It's a miscarriage of justice that Martin got the rap if you ask me. He was just trying to defend himself and his home. Afterall, dead scum don't commit crimes.

tonker said:

ps2gamer890 said: It's a miscarriage of justice that Martin got the rap if you ask me. He was just trying to defend himself and his home. Afterall, dead scum don't commit crimes. Problem he shot a pikey in the back (albeit a 16 year old pikey with a record as long as your arm and no doubt saved the rest of the country from a crime wave) - for society's sake, I wish he'd polished off Fearon as well - another piece of parasitic detritus that we would be better off without.... - however, as the law stands he did not exercise self-defence and was lucky to only get manslaughter - had I been at the CPS, I would have been pushing for murder....

He did get murder and then it was reduced to manslaughter on appeal on grounds of diminished responsibility.

I thought I heard a while back that he'd been kidnapped by pikeys who had a price on his head?

tonker said:

but those loveable tinkers have more rights than the rest of us and almost complete immunity from the laws of this country....

That's right, as they have no money they can't be FINED so the Govt has no control over them, short of prison.

The rest of us our controlled by FINES; have you noticed that?

tonker said:

those loveable tinkers have more rights than the rest of us and almost complete immunity from the laws of this country....

It made me laugh when I read that Fearon had been beaten up by a bunch of travellers in a pub for giving them a bad name. Wish I could find a link to it

tonker said:

DR, no chance, he knew exactly what he was doing.... I don't blame him either - I think people ought to be able to use force to keep burglars out, the problem is where you draw the line - imagine it had been a rambler he'd shot..... - however if the courts had jailed Barras and Fearon properly they would not have been out to be there in the first place, but those loveable tinkers have more rights than the rest of us and almost complete immunity from the laws of this country....

What would a rambler be doing in the middle of the night, in his house????

I am ranting now, but recently it's getting beyond a joke - all the studies point out and prove that prison does not rehabilitate or prevent criminal behaviour (for most), it's not a deterrent and it's main purpose is to keep the criminals away from the rest of us, the social soft side of it is a total waste of time (read the figures on the BCS and read any report into crime and recidivism in detail and ignore the beardy spin).

This week we have the conviction of a thief who murdered a respectable bloke in his own home, last month it was two thieves who murdered John Monckton in his own home, it goes on and on - we have the shootings in Manchester, we have murders in Nottingham, almost always it's people with records who are committing crime when they get out early from their prison sentences. Why do we tolerate these pathetic sentences ? Why does 10 years not mean ten years, why do people who kick people to death in the street get out after a couple of years, why did the little shit who stabbed the schoolteacher to death get out in 8, why did Thompson and Venables get out before their 20th - it's nothing to do with crime, it's simple economics, we spend so much keeping them in relative luxury (to what I think they ought to be in) that it's cheaper to keep numbers down and fudge the figures than admit that there is a crime problem in this country and it's growing - ignoring stats, violent crime is up - I don't mean people fighting when p1ssed, I mean street robberies, carjacking, vioent assaults on householders..... the answer ought to be simple to cutting crime rates to a tenth (guess) or so of what they are, build more prisons and lock criminals up for the duration, then if they do it again, lock them up for longer - if they are junkies and commit to feed a habit, lock them up in an 'asylum' and give them their drugs - only let them out after they volunteer for treatment and go through with it when inside..... but they won't because it's seen as too harsh, a return to the bad old days and hey, criminals have rights too - no they don't.....

tonker said:

I am ranting now, but recently it's getting beyond a joke - all the studies point out and prove that prison does not rehabilitate or prevent criminal behaviour (for most), it's not a deterrent and it's main purpose is to keep the criminals away from the rest of us, the social soft side of it is a total waste of time (read the figures on the BCS and read any report into crime and recidivism in detail and ignore the beardy spin). This week we have the conviction of a thief who murdered a respectable bloke in his own home, last month it was two thieves who murdered John Monckton in his own home, it goes on and on - we have the shootings in Manchester, we have murders in Nottingham, almost always it's people with records who are committing crime when they get out early from their prison sentences. Why do we tolerate these pathetic sentences ? Why does 10 years not mean ten years, why do people who kick people to death in the street get out after a couple of years, why did the little shit who stabbed the schoolteacher to death get out in 8, why did Thompson and Venables get out before their 20th - it's nothing to do with crime, it's simple economics, we spend so much keeping them in relative luxury (to what I think they ought to be in) that it's cheaper to keep numbers down and fudge the figures than admit that there is a crime problem in this country and it's growing - ignoring stats, violent crime is up - I don't mean people fighting when p1ssed, I mean street robberies, carjacking, vioent assaults on householders..... the answer ought to be simple to cutting crime rates to a tenth (guess) or so of what they are, build more prisons and lock criminals up for the duration, then if they do it again, lock them up for longer - if they are junkies and commit to feed a habit, lock them up in an 'asylum' and give them their drugs - only let them out after they volunteer for treatment and go through with it when inside..... but they won't because it's seen as too harsh, a return to the bad old days and hey, criminals have rights too - no they don't.....

Very well said Tonker; I agree entirely.

There is also the matter of the unlawful ownership of firearms to consider.
In fact if he'd carried out his actions today he well may have recieved harsher sentencing for the firearms crime than the killing. Weird Huh?

MoJo.

Not condoning weapons to "neutralise" intruders(or people sniffing round your property with intent to steal it), BUT , WHAT I FOUND WORKS is a C02 fire extinguisher. You know the type, big black horn. As forementioned undesirable approches in the dark, squeeze the trigger and give them that delightful 130db blast to the face. As they are thinking "what the bloody hell was that" and are in an extreme state of shock and profoundley deaf, you are then free to escort them from the premesis (or hit them in the face with the bottom of it). It also works with local drug dealers dogs (ahem). When the judge at your manslaughter trial asks why you had a CO2 fire extinguisher in your bedroom, simply reply "To put fires out, Your Honour"

I think these parasites should be forced into drug trials. Much better sentence than 10 years/serve 3 in a nicely warmed cell!!

I'd love to see them with a head the size of a spacehopper!!