Am I wrong to think this is wrong ??

epswat said:
Would you like to be referred to as a Cripple?

In a world where there are restrictions on race and sex in terms of what you can and cannot say, I think that being able to use derogatory terms for disabled people is disgusting.

Cripple is not a nice way to descibe someone, FULL STOP.
Click to expand...

My other half refers to the equipment to help her with her disability as her cripple kit...
 
Oh come on guys, they're disabled, can't we just let them off with it?
They only stole a lot of money, not like they commited a crime...

Lock them up tbh, surely it's discrimination against non-disabled criminals to allow these scumbags get off with it?

Some guy on The Sun website said:
The welfare state was not created to turn the idle into space hoppers, starve them in prison...and take them off bennies..
Click to expand...

lol, might as well.
 
Last edited:
You just have to wonder IF they wasnt disabled what are the odds they would have been slung in the clink ?
 
Well you see IF it was me who syphoned off the money using this system...



1. i would firstly be kicking myself for being so greedy that i got caught.

2. Then i'd be dreading the judgement in court and feeling ashamed etc

3. *judges annouces decision not to jail*

4. I would be delighted at not going to prison wooo!

5. Then once the euphoria had calmed down... and i looked at the Judge's reason.

6. I'd be utterly ****** furious that he basically treated me LESS OF A PERSON and individual as other people.

In fact i would demand to be treated as any other person would - if that meant prison then so be it. At least he could look me in the eye and say he saw me and not the disability.

in fact i recommend this couple themselves Appeal against the decision AND/OR to take the judge to the European Court of Human Rights

rant over for today anyway :)
 
Last edited:
i'm genuinely surprised equal rights groups arent going absolutely ape**** at the Judge...

in fact might give them an email (or am i acting a bit loopy again?)... why do they only go nuts when they think a disabled person is being DEPRIVED of something that might benefit them?
Being treated as a person same as everyone else is about negatives as well as positives.

See the person not the disability.

Yeah i would go to prison (i might regret that decision later when bending over in the showers haha)
 
knip said:
Jeez there is some ignorance about disability in this thread.
Some disabled people cant even do the most basic of things for themselves, and so yes it is very wrong that they stole money but believe me it would just cost even more money to cope fully with their needs in a prison unless it was one specifically set up to do so.
Click to expand...

^^^ true for the girl in the wheel chair -though the bloke just looks like a fat lazy **** tbh...

typical netto customers
 
Delvis said:
whats this about weight? I don't care how fat they are, or if they got fat because she was in a wheel chair...That's irrelevant.

The fact is, she is not mentally unstable (unless she is...then she should goto a Physciatric place or however you spell it) But being fat, has no effect on your way of thinking. Unless oif course the fat in your head pushes your brain against the skull and causes some sort of issues, then yes.
Click to expand...

Read the OP, he decided that the couple were "just fat", which is what several of us have taken issue with.

Personally, I have no problem with disabled people being put in jail if they commit a crime. My problem lies with the attitude of the OP, with him being extremely flippant about their disabillities.
 
knip said:
It is wrong but at the same time if there were no spaces in the prisons who could cope with their levels of disablity the judge would have no choice but to free them with the current state of overcrowding.

If it was a choice between a paedophile in a wheelchair and a petty thief in a wheelchair, I know who I would prefer to be locked up.

The disability shouldnt be an issue, BUT in reality it isnt always that easy.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that you're pretty much spot on, chances are there aren't any places that can cope with disabled prisoners, or at least not for what is a fairly low level offence (no physical harm to people, no risk to the public, just what is effectively a petty crime).

The judge cannot put someone in jail if the jail place required for them doesn't exist, or if the only such space that might be able to cope is also the only sort of place that might be needed for much more serious crimes (I'd imagine it would need to be a specific type of prison place, probably with higher manning levels than normal, and quite probably of a type that there is only a small percentage available in comparison at the best of times).

Ideally they should be in jail of things being equal, but if the judge has looked at the crime, looked at the sentencing guidelines then looked at the actual jail situation and realised that there isn't a suitable space, i'd imagine the actual sentance given is the most appropriate taking everything into account.
 
JBuk said:
surely there must be at least one prison with the facilities to accomodate somebody disabled?

and cost isnt the issue, if that was the case no one would ever go to prison
Click to expand...

There probably is, there are probably a few with specific spaces.

They are probably all full of prisoners who could be housed elsewhere but can't be due to lack of space (our government hasn't got the ability to see beyond tommorows headlines, or the ability to use a basic graph of prisoners/available spaces).
 
Energize said:
Well that's how it works with wi-fi anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure if that is the case but even if I allow the contention that it is, that isn't the situation with any other part of the law that I can immediately think of. If it were then by parking your car in the street rather than in a secured lockup with security guards you'd be at fault etc etc with other stupidly over the top examples. Which rather makes me think that if you are correct on the laws about WiFi that it is an abberation rather than the norm so probably developed by people who don't understand the principles of UK law properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom