why are the uk's laws against criminals so lame??

HAMMERS38 · November 2006

as the title says, why are our laws so lame? and yet if we take matters into our own hands we will get the blame.

Anageth · November 2006

Prison over-population, judges are becoming more lenient.

olddaddy · November 2006

And because God only blesses the United States of America because it is His peoples chosen land.....

Cooktastico · November 2006

we have some lame laws in texas; allow me to explain.

in texas, if you publicly announce someone as your wife THREE (3) times, then she is legally married to you and then can turn around and divorce youu and take all of your shit. that's just one of our dumb laws, there's plenty more.

outfctrl · November 2006

And because God only blesses the United States of America because it is His peoples chosen land.....

Wise guy!!

outfctrl · November 2006

I live in Florida. Now we have some dumb laws.

Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.
A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.
It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
It is illegal to skateboard without a license.
When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.
It is considered an offense to shower naked.
You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.
Oral sex is illegal.
You may not kiss your wife's breasts.
Penalty for horse theft is death by hanging.
It is illegal to block any traveled wagon road.

Hochete · November 2006

Two words: Human Rights.

We've been dishing out 'rights' like there's no tomorrow over the past 30 years. Unfortunately doing so has entirely crippled our justice system, as it now seems 'everything' with a pulse now has rights. Until we realise our mistakes and start removing human rights laws from those undeserved of them, we'll never see an improvement in our current law system.

HAMMERS38 · November 2006

Originally posted by Anageth

Prison over-population, judges are becoming more lenient.

true, surely it wouldnt hurt to take a bit of the taxpayers money and build a couple of escape from new york style prisons

Calmae · November 2006

That would be the smart idea...

what would of been good was to instead of spent 5 billion + pounds on the Olympics, the govenment should have offered it back to Paris and used the money to improve the current school issue and build more prisons.

But the debate goes much much deeper then that and I can't be arsed to type that right now ^_^

Gamewize · November 2006

Originally posted by olddaddy
And because God only blesses the United States of America because it is His peoples chosen land.....

Umm, no comment on this except you'll insult more than a few people.

You want a retarded law? There a place in Utah where it's illegal to FROWN. It's punishable by jail time.

What the Hell is wrong with them?

Finwe · November 2006

Simple fix to prison over-population. Just build more, and use the prisoners for slave labor to more than make their expenses worth.

Cowinspace · November 2006

In general I think our law is OK, there are always a few cases that get blown out of proportion by the media, as well as a few that deserve the attention. But I wouldn't trade our law system (more specifically the scots system) for any other, especially some of the european system (guilty until proven innocent).

Anageth · November 2006

Originally posted by Finwe
Simple fix to prison over-population. Just build more, and use the prisoners for slave labor to more than make their expenses worth.

Just a small hitch there, seeing as how slave labor is illegal...

baff · November 2006

We have the highest number of inmates in Europe, per capita, because we have too many laws. Is my opinion.

And the wrong laws at at that. People I think should be in prison, aren't. People I think shouldn't be in Prison are.

Is building extra prisons the only real solution? If so why do all our neighbouring states not need to do so?

.

Perhaps British people are culturally more dispensated to crime.

EU human rights laws are gay. They put the wrong people in jail and leave the right ones free to damage society. They are a catch all inclusive system of law made by people who don't live here, don't represent us and don't care what we want.

.

Slavery should stay illegal. It's part of our national anthem and the legacy of our Empire to the world.

Xexima · November 2006

Originally posted by baff
We have the highest number of inmates in Europe, per capita, because we have too many laws. Is my opinion.

Meh.. that's not horrible, we have the most prisoners in the world, and more than 50% are from drug violations.. That's bad.

baff · November 2006

Yeah, we have twice our nearest rivals but you have ten times ours.

I'll still drink to the land of the free if you will.

Xexima · November 2006

Originally posted by baff
Yeah, we have twice our nearest rivals but you have ten times ours. I'll still drink to the land of the free if you will.

You mean antarctica right?

baff · November 2006

I was thinking more about New Zealand or Kenya, penguins make me nervous.

zeedaam · November 2006

Legalize drugs already, Jeeze! It makes up about 38% of the prison populations.

Khuzarrz · November 2006

Originally posted by jdun1
Originally posted by Hohbein
Two words: Human Rights.

We've been dishing out 'rights' like there's no tomorrow over the past 30 years. Unfortunately doing so has entirely crippled our justice system, as it now seems 'everything' with a pulse now has rights. Until we realise our mistakes and start removing human rights laws from those undeserved of them, we'll never see an improvement in our current law system.

Probably right. This is what happen when liberals runs the country. They treat crimials like saints and victems like the devil.

The UK government is hardly liberal... They run the line I think... As for saints/devils, I think both victim and criminal should be treated with the same scrutiny. A victim is only a victim AFTER the trial. Until then they're effectively a suspect, of fabricating evidence/purgory/wasting police time etc. Laws shouldn't protect criminals, so much as punish liars (and thus protect the innocent accused).

When a crimial only get 1 week in jail slicing someone face off and then able to sue the victime, there is someone wrong with that society.

When did this happen?:S I remember the story about the guy who phoned the police saying his wife bit his finger off and the woman on the phone replied "And what did you do to provoke this?" That made me laugh... But 1 week in jail... Link please.

They put a 80 years old farmer without no crimial record and an outstanding citizen in jail IIRC because he shoot some robbers breaking into his home in the middle of the night. He got life and the so called crimial were free to go.

Yep, and damn right to. He shot them with a weapon, which as far as I can remember from the story was unlicensed and therefore illegal. He did not shoot them as they broke into, or even were leaving the house. Having spotted them running away from the house, he went to the lounge and retrieved his shotgun, showing intent, which is illegal, then, as they left his property, he proceeded to shoot them in the back. They had not threatened him nor his wife. They were retreating from the house. He shot them in the back. It was totally unnecessary to do so, and I support the verdict 100%. As far as I can remember, they had not even stolen anything, they had just broken into his greenhouse. (I can't remember exactly, but it was something like that). If a policeman isn't allowed to shoot a vandal in the back as they run away from a wall they were spray-painting on, why the hell should a homeowner be allowed to shoot children running from a greenhouse they broke into??

If that happen in the USA he would get the key to the town and a hero. Hell I'll buy him a year worth of shootgun shells.

That's because you're all f*cking sick. Well armed citizens=Well behaved criminals... Says the country with the largest imprisoned population in the western (possibly the entire) world... The country with the highest guncrime rates in the western world... The country with the highest level of CHILDREN taking guns to school. You all need to get over your own stupidity and admit that you just want guns because you're trigger happy. Then you need to ban them and join the civilised world.

baff · November 2006

The land owner (Farmer, Tony Martin) didn't shoot any children they were both adults. They entered his house not his greenhouse. They were inside his house when he shot them.

He claimed he had been the victim of persistent abuse, break ins and threats at his farm house and the police had refused to help. Prior to that break in he said £6,000 of his property had been stolen. The police doubt his claims to be true. (Which is police language for "It's not my job to investigate crime").

The gun he used was a pump action shotgun with a magasine capacity of 5. He had no firearms lisence and that type of weapon has been outlawed here.

On the fateful night, when interupted, the burglars attempted to flee, Martin shot them both. One in the back (Barras) and one in the leg (Fearun). One died in the grounds (Barras, aged 16), the other got away wounded.

Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. But on appeal had his sentence reduced to 5 years for manslaughter. He served 3.

The surviving burglar (Fearrun, aged 30), was sentenced to 30 months with an additional year for previous offences. He served 15. He went on to sue Martin for loss of income due to his injury. A suit which he comically dropped once it was revealed that he had never worked a day in his life. This law suit was paid for by legal aid and his solicitor cost the tax payer £5,000.

.

As a gun owning British land owner living in a remote house that was burgled again last week for the second time in 6 months, I can safely say I have every sympathy with the farmer, Tony Martin.

Dabble · December 2006

And because God only blesses the United States of America because it is His peoples chosen land.....

Xexima · December 2006

Originally posted by baff
The land owner (Farmer, Tony Martin) didn't shoot any children they were both adults. They entered his house not his greenhouse. They were inside his house when he shot them. He claimed he had been the victim of persistent abuse, break ins and threats at his farm house and the police had refused to help. Prior to that break in he said £6,000 of his property had been stolen. The police doubt his claims to be true. (Which is police language for "It's not my job to investigate crime"). The gun he used was a pump action shotgun with a magasine capacity of 5. He had no firearms lisence and that type of weapon has been outlawed here. On the fateful night, when interupted, the burglars attempted to flee, Martin shot them both. One in the back (Barras) and one in the leg (Fearun). One died in the grounds (Barras, aged 16), the other got away wounded. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. But on appeal had his sentence reduced to 5 years for manslaughter. He served 3. The surviving burglar (Fearrun, aged 30), was sentenced to 30 months with an additional year for previous offences. He served 15. He went on to sue Martin for loss of income due to his injury. A suit which he comically dropped once it was revealed that he had never worked a day in his life. This law suit was paid for by legal aid and his solicitor cost the tax payer £5,000. . As a gun owning British land owner living in a remote house that was burgled again last week for the second time in 6 months, I can safely say I have every sympathy with the farmer, Tony Martin.

I don't sympathize with either party, they were both in the wrong. The farmer had an illegal gun in which he fired and killed a minor. The other party was stealing from the farmer. Hell, I think the farmer actually should have gotten more time, unless, of course the intruders had a weapon. I even doubt that the farmer yelled at them to get out, otherwise he would not have shot the kid in the back.

Khuzarrz · December 2006

Originally posted by baff
The land owner (Farmer, Tony Martin) didn't shoot any children they were both adults. They entered his house not his greenhouse. They were inside his house when he shot them. He claimed he had been the victim of persistent abuse, break ins and threats at his farm house and the police had refused to help. Prior to that break in he said £6,000 of his property had been stolen. The police doubt his claims to be true. (Which is police language for "It's not my job to investigate crime"). The gun he used was a pump action shotgun with a magasine capacity of 5. He had no firearms lisence and that type of weapon has been outlawed here. On the fateful night, when interupted, the burglars attempted to flee, Martin shot them both. One in the back (Barras) and one in the leg (Fearun). One died in the grounds (Barras, aged 16), the other got away wounded. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. But on appeal had his sentence reduced to 5 years for manslaughter. He served 3. The surviving burglar (Fearrun, aged 30), was sentenced to 30 months with an additional year for previous offences. He served 15. He went on to sue Martin for loss of income due to his injury. A suit which he comically dropped once it was revealed that he had never worked a day in his life. This law suit was paid for by legal aid and his solicitor cost the tax payer £5,000. . As a gun owning British land owner living in a remote house that was burgled again last week for the second time in 6 months, I can safely say I have every sympathy with the farmer, Tony Martin.

Is there a similar case to have happened recently? That case (or so I thought) was the case study we used when studying what is considered self-defence, as well as to show prior verdicts to the effect that burglers were protected if they were fleeing the home. It makes no sense if the shootings did happen in the house (unless they were trying to run from the house at the time). The greenhouse bit I wasn't sure of, it's just something I seem to remember from a reconstruction, as was the thing about it being kids (aparently one was an adult, the other was a child, so I was 50% there

).

I consider our laws in terms of theft to be quite adiquate now. The issue is our police department, not the laws.

And seriously baff, get some personal security! A couple of cameras won't cost you more than these break-ins must, and once you have their faces the police have no excuse.

Xexima · December 2006

Originally posted by Khuzarrz
Originally posted by baff
The land owner (Farmer, Tony Martin) didn't shoot any children they were both adults. They entered his house not his greenhouse. They were inside his house when he shot them. He claimed he had been the victim of persistent abuse, break ins and threats at his farm house and the police had refused to help. Prior to that break in he said £6,000 of his property had been stolen. The police doubt his claims to be true. (Which is police language for "It's not my job to investigate crime"). The gun he used was a pump action shotgun with a magasine capacity of 5. He had no firearms lisence and that type of weapon has been outlawed here. On the fateful night, when interupted, the burglars attempted to flee, Martin shot them both. One in the back (Barras) and one in the leg (Fearun). One died in the grounds (Barras, aged 16), the other got away wounded. Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. But on appeal had his sentence reduced to 5 years for manslaughter. He served 3. The surviving burglar (Fearrun, aged 30), was sentenced to 30 months with an additional year for previous offences. He served 15. He went on to sue Martin for loss of income due to his injury. A suit which he comically dropped once it was revealed that he had never worked a day in his life. This law suit was paid for by legal aid and his solicitor cost the tax payer £5,000. . As a gun owning British land owner living in a remote house that was burgled again last week for the second time in 6 months, I can safely say I have every sympathy with the farmer, Tony Martin.

Is there a similar case to have happened recently? That case (or so I thought) was the case study we used when studying what is considered self-defence, as well as to show prior verdicts to the effect that burglers were protected if they were fleeing the home. It makes no sense if the shootings did happen in the house (unless they were trying to run from the house at the time). The greenhouse bit I wasn't sure of, it's just something I seem to remember from a reconstruction, as was the thing about it being kids (aparently one was an adult, the other was a child, so I was 50% there

).

I consider our laws in terms of theft to be quite adiquate now. The issue is our police department, not the laws.

And seriously baff, get some personal security! A couple of cameras won't cost you more than these break-ins must, and once you have their faces the police have no excuse.

edit:nvm, I read it wrong.

HAMMERS38 · December 2006

Originally posted by Gamewize

Originally posted by olddaddy
And because God only blesses the United States of America because it is His peoples chosen land.....

Umm, no comment on this except you'll insult more than a few people.

You want a retarded law? There a place in Utah where it's illegal to FROWN. It's punishable by jail time.

What the Hell is wrong with them?

well i read once that if you go to sleep on top of your fridge in texas you will get arrested.....odd

Howdy, Stranger!

why are the uk's laws against criminals so lame??

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

why are the uk's laws against criminals so lame??

Comments