yup!

Quote:

Besides... there was a sense of "tongue in cheek" with my initial post... http://www.thesoulgirl.com/emotis/tongue.gif

I know :D

Just as a side-note--
http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn...in/1286201.php

I know, great innit?:D

I know, great innit?:D I can't see why Graham would be arguing this guys corner:rolleyes:

hmm - not entirely fair - Graham didn't have that info when he was arguing about the principles involved in this case:p

- but yes it is "good news" as an exposÃÃâ€*’© of our screwed up legal system:)

Gaz

Ramrod:

Either you produce some evidence, hell *ANY* evidence, that I have "argued this guy's corner" or withdraw this comment *IMMEDIATELY*.

This is a *blatant* mis-representation of what I have been saying all along in this thread since my first post #74 and I find your usage of this sort of tactics to be deplorable in the extreme.

And please don't try to argue that because I support people's rights under the law I am somehow condoning or justifying what this person did because that will *also* be a blatant mis-representation of what I have said.

It would not have mattered a damn whether I had that information or not.

The *principles* that I have been supporting still hold, ie that *everyone* is entitled to the protection of the law and that if anyone goes beyond the limits of the law they should expect to face the consequences.

No, it's an expose of the "Compensation Culture", not the *legal system*. I have never approved of the "No Win, No Fee" system for compensation because it is open to abuse.

Just so that no-one is in any doubt where I stand--I have read EVERY post in this thread, and I have seen Ramrod's and Graham's differing opinions.
And I have to say--they are both very strong in their beliefs.

But the topic is " which of us belongs in prison?"

To which I have to reply---I do .

If I find someone in my house at 3 am ,whilst my wife and 3 year old daughter are fast asleep,I will not hesitate to use extreme force.Not "acceptable" force, or "minimal" or any other term that people may choose to use .I will use every weapon available to me in order to safeguard my family's safety.

If that means I am sent to prison for 5 years so be it. I have saved my wife and daughter from having their lives put at risk.

Graham--you obviously have very strong beliefs,also-so does Ramrod .I hope that you are both mature enough to accept a draw in this particular battle of wits, and engage in another topic in the future.I know that I will look forward to it !

Hobbie: I had intended to conclude my contributions to this thread with my post #195 posted on the 10th of August and, indeed, had not written anything further until yesterday after Ramrod's unwarranted and unjustified comments.

I will *NOT* under any circumstances allow *anyone* to so blatantly mis-represent my viewpoints as Ramrod has just done and you can be damn sure that I will call anyone who does so to account.

I blame left wing politics for this kind of situation arising in the first place.
I have stated before and will do so again, anyone trespassing in my home will be met with the most extreme and prejudiced force I am capable of delivering and at 5' 10" and 18 stone (ex rugby and american football player and ex Athlete) it can be a fair amount of force.
I dont care what happens to the **** invading my house, i dont care if he sufferers extreme pain, if he hadnt been a theiving b*stard in the first place it wouldnt have happened to him.
Now thats a deterrent to the thick in-bred smack heads that go around the streets looking to steal.
For the organised burglar, well most homes offer little in value anyway and they probably would be raiding offices for their stock of printers and PC's.

Most burglars are actually armed, with knives or other instruments to pry open windows etc, any admission of this makes the crime aggravated burglary which carries a stiffer sentence.

Thought that would get you back into the discussion.......
I was referring to the way you were giving equal credability to both parties statements on what happened that night, when Feardon was very probably (and has now been proven to be) a lier. Thats all, nothing more than that.:)
Good to have you back in the discussion. I'd missed you:)

I think the sad thing about all this is that householders are placed in this position when dealing with burglars because legal deterrents to crime are ineffective.

The law operates in the favour of crimininals. Factors like low crime detection rates, lenient sentencing and the unwillingness of judges to send people to prison, the early release of prisoners all contribute to an increase in crime and an increase in the social vulnerability of the ordinary citizen.

The New Labour slogan of "Tough on crime and the causes of crime" is a farce because "tough" they ain't. Like Chamberlain, they are operating a policy of appeasement and instead of the state dealing effectively with criminals, it is left to the ordinary person.

Sentences and prison conditions need to be far harsher so that criminals do not relish the prospect of going back inside. Lack of freedom is not enough. Demands need to be made on prisoners to change their ways.

Maybe then we can rest easy in our beds without the need to have a shotgun by our bedsides.

Ramrod:

Goodbye.

I would also like to point out that you have not had a single bad thing to say about Feardon. Not one! In how many posts? Rather proves my point dosn't it? Like I said earlier: 'what are you? A burglar?' 'cos you sure as hell seem to be on their side!
...and you didn't come up with a credable scenario either....yet, go on I challenge you. I would be really pleased if you could come up with something that is realistic....might convert me yet:D

Ramrod:

If you can't understand "Goodbye", there is very little hope that you will understand anything else I have to write in this thread.

Goodbye.