Parkdrive

Annasfield, one of the Arsenal wesites is pushing the cause via twitter, REDactionAFC is doing its bit I'm pleased to say.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that's an interesting example KK. The maximum > penalty for attempted murder is also life > imprisonment, so it's a technicality that has no > difference in execution. > > British law depends heavily on something called > 'mens rea' which means that you had to have the > intent to commit a crime, or be aware that you > actions were reasonably likely to result in a > crime in order to be found criminally liable. > > That's why accidentally knocking over a cyclist is > not 'murder', and a pretty girl cannot be found > guilty of murder for distracting the driver's > attention. > > The mental health problems this person has > suffered are exceptional, so the burglar could not > have any reasonable expectation that they were > going to result from his crime, and hence he can't > be found responsible for it. I'll go back to an early post in which I asked whatever happened to an individual taking responsibility for his/her actions, if the criminal hadn't broken in to her home, and he had a choice to break in or not, then my friend wouldn't be in the state she's in now. Am I to understand that you feel that the public at large would not act adversely to having thier homes broken into? I really do struggle with this business of the victim being overly sensitive and in some way to blame for the position they find themselves in. Criminals seem to have a raft of services/support groups/probation officers/legal advisers at their disposal, while the victim has sod all. Justice for all? Don't make me laugh.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Parkdrive, he's not a one off. I agree with him > on this issue. > > Sentencing should be based on the facts of the > crime committed. not the emotional response of the > victim. > > Some victims are over-sensitive while others are > much tougher and resilient. Why should the tough > victims not expect the same sentencing in crimes > committed against them as those who are > over-sensitive? > > It stands to reason that the sensitivity of the > victims to crimes committed against them will vary > drastically for any number of reasons, but how can > an offender be held to account for anything other > than the actual act committed, based on the facts > available? > > In any case, victims can submit statements of the > effect of the crime upon them and are able to give > evidence to that effect, so their views are taken > into account by the Judge in sentencing offenders. So my friend is to blame for being over sensitive, and the criminal isn't to blame for her condition? The criminal had a choice, to enter her home or not. He made the choice to break the law, she had no choice in the matter and is left to live with someone elses irresponsible and criminal actions. Isn't our legal system wonderful?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Parkdrive, what bit was offensive exactly? > > Saying that you were having a go at Muslims (you > were) or saying that you would find Sharia Law > attractive (with your absolutist approach to crime > and punishment you clearly would). > > If you look for offence, you can find it > everywhere - it doesn't mean that it is intended > or implied. > > The fact that your friend has had mental health > problems is not an issue in the sentencing of the > criminal. All petty burglaries should be sentenced > according to the crime committed. First and formeost I have no absolutist approach as you so outrageously suggest, and I'm not suprised that someone as pompous and unsypathetic as you would brush this aside in your high handed (no pun intended) manner. You are a one off. Thank God. My friend didn't ask to have her home broken into, but an "impulsive" act has sentenced her to a wretched life. Thanks for your sympathy.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure why you're using this as an excuse to > have ago at Muslim's Parkdrive, I'm sure a bit of > Sharia Law would be right up your alley? > > I note that you have absolutely no idea why the > girls were given a suspended sentence, you only > know what the Daily Mail told you - and all the > Mail said was that they attempted to use their > religion as mitigation, BUT not that it had any > impact on the judgement. > > What the judge said was that the victim's > boyfriend had been racially abusive and had been > the first to use violence, and that the whole > confrontation had been an escalation that built up > over a period time, that may well have been > initially created by the victim herself. > > I recognise that the truth of the affair may not > be that interesting to you? > > I don't see there's a massive gulf between > punishment and crime in general, seems to me to be > a well worked intelligent compromise with > decisions made by people informed of the full > facts. > > I can see there's a massive gulf between what you > perceive to be appropriate punishment and crime. > > However, if you think yourself an effective judge, > jury and sentencer, you should probably spend some > more time with the facts and less time focusing on > people's religion? As a muslim myself I find your remarks highly offensive. Just for the record, I have a very close friend who has suffered with mental helath problems directly attributed to a break in at her home and same has never been the same since. The criminal was an 18 year old who's defence was that she had left a window open which he had to climb up to gain entry, and he had never done this ort of thing before. It must be great to be as intelligent and all knowing as you think you are. As for focusing on religion, I feel qualified to talk about this particular religion as its my own.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are going to be those that believe in a > massive overreaction to youthful misdemeanour, and > it's up to the rational majority to restrain them > from destroying the lives of individuals and > creating lifetime criminals by a sentencing policy > based on disproportionate vengeance. > So some poor sod that has a life time of mental problems caused by a "youthful misdemeanour" to contend with can't be part of what you call "the rational majority". What a pompous phrase that is and doubtless you are part of this cosy self righteous clique. When will the victims be given the same rights that the scums bags seem to enjoy, at the moment there is huge gulf between the two. At the risk of causing moral outrage to some EDFers, it is this weak and lily livered approach that helps to perpetuate criminality, as criminal acts are trivialised and excused by well meaning buffoons. The judge who let the gang of muslim girls off without a blemish on their characters, on the basis that they were not used to alcohol is a prime example of such a buffoon. "Likewise it's also the responsibility of the justice system to differentiate those crimes which through conspiracy, premeditation, aggravation, violence and scale deserve a much greater response". What happened there then? I guess he viewed it as being a "youthful misdemeanour" eh? And we wonder why many feel let down by the justice system. Victims these days are treated by the judical system as a nuisance and an irritant that they would rather not deal with. Give me strength

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For a teenager's first offence of an impulse > burglary through an open door taking little of > value? > You see thats the part I have a problem with. The impulse thing. Is impulse burglary similar to impulse buying but without having to pay for the goods. Do we then sentence these individuals on impulse. Are we now saying that its the home owner is at fault for leaving a door open and therefore invites the burglar in? Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? I don't get the acting on impulse thing when it comes to commiting a criminal act. I'll shed no tears for such "impulsive" individuals. It seems that our judicial system is weighted in favour of the criminal and fcuk the victim, who may have to serve a life sentence of psyhcological damage as a result of having their home broken in to by an impulsive individual.

Our House - Madness

I just hope, Sagna, Wilshere, and Vermaelen come back sooner rather than later and Oxlade - Chamberlain starts more often than not. I can't see Le Boss putting his hand in his pocket this transfer window, having said that not convinced that there are too many decent players out there to buy who would be able to play in the prem and in the Champs League.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Raducioiu, Futre, Gary Charles, I could go on.... No please do

Firstly, who is available that is of equal stature to Le Boss? Nobody. And for sure Le Boss has made some dodgy signings, but none have been as bad as that headcase that 'arry signed at West Ham, marc boogers he was a real fruit loop.

You mean like Vermaelen, and Oxlade-Chamberlain? As for Frimpong, he doesn't like spuds which is why he put himself about but needs to learn to do so in the right way. As for 'arrys squad, didn't exactly shine against Wolves at the weekend did they? When does his court case come up by the way?

Well played Swansea, you showed more spirit and fight than our mob. Very disappointing. I didn't expect us to go there and win to be fair,I expected a draw at best. Once again well done Swansea. Now Arsene, get rid of that lazy SOB Arshavin, Rosicky can go as can Chamakh, Djourou, & Mertesacker. On the upside, it was nice to see Frimpong blowing kisses to the Tottering Hotscum fans.

Bluerevolution Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flat? 60% possession and Liverpool had SIX > defenders on for last 20 minutes- they didn't park > the bus, they put shutters up, boarded the windows > and bricked up the doors BR I seem to remember Citeh coming to the Arsenal not that far back and doing exactly the same to grind out a nil nil.

so what is the difference between the glenn johnson tackle on lescott and the Kompany tackle on Nani?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Parkdrive Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Alan Medic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > How is that an alternative to my post > > Parkdrive? > > > Who is the 'we' and 'most of us' you are > > referring > > > to? > > "we" anyone that doesn't support MAn Ure "most > of > > us" anyone that doesn't support Man Ure or > > dislikes the bloke that kisses his club badge > in > > the same way that he kisses his missus before > he > > goes off to shag a prostitute. I hope that > helps > > to clarify things for you. > > All this clarifies is that you are a typically > blinkered football fan who turns to abuse like > it's a god damned right, Atila. Blinkered you say? Ok lets examine just how blinkered I am. Lets start with Rooneys loyalty. This is the guy that once paraded a T shirt adorned with the words "once a blue always a blue" and moved on to Man U. This is the guy that kisses the club badge then holds the club to ransom after claiming that he has fears over the clubs competitiveness. This is the same guy that has a track record when it comes to using the services of prostitutes. And I'm blinkered. Ironic or what.

Dat dere - Ricky Lee Jones (among many many others)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are setting yourself up for an almighty fall > Mr Lush. Nothing like q bit of graciousness with > success. > > I'm not an Arsenal fan, but I though last night > was a great footballing moment, and I'm sure it > will live in the memories of the fans at the > ground for a long time. It will live in my memory until the day I shuffle off this mortal coil especially as I enjoyed the moment with my eldest son who was also in attendance. Let the spuds fans enjoy their moment in the sun. after all they've waited a long time........all of 50 years and counting. As for our past, I give you Adebayor and Gallas, mercenary dogs both, need I say more?

Real Roy of the Rovers stuff last night, I am so proud that my son and I were among the deliriously happy throng of Gooners last night.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How is that an alternative to my post Parkdrive? > Who is the 'we' and 'most of us' you are referring > to? "we" anyone that doesn't support MAn Ure "most of us" anyone that doesn't support Man Ure or dislikes the bloke that kisses his club badge in the same way that he kisses his missus before he goes off to shag a prostitute. I hope that helps to clarify things for you.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The WE is Parkdrive and his alter ego. They both > agree. (irony) And anyone who doesn't support Man Ure. As for irony, do you know the definition of the word or is it just a word you like to use to try and make yourself come across as a witty type in order to impress your fellow EDF'ers?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I presume City will appeal so it will be > interesting to see if he gets off. A bit > hypocritical of Mancini though to blame Rooney for > getting him sent off given he ran down the > touchline waving an imaginary card when City got a > penalty against Liverpool. Alternatively we are sick to the back teeth of watching Rooney stomp over to the ref and getting in his face, petulantly espousing his innocence or demanding action be taken against an opponent. Most of us are now of the opinion he and the rest of the team have been taking their lead from Ferguson who could never be accused of being a shrinking violet.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kompany didn't touch Nani because Nani avoided the > tackle. It might have been a different story had > he clattered him. Well he wasn't clattered, in fact he wasn't even touched. I'd say its more like Kompany timed his tackle really well, Nani is such a pussy the slightest touch and he'd be rolling around like he'd been shot a la Platoon.

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She never went away. Shame

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So they couldn't spell then! Behave