spook Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 The sentence was far too lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 my two pennorth...............if one intends to commit a crime it is the same as committing it IMO.........'cos it is only chance, (usually), that the crime wasn't actually committed.............e.g. you didn't get there, the blow wasn't hard enough, you were caught prior to, etc.......... I agree. He had stated his objective. He went equiped. No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me. And that no one is questioning it. As another poster suggested, go back to pre 9-11, he would have been charged with attempted murder. 5 years and he is out. Post 9-11 he is an enemy of the state. He gets 22 years Why am I shocked at the sentence? Well, because the Judiciary is supposed to be seperate from the state. It is the Judiciary that is supposed to hold the state to account. It's all about the fundemental premise that no one is above the law. And that the law will not be influenced by career politicians looking for votes. There is an erosion of human rights going on in the UK at the moment. The UK is spinning a world of fear for votes. And that is wrong. The conviction was justice. He deserved to be convicted. The sentence was politically motivated. That was wrong. Don't believe me? The guy on trial for murder at the monent on the Island will probably get 15 years if found guilty and convicted. We are being brainwashed into believing that there is a difference between "normal" crime and "superlative" crime. It's the elected politicians that are differentating between the two. That is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I agree with you Alan. However I think the mistake you are making is thinking of a Western Democracy as a free or fair society and that anything less is an oppressed state. Western democracy is sold to us as the ultimate in freedom but it is anything but. I agree on an intellectual level. But does anything better currently exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 There are huge differences between conventional crime and engaging in terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 I agree with you Alan. However I think the mistake you are making is thinking of a Western Democracy as a free or fair society and that anything less is an oppressed state. Western democracy is sold to us as the ultimate in freedom but it is anything but. I agree on an intellectual level. But does anything better currently exist? My solution is a bit way out, but actually works out cheaper in the long term. I believe in democracy. Democracy is good. But we need to get rid of the money from politics. No more sponsors with their donations. The state has to fund political campaigns. No idea how that would work, but we do need to remove the cushy jobs on the board that politicians walk into after retirement. We need to stop the peerages given to doners. We need to give our elected politicians a decent wage, and ban them from using their status to earn stupid money from defense contractors or big money business. How about if politicians were banned for life from holding directorships? Of course, we would have to pay them a good pension after just one term in office. But it would work out cheaper. No bailouts to mismanaged hotel companies because the chairman has mates in Government. No defense contracts awarded to companies who promise jobs to the people who award the contacts. It's not the people that are the problem..... the problem is the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 All western political systems have a real weakness in that the very nature of politics is 'horse trading'. Money is certainly an issue in middle and far Eastern politics but very seldom in the West as in spite of what people thing honesty is of much greater importance. Corruption in the middle and far East is a fact of life but the very worst of course is Africa where dishonesty is a fact of life and indeed expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 All western political systems have a real weakness in that the very nature of politics is 'horse trading'. Money is certainly an issue in middle and far Eastern politics but very seldom in the West as in spite of what people thing honesty is of much greater importance. Corruption in the middle and far East is a fact of life but the very worst of course is Africa where dishonesty is a fact of life and indeed expected. I agree..... your solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 my two pennorth...............if one intends to commit a crime it is the same as committing it IMO.........'cos it is only chance, (usually), that the crime wasn't actually committed.............e.g. you didn't get there, the blow wasn't hard enough, you were caught prior to, etc.......... I agree. He had stated his objective. He went equiped. No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me. And that no one is questioning it. As another poster suggested, go back to pre 9-11, he would have been charged with attempted murder. 5 years and he is out. Post 9-11 he is an enemy of the state. He gets 22 years Why am I shocked at the sentence? Well, because the Judiciary is supposed to be seperate from the state. It is the Judiciary that is supposed to hold the state to account. It's all about the fundemental premise that no one is above the law. And that the law will not be influenced by career politicians looking for votes. There is an erosion of human rights going on in the UK at the moment. The UK is spinning a world of fear for votes. And that is wrong. The conviction was justice. He deserved to be convicted. The sentence was politically motivated. That was wrong. Don't believe me? The guy on trial for murder at the monent on the Island will probably get 15 years if found guilty and convicted. We are being brainwashed into believing that there is a difference between "normal" crime and "superlative" crime. It's the elected politicians that are differentating between the two. That is just plain wrong. >No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me. If we agree the fact that he's guilty and received a fair trial then... the sentence should also be about protecting the public (e.g. Lee Rigby) as much as it is about rehabilitation. He's young, determined and hasn't yet fully understood the implications of the actions he was prevented from carrying out. 22 years, prior to a further review, should give him the time that he so obviously needs. The sentence should be a two-way thing. Discouraging misbehaviour and protecting the innocent. Seems fair to me. And if the police have been doctoring evidence or telling porkies, then I'd give them the exact same sentence. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 my two pennorth...............if one intends to commit a crime it is the same as committing it IMO.........'cos it is only chance, (usually), that the crime wasn't actually committed.............e.g. you didn't get there, the blow wasn't hard enough, you were caught prior to, etc.......... I agree. He had stated his objective. He went equiped. No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me. And that no one is questioning it. As another poster suggested, go back to pre 9-11, he would have been charged with attempted murder. 5 years and he is out. Post 9-11 he is an enemy of the state. He gets 22 years Why am I shocked at the sentence? Well, because the Judiciary is supposed to be seperate from the state. It is the Judiciary that is supposed to hold the state to account. It's all about the fundemental premise that no one is above the law. And that the law will not be influenced by career politicians looking for votes. There is an erosion of human rights going on in the UK at the moment. The UK is spinning a world of fear for votes. And that is wrong. The conviction was justice. He deserved to be convicted. The sentence was politically motivated. That was wrong. Don't believe me? The guy on trial for murder at the monent on the Island will probably get 15 years if found guilty and convicted. We are being brainwashed into believing that there is a difference between "normal" crime and "superlative" crime. It's the elected politicians that are differentating between the two. That is just plain wrong. >No problem with his conviction. But it's the length of the sentence that gets me. If we agree the fact that he's guilty and received a fair trial then... the sentence should also be about protecting the public (e.g. Lee Rigby) as much as it is about rehabilitation. He's young, determined and hasn't yet fully understood the implications of the actions he was prevented from carrying out. 22 years, prior to a further review, should give him the time that he so obviously needs. The sentence should be a two-way thing. Discouraging misbehaviour and protecting the innocent. Seems fair to me. And if the police have been doctoring evidence or telling porkies, then I'd give them the exact same sentence. TBT. Quote... "The sentence should be a two-way thing. Discouraging misbehaviour and protecting the innocent." Good point. So why were the thugs that killed my mate not sentenced to 22 years? The judge at the time gave them life. They were out in seven. One went on to be jailed again after he had been released. He got involved in drug dealing and was jailed for GBH. Those guys killed. But their sentence was based on rehabilitation.Not removal from society as "an example" Is justice based on "setting examples"? Or is it based on justice? Yeah... lets set an example with the next driver caught talking on his mobile... life without parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 All western political systems have a real weakness in that the very nature of politics is 'horse trading'. Money is certainly an issue in middle and far Eastern politics but very seldom in the West as in spite of what people thing honesty is of much greater importance. Corruption in the middle and far East is a fact of life but the very worst of course is Africa where dishonesty is a fact of life and indeed expected. I agree..... your solution? The solution must be found by the corrupt nations. Draconian punishment for those engaged in corruption would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 All western political systems have a real weakness in that the very nature of politics is 'horse trading'. Money is certainly an issue in middle and far Eastern politics but very seldom in the West as in spite of what people thing honesty is of much greater importance. Corruption in the middle and far East is a fact of life but the very worst of course is Africa where dishonesty is a fact of life and indeed expected.I agree..... your solution?The solution must be found by the corrupt nations. Draconian punishment for those engaged in corruption would be a start. Ha ha. I hit like for your post spook. But it comes up as an error. So yeah.. I agree again. China is executing people by the dozen over corruption. Is that ok? Does that make China a progressive country or a regressive country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 All western political systems have a real weakness in that the very nature of politics is 'horse trading'. Money is certainly an issue in middle and far Eastern politics but very seldom in the West as in spite of what people thing honesty is of much greater importance. Corruption in the middle and far East is a fact of life but the very worst of course is Africa where dishonesty is a fact of life and indeed expected. I agree..... your solution? Alan if you think that folk in the West are honest and money is not an "issue" then I would venture to suggest that I disagree . Those in the West may purport to be honest but brown envelopes don't just exist in the Far East and Africa , although I concede that in those places they are more "upfront "about it. I think it fair to say that we are encouraged to bargain for goods and services these days ( by TV presenters for example) as you are obliged to do in buying a carpet in a market in Africa/Middle East/etc etc. As a result if it is perceived that a purchaser wants a discount the seller inflates his starting price and in so doing could be described as dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 I know that paswat. I am trying to see if spook is willing to agree a middle ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I know that paswat. I am trying to see if spook is willing to agree a middle ground good luck with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 There are degrees of corruption. The level of corruption in the West is trivial compared to the middle and far East, and Africa which in my experience is corruption incarnate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.