pooley
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 13, 2010, 14:31
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: pooley wrote: But both the same in the eyes of the law. My neighbour stole from the government fir a fat screen tv and booze. Is that equally as bad, no where near, or ok becausecshe was signing on.?.
Well, when you think of all the MPs stealing from the public purse for things like fat screen TVs (I like that expression too), it kind of puts it in context. But of course your average tory MP would come down on the "scrounger" like a ton of bricks. It's that kind of hypocrisy that does my head in.
Oh I agree with that absolutely. The level of demonization of the less well off is appalling, and wrong. So is theft, and I do include benefit theft in that.
I find it odd that a lot of people on here say that the genuinely needy should be given more (whiich I agree with) but then also say it is ok to steal out if the pot that they are paid from. Could that be one of the reasons that theres less to go round?
|
Merrick
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 13, 2010, 14:34
|
|
pooley wrote: [Say the unemployed mugs and kills someone for their wallet/ Mobile Phone/ Packet of prawn cocktail - whatever. Do you think they should be dealt with more leniently than the rich banker who kills someone for millions?
Isnt the crime exactly the same, just the level of reward different
If that person is starving and kills for food then no, it's not the same as someone super-rich killing to have even more money.
In the same way, a chronically abused partner gets a lighter sentence than someone who kills their spouse for the insurance payout. It's not a wacky idea, it's even a principle recognised in law with the practice of sentencing spectrums for any given crime.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 13, 2010, 14:38
|
|
pooley wrote: Squid Tempest wrote: pooley wrote: But both the same in the eyes of the law. My neighbour stole from the government fir a fat screen tv and booze. Is that equally as bad, no where near, or ok becausecshe was signing on.?.
Well, when you think of all the MPs stealing from the public purse for things like fat screen TVs (I like that expression too), it kind of puts it in context. But of course your average tory MP would come down on the "scrounger" like a ton of bricks. It's that kind of hypocrisy that does my head in.
Oh I agree with that absolutely. The level of demonization of the less well off is appalling, and wrong. So is theft, and I do include benefit theft in that.
I find it odd that a lot of people on here say that the genuinely needy should be given more (whiich I agree with) but then also say it is ok to steal out if the pot that they are paid from. Could that be one of the reasons that theres less to go round?
I'm not saying that it is "OK to steal from the pot", or at least that wasn't what I meant. What I was trying to say is that if people on benefits are reduced to utter poverty by cuts, you can understand the desperation to put food on their plates that could lead to criminal activity.
In fact, when you put it like that I think it makes it clearer just how absurd it is to cut benefits. By doing so you increase crime. By increasing crime you increase the cost of policing, the cost to society etc, thus spending any money you saved by the cuts in the first place! Barmy!
|
Merrick
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 13, 2010, 16:03
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: In fact, when you put it like that I think it makes it clearer just how absurd it is to cut benefits. By doing so you increase crime. By increasing crime you increase the cost of policing, the cost to society etc, thus spending any money you saved by the cuts in the first place! Barmy!
add to that the increased cost of putting in families in B&Bs because we cut housing benefit, and the additional mental and physical health costs these things will generate.
Still, at least we drive down wage bills and make the poor feel like failures, so it's alright if you're in the class of people that pays wages.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 02:44
|
|
Ok, so accepting compromises may have to be made to try and reach out to the majority of voters... what's a sensible alternative? Mr "LOL" LOL!
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 02:48
|
Right, this is a defining moment for me, at least. Personally, I cannot condone "killing", full stop.
From your other posts, I am surprised by your view on this...but as ever...we are entitled to our own opinions.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 02:49
|
|
Well, you can,of course...
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 05:42
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Right, this is a defining moment for me, at least. Personally, I cannot condone "killing", full stop.
From your other posts, I am surprised by your view on this...but as ever...we are entitled to our own opinions.
There you go again! Deliberately misunderstanding/misrepresenting what people say.
OF COURSE the circumstances of every crime are taken into consideration when assessing the punishment, it's called considering any mitigating circumstances.
You aren't half a standard version of what you are Geoffrey. "I cannot condone "killing", full stop." 'Course you can. There are lots of circumstances where you could condone killing. And a huge spectrum of blameworthiness relating to killing and what the punishment should be. The Daily Mail's headlines really are a bit simplistic, don't trot them out here they won't go unchallenged, as you see.
|
The Sea Cat
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 08:03
|
LOL!! You're a one, aren't you?
Have a Lovely Day Geoffers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvohMXgcBo
|
Merrick
|
Re: A cunning plan...
Jul 14, 2010, 10:57
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Right, this is a defining moment for me, at least. Personally, I cannot condone "killing", full stop.
I did not condone killing.
I said that there were degrees of mitigation that justify different levels of punishment for different killings.
|
