Yeah. Let's just ****, who cares what crime they commit in the future, who cares about the people they hurt then. I mean after all crime only effects one person. However you spin it 60% is ludicrous.
over 1/3rd of that is drug abuse parole violations.
Maybe when you have to go and get your dad out of hospital one day with an eye the size of an apple because some assholes thought ah **** it, whats gonna happen to me? you might change your tune.
Putting people away for a while, to give them time to reconsider their actions...and give us all a break for a while from these scumbags...
....isn't "giving up on people"
They should be put away, totally agree, and they should face the consequences of their actions. But while they are being punished they should be educated, given skills and integrated back into society. Once out they should get support and help in turning their lives around. If after that they still commit crime then yeah, fair enough, they are just scum, but we should give them a fair chance first.
They should be put away, totally agree, and they should face the consequences of their actions. But while they are being punished they should be educated, given skills and integrated back into society. Once out they should get support and help in turning their lives around. If after that they still commit crime then yeah, fair enough, they are just scum, but we should give them a fair chance first.
I'd hazard a guess that the drunk old man provoked them by making a racist remark. I can't see the logic in attacking someone like that in a public place such as a bus station for no apparent reason unless they're a bunch of psychopaths.
Saying that, it was out of order to do what they did.
That is going to solve absolutely nothing. In fact it will only cause problems. if we want people to be productive members of society they need to think society does give a shit about them.being violent towards them will only worsen the divide.
Well personally I don't give a shit about them.
I hope every person like that dies a painful death very soon.
I'd hazard a guess that the drunk old man provoked them by making a racist remark. I can't see the logic in attacking someone like that in a public place such as a bus station for no apparent reason unless they're a bunch of psychopaths.
Saying that, it was out of order to do what they did.
You're just trying to stir it. Either that or extremely thick?
I don't but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case so in my opinion the poster is trying to stir it. Suggesting that the victim must somehow be at fault on the basis of there being no logic behind the attack is idiotic and extremely niave. It's not as if unprovoked assaults are a rare occurrence?
I also find it quite peculiar that when somebody suggests the victim may have caused the incident himself by being racist you say nothing and then question me but when an earlier poster suggested there may have been a racial element behind the assault from the attackers your response was "how on earth can you tell that".
I don't but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case so in my opinion the poster is trying to stir it. Suggesting that the victim must somehow be at fault on the basis of there being no logic behind the attack is idiotic and extremely niave. It's not as if unprovoked assaults are rare is it?
I also find it quite peculiar that when somebody suggests the victim may have caused the incident himself by being racist you say nothing and then question me but when an earlier poster suggested there may have been a racial element behind the assault from the attackers your response was "how on earth can you tell that".
Extremely hypocritical!
All I'm saying is we don't know one way or the other. Likelyhood is that this was an attack of pure mindless violence by thugs that don't know any better but we can't start ruling things out.
All I'm saying is we don't know one way or the other. Likelyhood is that this was an attack of pure mindless violence by thugs that don't know any better but we can't start ruling things out.
So why respond to me in one manner but the earlier poster in another? You are being hypocritical. Admit it.
All I'm saying is we don't know one way or the other. Likelyhood is that this was an attack of pure mindless violence by thugs that don't know any better but we can't start ruling things out.
I don't but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case so in my opinion the poster is trying to stir it. Suggesting that the victim must somehow be at fault on the basis of there being no logic behind the attack is idiotic and extremely niave. It's not as if unprovoked assaults are a rare occurrence?
Stir what exactly? I'd really like to know how you come to that conclusion. Do feel free to explain.
And as for your last sentence, it seems you've already decided in your minute little mind that just because unprovoked assaults aren't rare (your words not mine), this is the case in this instance. :rolleyes:
I suggest you get off your high horse son, and realise there's usually two sides to a story.
Stir what exactly? I'd really like to know how you come to that conclusion. Do feel free to explain.
And as for your last sentence, it seems you've already decided in your minute little mind that just because unprovoked assaults aren't rare (your words not mine), this is the case in this instance. :rolleyes:
I suggest you get off your high horse son, and realise there's usually two sides to a story.
Elderly old man attacked by group of young thugs.
At this point there is no apparent motive.
However In the mind of 'Contain Nuts' (DIgital Spy forums very own Super Sleuth) this must be because the victim had racially abused the attackers prior to being assaulted. What other reason could there be???
This indicates one of two things;
1 - You are trying to stir it because you have an ulterior motive
2 - You are naive and haven't thought things through
I note you also say I've already decided it was a random attack because I state they are uncommon. This is a further indication of your ignorance and naivety as I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that they are uncommon and cannot be discounted as a reason. Unlike some people I don't jump to conclusions and prefer to keep an open mind.
I hope that explains it for you. Please feel free to respond if you fail to understand again.
BTW I'm not your son and please don't use 'rolleyes' smilies in an attempt to reinforce your point. It's embarrassing if you are anything other than a teenage girl.
However In the mind of 'Contain Nuts' (DIgital Spy forums very own Super Sleuth) this must be because the victim had racially abused the attackers prior to being assaulted. What other reason could there be???
This indicates one of two things;
1 - You are trying to stir it because you have an ulterior motive
2 - You are naive and haven't thought things through
I note you also say I've already decided it was a random attack because I state they are uncommon. This is a further indication of your ignorance and naivety as I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that they are uncommon and cannot be discounted as a reason. Unlike some people I don't jump to conclusions and prefer to keep an open mind.
I hope that explains it for you. Please feel free to respond if you fail to understand again.
BTW I'm not your son and please don't use 'rolleyes' smilies in an attempt to reinforce your point. It's embarrassing if you are anything other than a teenage girl.
I didn't say it was fact. Read my original post before mouthing off. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
As for your claims to have an open mind, rewind to your post but one. Evidence that you're now attempting to cover up for your foolhardy comment.
Do yourself a favour son, don't get sucked into the Daily Mail reader mentality.
Comments
over 1/3rd of that is drug abuse parole violations.
Maybe when you have to go and get your dad out of hospital one day with an eye the size of an apple because some assholes thought ah **** it, whats gonna happen to me? you might change your tune.
They should be put away, totally agree, and they should face the consequences of their actions. But while they are being punished they should be educated, given skills and integrated back into society. Once out they should get support and help in turning their lives around. If after that they still commit crime then yeah, fair enough, they are just scum, but we should give them a fair chance first.
Here, here
Paraphrased.
They get all of that before they even get to prison.
They may have but I think it's less likely.
Saying that, it was out of order to do what they did.
Well personally I don't give a shit about them.
I hope every person like that dies a painful death very soon.
You're just trying to stir it. Either that or extremely thick?
awww shucks. Busted
You seriously think that?
I'm just going to leave it here. Its not worth it.
I seriously believe that we have an education system and social care?
Yes i do.
Why? How do you know he didn't?
I don't but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case so in my opinion the poster is trying to stir it. Suggesting that the victim must somehow be at fault on the basis of there being no logic behind the attack is idiotic and extremely niave. It's not as if unprovoked assaults are a rare occurrence?
I also find it quite peculiar that when somebody suggests the victim may have caused the incident himself by being racist you say nothing and then question me but when an earlier poster suggested there may have been a racial element behind the assault from the attackers your response was "how on earth can you tell that".
Extremely hypocritical!
All I'm saying is we don't know one way or the other. Likelyhood is that this was an attack of pure mindless violence by thugs that don't know any better but we can't start ruling things out.
So why respond to me in one manner but the earlier poster in another? You are being hypocritical. Admit it.
Wont anyone think of the hoodlums!
Can they be educated in prison NO , Can they grow up and treat people with respect YES
And as for your last sentence, it seems you've already decided in your minute little mind that just because unprovoked assaults aren't rare (your words not mine), this is the case in this instance. :rolleyes:
I suggest you get off your high horse son, and realise there's usually two sides to a story.
Old duffer was clearly asking for it. luls
It's odd, I don't remember posting the message you quoted...
That is strange... i'll edit my post
all better now
lots of people ARE educated in prison.
Elderly old man attacked by group of young thugs.
At this point there is no apparent motive.
However In the mind of 'Contain Nuts' (DIgital Spy forums very own Super Sleuth) this must be because the victim had racially abused the attackers prior to being assaulted. What other reason could there be???
This indicates one of two things;
1 - You are trying to stir it because you have an ulterior motive
2 - You are naive and haven't thought things through
I note you also say I've already decided it was a random attack because I state they are uncommon. This is a further indication of your ignorance and naivety as I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that they are uncommon and cannot be discounted as a reason. Unlike some people I don't jump to conclusions and prefer to keep an open mind.
I hope that explains it for you. Please feel free to respond if you fail to understand again.
BTW I'm not your son and please don't use 'rolleyes' smilies in an attempt to reinforce your point. It's embarrassing if you are anything other than a teenage girl.
As for your claims to have an open mind, rewind to your post but one. Evidence that you're now attempting to cover up for your foolhardy comment.
Do yourself a favour son, don't get sucked into the Daily Mail reader mentality.
Have fun on your Gameboy!