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.

Of course I understand 'goodbye'. I am merely trying to keep you in the debate since it is rare to find an decent 'sparring partner':) and this is such a good debate! [/B][/QUOTE]
Still, if you don't want to, fair 'nuff:( ....shame though:shrug:

Ramrod:

See my personal message. I will no longer reply to you in this forum.

Message read and digested:)
I don't agree with the points raised, However I don't want to conduct any part of this discussion via pm as I don't see why any of it should be private. We were having a great time thrashing over all the issues and (imo) as soon as you were running out of arguments you clammed up and took it to pm.

From the Times:D :

BALDERDASH.

See PM again.

I am perfectly happy to discuss this here, not in pm:)
btw....which bit of post 217 is balderdash:confused:

Now now children lets play nicely :p :D

but he dosn't want to play:cry: :D

For the benefit of others reading this, I would like to point out that my personal messages to Ramrod have *not* been about the issues raised in this thread, but about his behaviour and conduct in mis-representing my viewpoints and making what I could consider to be libellous accusations against me.

I took this to PM because I don't believe in arguing such things in public as I'm sure most people wouldn't be interested in reading it and it would only clutter up the forum, however Ramrod has once again seen fit to distort the facts by implying that I am trying to discuss the *issues* of this thread in private or that I have "run out of arguments", neither of which are true.

I re-iterate that I will no longer respond to his arguments in this thread because of his unacceptable behaviour.

The words 'high horse' and 'get off your' spring to mind:D
Now.... since this appears to be getting out of hand and in the interests of fostering peaceful relations (since I appear to have horribly and grievously insulted you) and getting this thread back on topic, I apologise completely and unreservedly for any hurtful comments that I have made or may make in the future.:)
Now can we get back on with the debate?:shrug:

Still sulking?:(
...or just not read it yet?

From what i can see Ramrod, Graham has made it very clear that he no longer wants to post on this thread

So can we just leave it at that rather than saying that people are sulking :rolleyes:

I know that, but he's said that before and then he keeps 'chirping up' from time to time, so I thought it was worth a try to get things moving again. :)
Hence the full apology:)