Hope they rot

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Hope they rot

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Jun 16 2.09pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I think the problem is that any change in the way law is judged applies to everyone. A government in the future could use it's absolute power through the judiciary for reasons other than justice. Exactly, whilst I don't have a problem with deporting criminals when they have served their sentence, I do not agree with further punishing people who aren't criminals, such as their children and wives. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Jun 16 2.09pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think the problem is that any change in the way law is judged applies to everyone. A government in the future could use it's absolute power through the judiciary for reasons other than justice.

Exactly, whilst I don't have a problem with deporting criminals when they have served their sentence, I do not agree with further punishing people who aren't criminals, such as their children and wives.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Jun 16 2.15pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Explain to me why it is a dangerous concept for us to want to deport rapists/murderers? Compare and contrast with eg Iran/Saudi where it is legal to chop off thieves hands, throw gay people off a cliff, behead blasphemers etc? I'm confused......... I don't have an issue with deporting them. However they do have family, and I am against by default punishing their wives, children and husbands etc by first imprisoning them, and then deporting them and separating them further. Now if the wife / husband and kids want nothing to do with the father /mother after their sentence, fair enough, but I don't believe in separating families unnecessarily. The problem isn't you're abusing the rights of the offender, but that you're potentially abusing the rights of people who have committed no crime. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Jun 16 2.15pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Explain to me why it is a dangerous concept for us to want to deport rapists/murderers?

Compare and contrast with eg Iran/Saudi where it is legal to chop off thieves hands, throw gay people off a cliff, behead blasphemers etc?

I'm confused.........

I don't have an issue with deporting them. However they do have family, and I am against by default punishing their wives, children and husbands etc by first imprisoning them, and then deporting them and separating them further.

Now if the wife / husband and kids want nothing to do with the father /mother after their sentence, fair enough, but I don't believe in separating families unnecessarily.

The problem isn't you're abusing the rights of the offender, but that you're potentially abusing the rights of people who have committed no crime.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 16 3.54pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I don't have an issue with deporting them. However they do have family, and I am against by default punishing their wives, children and husbands etc by first imprisoning them, and then deporting them and separating them further. Now if the wife / husband and kids want nothing to do with the father /mother after their sentence, fair enough, but I don't believe in separating families unnecessarily. The problem isn't you're abusing the rights of the offender, but that you're potentially abusing the rights of people who have committed no crime. The rights of a small handful of people (his family) are outweighed by the rights of the rest of the population to have the cnt removed from their midst. That's been the problem all along - the rights of society as a whole being subordinated to those of an individual or a tiny group. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 21 Jun 16 3.54pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Now if the wife / husband and kids want nothing to do with the father /mother after their sentence, fair enough, but I don't believe in separating families unnecessarily.

The problem isn't you're abusing the rights of the offender, but that you're potentially abusing the rights of people who have committed no crime.

The rights of a small handful of people (his family) are outweighed by the rights of the rest of the population to have the c*nt removed from their midst. That's been the problem all along - the rights of society as a whole being subordinated to those of an individual or a tiny group.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 21 Jun 16 4.02pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt The rights of a small handful of people (his family) are outweighed by the rights of the rest of the population to have the c*nt removed from their midst. That's been the problem all along - the rights of society as a whole being subordinated to those of an individual or a tiny group. The courts certainly need to serve the majority better. We should all be afforded equal rights but at the risk of sounding like Mr Spock, the needs of the many must take priority where safety is concerned.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Jun 16 4.02pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

The courts certainly need to serve the majority better.

We should all be afforded equal rights but at the risk of sounding like Mr Spock, the needs of the many must take priority where safety is concerned.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 21 Jun 16 4.10pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt The rights of a small handful of people (his family) are outweighed by the rights of the rest of the population to have the c*nt removed from their midst. That's been the problem all along - the rights of society as a whole being subordinated to those of an individual or a tiny group. and wider consequences for everyone you're related to might be a more incentive not to break the law in the first place. Australia will deport you despite having your family there and even if you've been living there since a month old, if you break the law. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 21 Jun 16 4.10pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

and wider consequences for everyone you're related to might be a more incentive not to break the law in the first place.

Australia will deport you despite having your family there and even if you've been living there since a month old, if you break the law.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 21 Jun 16 4.29pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think that would undermine Justice, in favour of retribution and political exploitation of crime for popularity. The idea of having a system of rights and an independent arbitrator over matters of state and citizens rights, is better served by the European court. The idea of a nation, just being able to punish or deport, as they see fit, irrespective of their own laws, is a dangerous concept for any society. I think the frustration is valid, but that the presentation in media of why 'the state cannot just do as it sees fit' is poorly placed. A government that is not bound by law, other than its own, is a dangerous prospect, not just for criminals, but for anyone in future who's behaviour it determines as criminal. How ever did we manage to apply the law before 1950? As long as the government respects the right to independence of the judiciary, then there should be no problems. There never were before. A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 21 Jun 16 4.29pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think that would undermine Justice, in favour of retribution and political exploitation of crime for popularity. The idea of having a system of rights and an independent arbitrator over matters of state and citizens rights, is better served by the European court.

The idea of a nation, just being able to punish or deport, as they see fit, irrespective of their own laws, is a dangerous concept for any society. I think the frustration is valid, but that the presentation in media of why 'the state cannot just do as it sees fit' is poorly placed.

A government that is not bound by law, other than its own, is a dangerous prospect, not just for criminals, but for anyone in future who's behaviour it determines as criminal.

How ever did we manage to apply the law before 1950?
As long as the government respects the right to independence of the judiciary, then there should be no problems. There never were before.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Hrolf The Ganger 21 Jun 16 4.45pm
Originally posted by becky How ever did we manage to apply the law before 1950? As long as the government respects the right to independence of the judiciary, then there should be no problems. There never were before. That is dependent on whether the judiciary are and remain independent of government. I have my doubts. Of course, I am loathed to say, we would not have this particular problem if these people had not been allowed here in the first place. Unfortunatly, this is what happens with the liberal argument. They laugh at you when you say that multi culture on a large scale will cause huge social problems and then when it does, they call you a racist for pointing it out.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Jun 16 4.45pm

Originally posted by becky

How ever did we manage to apply the law before 1950?
As long as the government respects the right to independence of the judiciary, then there should be no problems. There never were before.

That is dependent on whether the judiciary are and remain independent of government. I have my doubts.

Of course, I am loathed to say, we would not have this particular problem if these people had not been allowed here in the first place.

Unfortunatly, this is what happens with the liberal argument. They laugh at you when you say that multi culture on a large scale will cause huge social problems and then when it does, they call you a racist for pointing it out.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 3 << First < 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Hope they rot

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors