I completely agree. That just makes a complete mockery of our justice system. The only silver lining is that this homeless man is going to get a roof and 3 meals a day for a few weeks and hopefully some support post-release to help him find a permanent home and some support for any addictions or MH issues he has.

 

I just walked right into that one, didn't I? :rolleyes:

You did indeed! ^_^

You did indeed! ^_^

 

Usually I am good at spotting those. :blush:

 

On the subject of crime and punishment, what about the man who picked up a London Marathon runner's number that had fallen off, ran the last part of the race and claimed a finisher's medal? He was jailed for sixteen weeks. The marathon organisers tried to claim the sentence was justified because his actions damaged the integrity of their race. I don't see how any sort of custodial sentence in this case does anybody any good.

 

Ew.

 

That is not justified at all. It is a RACE. Strip the medal, the end.

 

Perhaps there's more to this than has been reported?

 

You won't hear me saying this too often ;) , but I agree the punishment seems a bit steep.

Personally, I've always though of myself as someone who stands up against injustice - that's partly why I suggest we punish criminals more severely...

No you exclusively go on about prosecuting SOME people you selectively pick and never stand up for those in need or as Phil says people in power doing heinous acts. So that makes me suspect if faced with a bully bullying others you would mind your own business and shoulder shrug not my problem mate...

Here's an interesting story, from the Guardian :

 

Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/20...-discriminatory

Edited June 27, 20186 yr by vidcapper

Don't we now have private prisons for profit now, like the US, thanks to the Tories? That might explain it

Don't we now have private prisons for profit now, like the US, thanks to the Tories? That might explain it

Don't we now have private prisons for profit now, like the US, thanks to the Tories? That might explain it

 

I don't think we have, but if it works in America... :teresa:

I don't think we have, but if it works in America... :teresa:

It doesn't work. Crime rates are horrific due to guns and terrible rehabilitation which makes the problem worse.

 

vidcapper reply insert usual tedious " imho" here

 

Reply: check out the facts

Here's an interesting story, from the Guardian :

 

Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/20...-discriminatory

If you want something with less rights that only existed to keep religious fundamentalists happy and so the Labour Gov could attempt to appease Gay Marriage activists without ever having to do anything useful, then by all means go ahead.

 

The cheek of heteros crying discrimination tho. I hope someone gave them a Gibbs style smack round the back of the head for this.

I don't think we have, but if it works in America... :teresa:

It really really really doesn't. There's a lot of evidence out there, including disbarments, of judge's being paid off to send people to prison. It's such a thing it's become a TV Crime Drama trope. If I remember correctly, The Good Wife had a particularly good episode on it.

 

It impacts PoC at high rates leading to incarceration for minor things that should never carry a custodial sentence and just increases the prison population. Sentences are longer and conditions are terrible. It's a big part of the massive problem that America has with the never ending reoffending cycle amongst certain communities.

 

 

There are a number of our prisons that are semi-privatised in that their management is contracted out to shady f***s like G4S and the recently demised Carilion.

If you want something with less rights that only existed to keep religious fundamentalists happy and so the Labour Gov could attempt to appease Gay Marriage activists without ever having to do anything useful, then by all means go ahead.

 

The cheek of heteros crying discrimination tho. I hope someone gave them a Gibbs style smack round the back of the head for this.

 

Surely it's wrong for *anyone* to be discriminated against?

 

 

 

 

As you have been repeatedly told: A minority group cannot discriminate against a majority group when that majority group are dominant throughout the positions of power and the general ruling class.

 

The heteros control the world therefore discrimination against heteros is not a thing.

I remain in favour of civil partnerships still remaining in place for same-sex couples because it allows Christian same-sex couples who want to make a commitment of love towards each other whilst not entering into a partnership that they believe contravenes their religious beliefs (of which I imagine there are more than you may think, especially within my own faith). I'm actually surprised that when the law changed in 2013 that they didn't set out a timetable for phasing out civil partnerships, although I'm glad that they didn't.

 

As for this couple in question, someone should have told those snowflakes to suck a lemon instead of letting them win their court case. We've had marriage for most of civilized history, we've hardly been pushed for options. Peter Tatchell is a supporter of allowing non same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, which I found quite strange.

Civil unions should be given all the rights afforded to marriages and extended to everyone. Not everyone wants to enter into the dogma of marriage and its associated past. Marriage is old fashioned these days anyway.

As you have been repeatedly told: A minority group cannot discriminate against a majority group when that majority group are dominant throughout the positions of power and the general ruling class.

 

The heteros control the world therefore discrimination against heteros is not a thing.

 

You've repeatedly expressed that *opinion*, yes - but you keep talking about *groups*. Individuals of one group can discriminate against those of another, whatever their relative numbers, though.

 

As for this couple in question, someone should have told those snowflakes to suck a lemon instead of letting them win their court case.[

 

So you are in favour of one group having an option available to them that another doesn't, after all... :thinking:

 

We've had marriage for most of civilized history, we've hardly been pushed for options. Peter Tatchell is a supporter of allowing non same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, which I found quite strange.

I doubt anyone can really predict what Tatchell will do. :P

 

Civil unions should be given all the rights afforded to marriages and extended to everyone. Not everyone wants to enter into the dogma of marriage and its associated past. Marriage is old fashioned these days anyway.

 

I agree with all of this, except for the last sentence.

So you are in favour of one group having an option available to them that another doesn't, after all... :thinking:

 

In this particular case, yes, and in many other cases I'd say the same thing.

In this particular case, yes, and in many other cases I'd say the same thing.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems like you're saying 'a bit of payback towards former oppressors is acceptable'? :unsure:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems like you're saying 'a bit of payback towards former oppressors is acceptable'? :unsure:

 

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

 

Fair enough.

 

Then what *did* you mean by 'In this particular case, yes, and in many other cases I'd say the same thing'?

 

IMO, if you have anti-discrimination laws then they *must* be applied in an objective manner, i.e. without regard to historic transgressions by either side against the other.

Edited June 28, 20186 yr by vidcapper

It's been so quiet here recently, I'm almost tempted to post something *really* controversial, just to wake everyone up... :lol: