Lee Rigby's killer wants compo
Discussion
killingjoker said:
It's all about taking responsibility for your actions. You murder somebody you go down. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
And if you harm a person in your care, or persons who work for your organisation harm a person you have employed them to look after, you take responsibility for your actions. Don’t be a When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
, no need to pay out compo. What’s so hard to understand about that?WinstonWolf said:
The state investigated and appears to have found out it was not an assault.
The state investigated and found there was no criminal case to answer. That does not mean that the prison service or the individual officers were not negligent in some way.WinstonWolf said:
What do you do when someone chooses not to be restrained, say "oh sorry mate, crack on"? Five officers were involved, do you think he was just wriggling a little?
Was five officers appropriate if he was wriggling just a bit, or was it overkill? The only organisation so far saying the officers involved only used approved restraint techniques are their union and excuse me while I take that with a large pinch of Saxo, especially as the investigation said “no case to answer” not “innocent as a babe in arms”V6Pushfit said:
oyster said:
I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
In his case I personally don't give a toss what happens to him, and since he 'doesnt recognize UK Law' then imparting a bit of extrajudicial justice seems quid pro quo to me. [quote]Was five officers appropriate if he was wriggling just a bit, or was it overkill?
[/quote]
From what I've been told my friends in that kind of industry, its a lot easier to restrain someone without hurting them as much when there are 5 of you , if there are are only a few of you then you have to use considerably more force.
[/quote]
From what I've been told my friends in that kind of industry, its a lot easier to restrain someone without hurting them as much when there are 5 of you , if there are are only a few of you then you have to use considerably more force.
Collectingbrass said:
killingjoker said:
It's all about taking responsibility for your actions. You murder somebody you go down. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
And if you harm a person in your care, or persons who work for your organisation harm a person you have employed them to look after, you take responsibility for your actions. Don’t be a When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
, no need to pay out compo. What’s so hard to understand about that?WinstonWolf said:
The state investigated and appears to have found out it was not an assault.
The state investigated and found there was no criminal case to answer. That does not mean that the prison service or the individual officers were not negligent in some way.WinstonWolf said:
What do you do when someone chooses not to be restrained, say "oh sorry mate, crack on"? Five officers were involved, do you think he was just wriggling a little?
Was five officers appropriate if he was wriggling just a bit, or was it overkill? The only organisation so far saying the officers involved only used approved restraint techniques are their union and excuse me while I take that with a large pinch of Saxo, especially as the investigation said “no case to answer” not “innocent as a babe in arms”V6Pushfit said:
oyster said:
I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
In his case I personally don't give a toss what happens to him, and since he 'doesnt recognize UK Law' then imparting a bit of extrajudicial justice seems quid pro quo to me. Collectingbrass said:
I’ll say it again, I’m not defending his murder of Lee Rigby, but how do we get him (and those who may follow) to start to recognise UK law if we do not show him that it applies even to him and the other dregs of society that you may want to wash your hands of? Yes he should be punished, but while he and all the other prisoners are banged up we have our best chance of rehabilitating them so why would we not try, as distasteful as it may well be.
And that sort of thinking is why burglars get compensation from householders defending their own property.Do you really believe that sort of guff?
Do you really think someone who beheads someone in the street with a meat cleaver will be impressed by "show him that it applies even to him and the other dregs of society"?
Perhaps we should try a major and I mean MAJOR leaflet campaign.
WinstonWolf said:
So you support his claim for compensation?
The point is not about this specific case - about which it's difficult to comment without the facts - it is about the principal that you cannot go around deciding that the rules (specifically that you can't dish out extra-judicial punishment to people in jail) don't apply to the people that you don't like. The law must be consistent otherwise it is no law at all.bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
So you support his claim for compensation?
The point is not about this specific case - about which it's difficult to comment without the facts - it is about the principal that you cannot go around deciding that the rules (specifically that you can't dish out extra-judicial punishment to people in jail) don't apply to the people that you don't like. The law must be consistent otherwise it is no law at all.Do you support his claim for compensation?
WinstonWolf said:
So you support his claim for compensation?
I support his right to be treated the same as everyone else, which his kind do not give me. I also support his responsibility to play his part in the society he has adopted, by that society’s rules, which his kind do not.I support the Prison Officer’s rights to walk the wing without fear of harm, I also support the rights of the Prison Officer to be given the equipment and numbers to do his job properly & to the best of his ability. I support his responsibility to not injure those in his custody by his acts, omissions or negligence, either deliberately on the part of the officer or by corporate failings within which the officer did his best as he understood it.
I support our way of life, I enjoy my rights and fulfil my responsibilities which come with those. I have the right to quiet enjoyment of my life, I have the right to keep my property secure, I have the right to the protection of my life and my property the state. But I also have the responsibility not to be negligent in my job and above all I have the responsibility to first do no harm.
I support the right of the state to uphold justice without fear or favour, but I have the responsibility to accept the consequences of that justice when it has consequences I do not like. If I allow the state to be selective in how and to whom it applies that justice, I do not have the right to protest when that application comes too close to home.
So yes, I support his right make the claim he has.
I also support the right of the court to assess what level his behavior in the incident contributed to his injury and reduce the payout, if any, accordingly. I also support the right of Lee Rigby's family to make any claim they can from who ever they can.
DragsterRR said:
And that sort of thinking is why burglars get compensation from householders defending their own property.
Do you really believe that sort of guff?
Do you really think someone who beheads someone in the street with a meat cleaver will be impressed by "show him that it applies even to him and the other dregs of society"?
Perhaps we should try a major and I mean MAJOR leaflet campaign.
And how far should a householder go? How is shooting someone in the back when they’ve been after a few quid reasonable? There is already law on reasonable force, and the guff from Cameron in 2010 / 11 / 12 on that topic did not result in a change in the law. Householders wouldn’t have to take matters into their own hands if there were sufficient police, prosecutors & prisons to control law breakers, but that is a different matter and would likely result in you paying more tax. Do you really believe that sort of guff?
Do you really think someone who beheads someone in the street with a meat cleaver will be impressed by "show him that it applies even to him and the other dregs of society"?
Perhaps we should try a major and I mean MAJOR leaflet campaign.
I don’t know whether he would be impressed, and frankly I don’t care whether treating him in the way I believe to be “right” makes a difference to him, but I do not want to be part of a society that does not because I do not want to be part of the dystopia that leads to.
As for your picture, I love Red Dwarf but can’t stand the taste of lentils :-D If I was an MP I would have voted against the motion for war in Syria, but only because of the dishonesty that a few bombs from drones will solve the problem. Syria needs boots on the ground and lots of them. If I was called up I would go; I am no tofu eating peacenik but I will and do stand for a society that treats everyone equally with the full force of the law.
WinstonWolf said:
We are discussing this specific case so all my comments relate to this.
Do you support his claim for compensation?
It's not possible for me to say as I don't know how his teeth got knocked out. If they've come out as a result of the police knocking him around a bit then yes, I would. I certainly support his right to claim for compensation.Do you support his claim for compensation?
bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
We are discussing this specific case so all my comments relate to this.
Do you support his claim for compensation?
It's not possible for me to say as I don't know how his teeth got knocked out. If they've come out as a result of the police knocking him around a bit then yes, I would. I certainly support his right to claim for compensation.Do you support his claim for compensation?
What of Lee Rigby's rights?
bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
Then you are a part of all that is wrong with modern society.
What of Lee Rigby's rights?
I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?What of Lee Rigby's rights?
Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.
WinstonWolf said:
bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
We are discussing this specific case so all my comments relate to this.
Do you support his claim for compensation?
It's not possible for me to say as I don't know how his teeth got knocked out. If they've come out as a result of the police knocking him around a bit then yes, I would. I certainly support his right to claim for compensation.Do you support his claim for compensation?
What of Lee Rigby's rights?
This is going round in circles though
This is how I see it in this case:
Liberals: Please please stop making excuses and showing incredible weakness in the face of any and every possible security challenge that faces our country today. The ideology that you are feeding only wants to kill you - when will the penny drop, when you are faced with someone with a machete like Lee was?
Police etc: Do whats necessary and have full support. If he needed restraining the only decision needed is molar or incisor
WinstonWolf said:
Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.
Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.
If it turns out that he was lawfully restrained then that's one thing and there is no case to answer. However, can't you see that there's a problem if you decide to waive the law as and when you fancy it? Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.
If the law is inconsistently applied it cannot really be law - in many ways it's fringe cases like this where it is most important that the law is applied correctly.
XCP said:
Twice you've dragged the police into the discussion. You do realise the difference I presume?
Typing one word rather than another is hardly dragging them into discussion, but I apologise in any case. Edited by bonkbonk on Friday 11th December 17:13
bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
Just those who have beheaded an innocent man generally.
Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.
If it turns out that he was lawfully restrained then that's one thing and there is no case to answer. However, can't you see that there's a problem if you decide to waive the law as and when you fancy it? Except in this case it was prison officers lawfully retaining an asshole who was kicking off.
If the law is inconsistently applied it cannot really be law - in many ways it's fringe cases like this where it is most important that the law is applied correctly.
I assume you believe prison officers are fully entitled to perform their job without fear of attack or injury?
bonkbonk said:
I see! Perhaps I can ask you a question? Do you support police brutality against all criminals or just who you deem worthy?
This isn't the current situation but to get things clear let me ask you bonkbonk, if that had been your brother or son beheaded on a London street how would you react if you were alone with the killer and he was handcuffed? Have you any idea?? WinstonWolf said:
Laws such as "don't behead people" and don't be such an asshole in prison that the officers need to restrain you for their and other inmates safety"?
I assume you believe prison officers are fully entitled to perform their job without fear of attack or injury?
Of course I do, what I don't believe is that they should be entitled to dish out a bit of extra-judicial punishment when no one's looking. That is not the point of prison. If that has happened (which it may or may not have done in this particular case) then I think there is a problem.I assume you believe prison officers are fully entitled to perform their job without fear of attack or injury?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff