April 7, 20187 yr Author Laws are man-made and arbitrary. We ALL have a UNIVERSAL right to life. That ends the discussion. They are family to someone.. Oh yes, and what a family... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...wo-decades.html The crime clan that's preyed on pensioners for two decades: How burglar's family have been in and out of jail for tricking elderly victims out of £500,000 in roof scams, war medal thefts and a waterboard con By Richard Spillett, Crime Correspondent For Mailonline The burglar who died after tussling with a 78-year-old pensioner during a break-in in south-east London and his family have a long history of targeting the elderly and vulnerable. Henry Vincent was being hunted by police for another distraction theft on an retired victim when he was stabbed during a burglary in Hither Green in the early hours of Wednesday. He and his family have also repeatedly featured on a neighbourhood watch Facebook page set up in Orpington about local crooks. Here, MailOnline sets out the full and sorry history of misery the Vincents have wreaked on pensioners in south-east London and north Kent.
April 7, 20187 yr If only I could render you speechless more often. :lol: Seriously though, can you give me *any* reason why the life of a 'career criminal scumbag' should be considered to have the same value as a law-abiding member of the community? [That is intended as a serious question] Can you give a system by which we measure people on some sort of value scale? You’re essentially trying to say that some lives are worth more than others so who will decide which ‘scumbags’ should be saved and which should be fair game for killing? It’s way too dangerous a game to play IMO.
April 7, 20187 yr I agree. Theft and swindling do not have the death penalty. If they dId half the government would be up for execution. On the other hand if alleged crooks like Nigel garage became fair game for murder then I can see it becoming quite popular. The only difference between him and the burglar is the burglar picked on an old couple and fascifarage stole money from taxpayers allegedly for purposes it was not allowed for. Swindling all of us dishonestly is no different from swindling a few of us. I say allegedly but I believe he has been instructed to pay it back rather than face execution. Bloody soft EU.
April 8, 20187 yr Author Can you give a system by which we measure people on some sort of value scale? You’re essentially trying to say that some lives are worth more than others so who will decide which ‘scumbags’ should be saved and which should be fair game for killing? It’s way too dangerous a game to play IMO. So your answer would be a 'no' then.
April 8, 20187 yr Author I agree. Theft and swindling do not have the death penalty. If they dId half the government would be up for execution. On the other hand if alleged crooks like Nigel garage became fair game for murder then I can see it becoming quite popular. The only difference between him and the burglar is the burglar picked on an old couple and fascifarage stole money from taxpayers allegedly for purposes it was not allowed for. Swindling all of us dishonestly is no different from swindling a few of us. I say allegedly but I believe he has been instructed to pay it back rather than face execution. Bloody soft EU. How did we we get from self-defence against intruders, to 'should all criminals be executed'? I've certainly never advocated the latter! My underlying point is : why do we persist in using systems to tackle crime that are clearly failing to achieve the necessary results? At present we have a combination of carrot - rehabilitation, and stick - punishment. IMO we have the balance between those two options wrong. I would prefer a situation where criminals were as scared of committing crime, as people are of being victims of it now. I wouldn't go quite as far as a 'Clockwork Orange' scenario, but perhaps somewhere in between.
April 8, 20187 yr How did we we get from self-defence against intruders, to 'should all criminals be executed'? I've certainly never advocated the latter! My underlying point is : why do we persist in using systems to tackle crime that are clearly failing to achieve the necessary results? At present we have a combination of carrot - rehabilitation, and stick - punishment. IMO we have the balance between those two options wrong. I would prefer a situation where criminals were as scared of committing crime, as people are of being victims of it now. I wouldn't go quite as far as a 'Clockwork Orange' scenario, but perhaps somewhere in between. same thing. Burglary isnt self-defence, it's property-defense. The vast majority of home thefts do not involve violence. YOU are splitting hairs about petty theft inside a home and white-collar-crime swindling of vast sums of money from US the taxpayer, saying one is OK to commit murder as an appropriate response, and one isn't. Nicking a DVD-player is hardly in the same scale so you are a hypocrite. I have already answered your rubbish point about crime with my statistics. You have yet to provide any evidence that allowing home murder diminishes crime and does anything other than increase violent death on non-burglars generally. The answer is increased police resources. As Amber Rudd tried to lie about this morning - saying no link to reduced police and incraesed crime, then quotes the higher crime rates of 15 years ago despote higher police resources as evidence. The thicko fails to grasp that the crime rates REDUCED because of the increased police resources and have climbed directly as police numbers fall. She is just parroting instruictions of the woman responsible for that situation - the Prime Minister. She is to blame, not the law. If we don't need police to reduce crime, hey let's just get rid of them and give everyone guns cos that has worked out SO well everywhere that has ever had that system.......
April 8, 20187 yr So your answer would be a 'no' then. I don’t owe you any answers until you answer fully the question I asked you earlier in the thread.
April 8, 20187 yr Author I don’t owe you any answers until you answer fully the question I asked you earlier in the thread. Fair enough.
April 10, 20187 yr ..and the chap who is a national hero is now moaning that the mates of the bloke he killed (as he's not being charged Im not saying murdered) are threatening to kill him. So the freedom to murder people nicking DVD players turns out to have it's downside after all, who knew.....
April 11, 20187 yr Author ..and the chap who is a national hero is now moaning that the mates of the bloke he killed (as he's not being charged Im not saying murdered) are threatening to kill him. Aren't threats to kill an arrestable offence? [So the freedom to murder people nicking DVD players turns out to have it's downside after all, who knew..... So we should let criminals have free reign then? What next - abolish the police to make it even easier for them? :rolleyes:
April 11, 20187 yr Aren't threats to kill an arrestable offence? [ So we should let criminals have free reign then? What next - abolish the police to make it even easier for them? :rolleyes: thanks for stating the obvious. thanks for repeating what I said the other day, good to know it sinks in.
April 18, 20187 yr Author Gran shoots machete-wielding thug with a CROSSBOW after four yobs mistakenly stormed into her house https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6078050/gran-...-with-crossbow/
April 18, 20187 yr previous burglar-killer doesn't have a happy ending: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/force...-sight-12381875
April 18, 20187 yr Author previous burglar-killer doesn't have a happy ending: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/force...-sight-12381875 What point are you trying to make here - that he should have let the thugs kill them both? :huh:
Create an account or sign in to comment