Robbed - Hit over Head - But lucky!

[bensonby]

SCUSE ME! for having an opinion!

I have several members of my family who have been attacked or threatened over the years,
one of them was my daughter who after doing a 12 hour shift was hit over the head and kicked half to death while laying on the floor bleeeding from a severe head wound! the phone call i got from the hospital at 1oclock in the morning will haunt me forever, so dont give me any crap about trolling???
as far as i am concerened i live by eye for an eye.there is no excuse for someone to attack another, but having done so...........well they deserve all the retribution they get.
Sod what you think!!!!!

My bold. And what good does that do to society?

I refer you to the various theories of punishment, namely punishment exists for one or more of the following reasons:

Prevent Harm to Others / protect people and property from offender
Deter others from offending
Put right what has been done wrong
Rehabilitate offenders in order that they don't do wrong again
Vindicate the law

where precisely does revenge fit in? save for its own sake? and what good is achieved by pure base revenge?

[Annie]

Prevent Harm to Others / protect people and property from offender
Deter others from offending
Put right what has been done wrong

The above will do!
you give the impression that you are involved with the police? ( i could be wrong )

The Bromley poilce who dealt with my daughters case were incompetent.they lost evidence, and even left some at the crime scene (ie the bottle that was used .....Fingerprints?)

They were so bad when the case got to court and they couldnt produce the evidence they were told by the judge they had x hours to find it before the case would be thrown out of court.
needless to say they found it.
please don't quote an ideal world to me bacause this is not one.
I will think what i want and will not have anyone telling me i'm a TROLL for thinking my way.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

SCUSE ME! for having an opinion!

No excuse needed. Opinions are fine. Mine follow. But trolling is not.

Perhaps you mistook my take on the discussion. That is the ills of criminal behaviour are nothing to do with the HRA which is primarily concerned with non-criminal actions. You, Sydeman & Eagle have been invited to refute that factually. You have all declined. Yet you keep repeating without justification that criminals are getting off because of "europe" & "human rights".

I have several members of my family who have been attacked or threatened over the years,
one of them was my daughter who after doing a 12 hour shift was hit over the head and kicked half to death while laying on the floor bleeeding from a severe head wound! the phone call i got from the hospital at 1oclock in the morning will haunt me forever, so dont give me any crap about trolling???

I will. We all want not to be attacked. But, unless you can show otherwise and you have refused to do to date, that the repeal of the HRA will do anything to protect your daughter or yourself from such attacks but will remove the human rights of innocent people. Which, by the way, was a UK idea that we gave to "europe" and not the other way round.

Wishing revenge on the guilty party I can understand even if evidence suggests it be counterproductive. But when you advocate revenge for your daughter's tragedy on other innocent people then I think you are well beyond reason. And the strident repitition of an unreasonable view and your evasion of any counter view is trolling in my book.

PP

[bensonby]

The above will do!
you give the impression that you are involved with the police? ( i could be wrong )

What makes yout think so? I will admit to having been in a police cell a couple of times.

The Bromley poilce who dealt with my daughters case were incompetent.they lost evidence, and even left some at the crime scene (ie the bottle that was used .....Fingerprints?)

They were so bad when the case got to court and they couldnt produce the evidence they were told by the judge they had x hours to find it before the case would be thrown out of court.
needless to say they found it.
please don't quote an ideal world to me bacause this is not one.
I will think what i want and will not have anyone telling me i'm a TROLL for thinking my way.

I can't comment on the particulars of your case. Things certainly do go wrong and mistakes certainly are made from time to time.

However, this has little to do with the failings, or otherwise, of the HRA or indeed how revenge is justified.

[natbeuk]

SCUSE ME! for having an opinion!

Sod what you think!!!!!

Right. I think that sums up the arguments against the HRA here and there certainly seems to be no place for rational, structure debate backed up by concrete examples of how the HRA fails victims, so I am now backing out. Bensonby and PP, I think you're wasting your energy.

[Annie]

Bensonby and Pady pantsdown

Please point out to me where i have EVER even mentioned the HRA?????

I have no idea what is in the act. and therefore would not try to argue the point you have suggested i have?

what i objected to was being called a troll for simply stating i believe in an EYE for an EYE.

please use the QUOTE system to show where i have mentioned this act or have the B***S to apologise

[natbeuk]

Annie, you responded to Catscratch's post which was all about the HRA with the statement "Well done Catscratch". You have also consistently agreed with those who are specifically anti HRA. Therefore you are by implication supporting the abolition of the HRA and have at no point said anything to the contrary until now.

I did say I was backing out of this thread, but found your last post so aggressive that felt a reply was appropriate (and yes I know it wasn't directed at me).

[bensonby]

you heartilty endorsed Catscratch's post that heavily criticised the HRA, so I was under the impression that you agreed with his sentiments. If you did not, then I apologise.

However, you still havn't demonstrated the good that revenge, "an eye for an eye", does. Safe for primeval self-satisfaction which has no good bearing on society as a whole.

[Annie]

SCUSE ME! for having an opinion!

Sod what you think!!!!!

Right. I think that sums up the arguments against the HRA here and there certainly seems to be no place for rational, structure debate backed up by concrete examples of how the HRA fails victims, so I am now backing out. Bensonby and PP, I think you're wasting your energy.

I have never stated anything to do with the HRA so stop trying to be cleaver.Try reading my posts before you use sarcastic replys

[natbeuk]

SCUSE ME! for having an opinion!

Sod what you think!!!!!

Right. I think that sums up the arguments against the HRA here and there certainly seems to be no place for rational, structure debate backed up by concrete examples of how the HRA fails victims, so I am now backing out. Bensonby and PP, I think you're wasting your energy.

I have never stated anything to do with the HRA so stop trying to be cleaver.Try reading my posts before you use sarcastic replys

Please refer to my previous post. I have read your posts. In my post above I was not using any sarcasm at all.

[Annie]

Catscratch said...........
Yep if some one attacks me and comes off worst and gets a bloody good hiding, tough, he alone made the decision to attack me for what ever or no reason, or maybe its his right to attack an ex Para PT Instructer.
you reap what you sow.
As for the forthcoming comments about violence not solving anything, well, I won't get trouble from the same quarter,or their pals and is it after all, better to wish violence on some scote, ie along the lines of, the circles they move inthey soon get some of it back, as is mooted elsewhere. or take the responsibility into ones own hads? .........

Just to clarify, this is the part of catscratches post i said well done to,
not that i have to justify myself, its your fault you jumped to the wrong conclusion, as i have stated i know nothing about the HRA and would not feel qualified to comment on it.

[fishcox]

I think it was actually Ghandi who said that 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind' which was endorsed by MLK.

'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' was in the Old Testament, but if you read the New Testament, you will remember that Christ told his followers that if someone hit them they should 'offer the other cheek'.

The Koran advocates that those who seek retribution should seek less than the offence against them.

Buddism also advises revenge is useless, and that offenders will be punished through their Karma; something I would like to believe.

I am just trying to show that an 'eye for an eye' is outdated by a few thousand years.

Annie, I know when something terrible happens to anyone who is close to you, the first reaction is revenge, but it really doesnt solve anything, and in fact simply reduces you to to the same level as the original offender.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

I have never stated anything to do with the HRA so stop trying to be cleaver.Try reading my posts before you use sarcastic replys

Like the other two - how else can one interpret your enthusiastic endorsement of posts that claims the Human Rights are getting criminals off and preventing self defence/revenge. This has been the topic of the last 2-3 pages.

You have been rather rude to us. I do try and read your posts carefully - thats why I quote them back at you. Its hard not to respond without being rude too, I will leave it to others to judge how much we failed. Troll, I should add is a technical term in posting which really means I should not be posting even this.

Trying to be clever? I have spent a lifetime trying. I always thought that a virtue. I see it as being better than ignorance. Don't you?

Take some time out and read up on the HRA (Wikipedia is a good place to start). And come back and criticise us if anything we have claimed is untrue. Then maybe we can move onto a more constructive discussion on revenge & punishment.

PP

[natbeuk]

Annie, I know when something terrible happens to anyone who is close to you, the first reaction is revenge, but it really doesnt solve anything, and in fact simply reduces you to to the same level as the original offender.

And potentially opens a whole cycle of neverending revenge between aggrieved parties.

Well said fishcox.

Now I really am bowing out of this one.... got work to do!!!

[Annie]

Fishcox,

I am entitled to my beliefs like anyone else, I object to being told what to think.
this is supposed to be a free country.
However i will say this.......i have never harmed anyone nor would i intentionally do so.

but if i had been there when my daughter was needlessly attacked then i could not be held responsible for my actions.

yes i believe in Eye for an Eye i dont care how old and outdated this may appear to you or anyone else.

But i have NEVER said get rid of the HRA.

[Annie]

QUOTE Take some time out and read up on the HRA (Wikipedia is a good place to start). And come back and criticise us if anything we have claimed is untrue. Then maybe we can move onto a more constructive discussion on revenge & punishment. ......................

Wikipedia is not the best place to start and i'm sure you know that.
I have no interest in reading the HRA as i have never used the expression so please don't be childish in suggesting i do so.

You like to use bully tactics to try and quash someones opinions, it does't look good on you doing so.

Who are US? is it a special club? no wonder people leave this forum.

[admin]

I think this a good time to close this thread.

Admin