Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@minim wrote:
………. How can we make sentencing tough enough to make people think twice about actually committing these crimes in the first place?
I was chewing this point over for a while – in terms of a punishment being a deterrent and it occurred to me that the severity of a punishment is not always in itself the deterrent. It is the fear of getting caught that acts as a deterrent to crime.
Problem is that ‘criminals’ don’t get caught often enough and when they finally are convicted of committing a crime, all the namby pamby ‘liberals’ come out of the woodwork with a variety of pathetic excuses as to why they ought not to be punished too severely …….. conveniently forgetting that this may have been one of many crimes they committed, but for which they wern’t caught & convicted.
My own preference is for punishments to be severe and based solely on retribution and NOT on rehabilitation. If they can’t behave, then simply lock ’em away and leave ’em to rot.
@bat wrote:
Here here PB. I have blocked ALL these social networking sites on my pc. All I ever seem to read about is how much grief these sites cause, with users using them to bully other people. I don’t have msn either.
Good to hear that oh Batty one.
Mind you I do find it slightly strange that people complain about privacy issues when they use social networking sites. After all surely the whole point of posting on them is to tell the whole internet (i.e. millions of strangers) all about the trivia of your daily lives?
If you only intend a few “friends” to be aware of your goings on, maybe tell them face to face or telephone them instead???
@sarah_1 wrote:
Hellooooooooo sorry thought this was a RIP thread. :?
Yes it was …… BTW Patrick who????
That’s odd …. I thought they only microwaved cats in Corby.
Rainy, the big downside of social networking sites such as Facebook, Bebo and others is that users CAN see your ‘footprint’. This is held to be a part of the “fun” of social networking, even though your ‘privacy’ is invariably compromised in the process.
My advice to anybody with issues over their ‘privacy’ is NOT to use social networking sites.
@tictax wrote:
u dnt pay tax on bets anymore
Oh well …. another good theory bites the dust!!!
Mind you, from my (above) stupid comment, you can probably figure out that I haven’t bet on stuff for decades.
Strictly speaking, a gambling debt is unenforceable in law i.e. you cannot sue in the Courts for your ‘winnings’ if the bookie refuses to pay you.
It would be interesting if, as most ‘professional’ gamblers do, this punter paid the betting tax on his bet when he placed it – rather than in any possible winnings he might have received. If he did this, then the bookie would have to have accepted the bet aa they would have to account to HMRC for the betting tax element.
This would make it somewhat difficult for the bookie to deny that a valid bet had been placed and accepted.
My guess is that they will come to an ‘arrangement’ with the punter so as to avoid bad publicity.
I absolutely agree with the main thrust of this post. Offensive and / or racist comments made by chatters can and will never be ‘accepted’.
That said, preventing it is an entirely different matter altogether. Unfortunately for the 99.9% of reasonable users there is the occasional ‘nasty’ or disruptive user who absolutely revels in the attention they get (in the way of outrage) from other room users every time they type in their unpleasant comments etc.
Indeed some of this tiny minority deliberately set out to goad other users with their comments as a way of getting attantion. They are like the unruly child at school who cannot cope with lessons and therefore sets out to be as disruptive as possible so as to mask their inadequacy.
Just one little observation from ‘minim’s’ post (above). “………as long as the sentence fits the crime.”
This really is the central point isn’t it? – and is probably the one that irritates most reasonable people. The problem we have allowed to happen in today’s so called “caring society” is that invariable the sentence fits the criminal and not the crime.
Too often, seemingly ghastly crimes are punished with what appear to be remarkably lenient sentences. This is probably what exercises most people. If selected types of crime were to attract mandatory or minimum punishments, then the chances are that the public’s need for retribution would be sated somewhat.
OK there would be endless agonising from the tree hugging brigade and loads of inane waffling from the ‘chatterati’ but I suspect that crimes such as child molesting (in all its awful forms); premeditated murder; sexual offences, and so on, would offer a good start and one upon which the majority could agree.
