scooby or not. As one of the other threads says (Bad boys and Wide Boys I think), the car is worth having because of its performance, value for money, practicality etc. I'm sure that the view you abhor would reflected in a 'Ford Focus Drivers Club' or whatever. You will soon find there are no vehicles left for you to choose! For better or worse, the views expressed are in the majority for the UK public. Whilst I agree that the return of capital punishment or vigilanties would not be the answer, people genuinely feel the the law favours the crook, not the victim, and a bit of justice for these ba$tards now and then would be most welcome
Failing that, I think we should split their noses open with a boat hook! (Oh no, not that thread again)
[This message has been edited by Geezer (edited 27-01-2000).]
I hardly think that the social/political/moral standing of contributors to this forum would have any effect on whether you buy a Scooby or not. As one of the other threads says (Bad boys and Wide Boys I think), the car is worth having because of its performance, value for money, practicality etc. I'm sure that the view you abhor would reflected in a 'Ford Focus Drivers Club' or whatever. You will soon find there are no vehicles left for you to choose! For better or worse, the views expressed are in the majority for the UK public. Whilst I agree that the return of capital punishment or vigilanties would not be the answer, people genuinely feel the the law favours the crook, not the victim, and a bit of justice for these ba$tards now and then would be most welcome
Failing that, I think we should split their noses open with a boat hook!
(Oh no, not that thread again)[This message has been edited by Geezer (edited 27-01-2000).]
27 January 2000, 01:38 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krisw,
if you are going to buy a car based on what people who drive them think, I will make it easier for you, Volvo. Think the extras list includes a pipe and cloth cap.
To say these views are equivalent to Hitler is just absurd. The political situation in Germany during the 30s is very different to 00s in GB.
On the issue of punishment fitting the crime, I agree that we are too soft.
Its tricky, but you need to KNOW beyond doubt, i.e 100% not 99.99% that the person did it. If you do, the punsihment should be permanent enough to last for life.
MH, well yes it takes the ****. With waiting lists for honest tax paying citizens we rush the scum to hospital for priority treatment.
robski
if you are going to buy a car based on what people who drive them think, I will make it easier for you, Volvo. Think the extras list includes a pipe and cloth cap.
To say these views are equivalent to Hitler is just absurd. The political situation in Germany during the 30s is very different to 00s in GB.
On the issue of punishment fitting the crime, I agree that we are too soft.
Its tricky, but you need to KNOW beyond doubt, i.e 100% not 99.99% that the person did it. If you do, the punsihment should be permanent enough to last for life.
MH, well yes it takes the ****. With waiting lists for honest tax paying citizens we rush the scum to hospital for priority treatment.
robski