Streatham shooting: Man 'shot dead in the street' as police declare terror-related incident

Associate
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Posts
1,893
Location
Hants, UK
What concerns me more is that the parole board will be the ones assessing these convicted terrorists - you might as well leave these decisions to a bunch of 5 year olds, the net result will be the same.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
10,712
You'll notice again, Einstein, that I edited that typo before you'd replied. Infact, 20 minutes before you replied...

Look here Samantha, that's a completely unreasonable thing to say.

You see unless you believe I, your Einstein, am capable of time travel I must have read and begun a reply before you attempted to erase your incompetence. How else would I know of it.

Your sulky appeal based on making an edit before I got round to submitting the reply might have some weight if you actually had a say on the time and focus I waste on forum messages. But you don't.

So when I come back many hours later and find you distressed that your editing wasn't noticed by the only person acknowledging your post, I have to tell you Samantha, it really is your problem that you didn't present it correctly the first time round.

Well, that and your earlier semantics which set you up for a deserved ribbing.

And you're now arguing a different point as before it was that he wasn't violent and so should have been let out. You're also wrong about selling your repentance pitch to the parole board, sentencing guidelines dictate the length of a prison sentence that is actually to be spent in prison.

So again I'll reiterate the point that you're ignoring. This individual was a proven threat - hence why he was jailed in the first place, in the same way that an arms dealer hasn't committed a violent crime it doesn't stop them being a danger. For the offences he'd committed at the time the maximum sentence allowed currently is 6 years. He served about a fifth of that. Short sentences are proven to not have an effect on re-offending and may actually be detrimental - this is accepted by the UK government who are actually in the process of abolishing the shortest jail terms (those under 6 months). Ergo the two options should be jail for a sufficient length to allow reform or no jail. Given he was a proven threat to public safety jail remained the only logical option. Therefore jail him for sufficient time to allow reform. That is not 1 and a bit years.

No, you're lying about how I previously mentioned violence and still retrospectively justifying more sentence which is completely worthless.

When I mentioned violence it was to accuse you of using his subsequent violence as a retrospective justification that the initial sentence wasn't enough, you're still doing it.

You'd have to be talking to a stereotypical red top rag reader to sell the knee jerk reaction to as you specified, quadruple the served sentence using the evidence that a now dead guy wasn't reformed by a prison sentence. Literally wanting revenge on remaining offenders because the actual offender isn't available. Very good political material to claim being "harder" on crime.

It wouldn't apply to the dead person you're using as retrospective evidence, it would apply to everyone else serving a minor terror offence. They'd all have theirs quadrupled (or whatever it may be) and you've ignored every instance of me mentioning problems with that, not least the huge injustice.

I've asked you about these studies you're in favour of. You've not shown what you're referencing except an actually void point of abolishing 6 month sentences, it's not the 18 month sentence he served is it which is also not 1/5 of 6 years but the 1/4 I've mentioned many times.

Slapping up sentences because of fear of lack of reform is not an attempt to give "more chance" to reform as you mentioned previously but an admission that prison is a **** hole to push problems down the line not a reformatory clinic.

In fact since you're not giving anything lets just hit up a search and see what a BBC article has to say: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

It's all a bit arbitrary, time wasting and political whacking up sentences isn't it. I said it the first time that you didn't have the substance to justify longer sentences.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Sep 2005
Posts
4,299
Imagine if this was Diane Abbot. People would be going mental in here...

TLDW - Priti Patel consistently uses 'counter terrorism/counter terrorist' rather than 'terrorism/terrorist' when describing terrorists in an interview with Sky. Also brings up the fact that it was Labours fault from 10 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4EMBXxG5A
Ha that's pretty funny. I guess she is so used to adding the word "counter" in her own circles. Still pretty dumb.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
"greater support for the victims of counter terrorism"

:D :D What a quote!


Hate that evil looking bint with a passion. Get @RxR to do some face analysis I guarantee it comes back as psychopath
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
Quick question.

Would those advocating the release of those convicted of terrorism offences (Not only early, but even at all should it come to that) be happy to so if they were personally in the position whereby, the decision to release was their decision, but should any of the people that they have chosen to release early/at all, go on to reoffend, that they will also face standing trial as an accessory to the crime??

(Hypothetical question to establish parameters rather than serious proposal ;))
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,299
Imagine if this was Diane Abbot. People would be going mental in here...

TLDW - Priti Patel consistently uses 'counter terrorism/counter terrorist' rather than 'terrorism/terrorist' when describing terrorists in an interview with Sky. Also brings up the fact that it was Labours fault from 10 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk4EMBXxG5A

Haha, what a moron.

Not quite Abbot material, but getting there.
 
Back
Top Bottom