Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Richie London on 21 December 2009, 11:14:46
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237390/Thug-Walid-Salem-boasts-untouchable-householder-tormented-jailed.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo
this man should be serving life and nothing less. criminal who will never change. nothing but pure scum. >:( >:( >:(
-
I can't make a comment on this. >:(
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
Agree with that :y
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
ive read this story on 3 sites, all seem to report the same to me, i guess im just taken in by it all then and
a complete idiot. the criminal justice system is not a complete an utter failure to society. a sentance should be as is given.
life should mean life and so should 12 months be 12 months
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
ive read this story on 3 sites, all seem to report the same to me, i guess im just taken in by it all then and
a complete idiot. the criminal justice system is not a complete an utter failure to society. a sentance should be as is given.
life should mean life and so should 12 months be 12 months
You are not an idiot at all, Richie, nor are you gullible. Gullibility lies with those who unfailingly decry the Daily Mail, and other centre-Right papers, without providing a shred of evidence whatsoever that what is printed is not correct. The legal system in this country is the responsibility of the Government. If it fails, then the Government must take responsibility. Thus, this story has everything to do with politics.
-
More lamposts & rope required :-?
-
More lamposts & rope required :-?
With Nickbat, those lamposts better have energy saving light bulbs in them, and made from eco friendly rope ;D ;D
-
Well couldn't believe my eyes when I read the article.
And I thought courts in my country are ridiculous.
Guess UK's are just as bad.
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
ive read this story on 3 sites, all seem to report the same to me, i guess im just taken in by it all then and
a complete idiot. the criminal justice system is not a complete an utter failure to society. a sentance should be as is given.
life should mean life and so should 12 months be 12 months
Sounds stupidly obvious but it still has to be said.
Part of the deceit of our modern society I'm afraid.
Couldn't agree more.
As a PS. I have a couple of friends/acquaintances who have been banged up for things they deny doing. Seems they could reduce their time inside by lying and saying they did do it. Help!
-
This highlights a number of questions, specific and general.
Where do you draw the line on reasonable self defence.They technically were not in danger anymore but yet I understand their actions.
The guy is obviously a career criminal so should we start employing a system whereby if you re-offend then you are taken out of society with a life term, irrespective of what crime you reoffended on.
The reoffending rates are above 60% so we end up with an enormous prison population that needs to be paid for.
There are more people locked up now than 20 years ago so that either suggests that prison is not working, going to prison prevents re-admission to regular society so further creating a criminal underclass, or society is falling in general.Or a mixture of all 3.
Wish I had some answers :-?
-
The brothers should have finished the job!
-
It's nothing to do with politics but the way in which the Daily Mail reports almost everything makes the gulible beleive it is
Suggest buying a proper newspaper to remedy the problem
ive read this story on 3 sites, all seem to report the same to me, i guess im just taken in by it all then and
a complete idiot. the criminal justice system is not a complete an utter failure to society. a sentance should be as is given.
life should mean life and so should 12 months be 12 months
You are not an idiot at all, Richie, nor are you gullible. Gullibility lies with those who unfailingly decry the Daily Mail, and other centre-Right papers, without providing a shred of evidence whatsoever that what is printed is not correct. The legal system in this country is the responsibility of the Government. If it fails, then the Government must take responsibility. Thus, this story has everything to do with politics.
aaah where would the Mail be without good honest citizens leaping to their defence, heres the story without gutter press spin (the bare facts are bad enough - the Mail doesn't need to embelish it, so why do it?)
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1260879889
wherever its been reported its been widely condemned as a failure of commonsense, unfortunately for Mr Hussain he used unreasonable force after pursuing the criminal and as I stated back then, a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate but let's not start arming ourselves to the teeth like the yanks waiting for an excuse for retribution (look up "cop pulls gun during snowball fight" on youtube)
-
The brothers should have finished the job!
It depends if we want to be a civilised society or not.
I got an inkling from the original reports that the injuries done by the victim and his cohorts may well have been inflicted some time after the event when self-restraint should have kicked-in.
If they gave the baddies a good kicking/batting as punishment (rather than in defense) then I can see why the courts would have an issue with it. That is what they are there for!
On the other hand... when people see the courts repeatedly fail to do what is considered to be their duty, it is not surprising that the retribution is carried out 'while the offended feel in the mood'! You only really feel inclined to back down when you have confidence in the proper authorities.
I have some sympathy with Munir.
-
The Daily Mail does have its' uses........
When the Andrex runs out! ;D
-
The Daily Mail does have its' uses........
When the Andrex runs out! ;D
I'd wait and buy more Andrex. ;D
-
I think it should have been a suspended sentence. To have this happen must be an absolute nightmare for the guy and his family.
-
aaah where would the Mail be without good honest citizens leaping to their defence, heres the story without gutter press spin (the bare facts are bad enough - the Mail doesn't need to embelish it, so why do it?)
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1260879889
wherever its been reported its been widely condemned as a failure of commonsense, and as I stated back then, a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate but let's not start arming ourselves to the teeth like the yanks waiting for an excuse for retribution (look up "cop pulls gun during snowball fight" on youtube)
unfortunately for Mr Hussain he used unreasonable force after pursuing the criminal
Leaving aside the debate about the efficacy or otherwise of the Daily Mail content I'm walking with bj on this.
Mr Hussein lost the defence of 'acting in self-defence' as soon as he pursued his assailant subsequently employing a weapon of offence to assault him thereby assuming the mantle of an assailant open to the full rigor of the law.
He overstepped the mark on this one and had paid the price for it - had he not then the law of unintended consequences could well have been given a very unwelcome boost.
Whenever individual members of society begin to decide what is proportionate in terms of force used against others the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable behaviour becomes very opaque and that lack of definition holds the possibility for tragedy to be unfolded on each and every occasion it is met.
-
The brothers should have finished the job!
It depends if we want to be a civilised society or not.
I got an inkling from the original reports that the injuries done by the victim and his cohorts may well have been inflicted some time after the event when self-restraint should have kicked-in.
If they gave the baddies a good kicking/batting as punishment (rather than in defense) then I can see why the courts would have an issue with it. That is what they are there for!
On the other hand... when people see the courts repeatedly fail to do what is considered to be their duty, it is not surprising that the retribution is carried out 'while the offended feel in the mood'! You only really feel inclined to back down when you have confidence in the proper authorities.
I have some sympathy with Munir.
I think after being hogtied and threatened to be killed it is perfectly reasonable at smash a cricket bat over one of the criminals heads.
-
aaah where would the Mail be without good honest citizens leaping to their defence, heres the story without gutter press spin (the bare facts are bad enough - the Mail doesn't need to embelish it, so why do it?)
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1260879889
wherever its been reported its been widely condemned as a failure of commonsense, and as I stated back then, a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate but let's not start arming ourselves to the teeth like the yanks waiting for an excuse for retribution (look up "cop pulls gun during snowball fight" on youtube)
unfortunately for Mr Hussain he used unreasonable force after pursuing the criminal
Leaving aside the debate about the efficacy or otherwise of the Daily Mail content I'm walking with bj on this.
Mr Hussein lost the defence of 'acting in self-defence' as soon as he pursued his assailant subsequently employing a weapon of offence to assault him thereby assuming the mantle of an assailant open to the full rigor of the law.
Mr Hussein overstepped the mark on this one and had paid the price for it - had he not then the law of unintended consequences could well have been given a very unwelcome boost.
Whenever individual members of society begin to decide what is proportionate in terms of force used against others the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable behaviour becomes very opaque and that lack of definition holds the possibility for tragedy to be unfolded on each and every occasion it is met.
If he had not and the 3 criminals had come back to finish the job.
Us law abiding people should not have to live in fear of scum like cricketbat head.
-
If he had not and the 3 criminals had come back to finish the job.
Us law abiding people should not have to live in fear of scum like cricketbat head.
If he had not and the 3 criminals had come back to finish the job.
The law doesn't provide for this Martin and rightly so as the danger is that vigilantism becomes the preferred method of dealing with errant members of society.
This never succeeds and I can qualify that remark having witnessed the aftermath of thousands of such acts. The nett results of such open expressions of violence are generally misery, fear and the very real possibility of innocent people falling victim to excessive and quite inappropriate and unnecessary violence by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Us law abiding people should not have to live in fear of scum like cricketbat head
I quite agree with you Martin and these very acts show just how far our society has descended towards open anarchy.
-
Give Mr Hussain a medal.
Gas the thugs.
The law doesnt do much to protect law abiding hard working citizens these days,they have more important things to do apparently,so look after you and yours and worry about the conseqeunces later.
Dont blame the Mail for politicising the story,the Police allowed themselves to become politicised tools of the state quite a while ago.
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
-
Give Mr Hussain a medal.
Gas the thugs.
The law doesnt do much to protect law abiding hard working citizens these days,they have more important things to do apparently,so look after you and yours and worry about the conseqeunces later.
Dont blame the Mail for politicising the story,the Police allowed themselves to become politicised tools of the state quite a while ago.
The Mail did not actually politicise the story, but its readers did in their comments as did Richie unfortunately :(
-
This highlights a number of questions, specific and general.
Where do you draw the line on reasonable self defence.They technically were not in danger anymore but yet I understand their actions.
The guy is obviously a career criminal so should we start employing a system whereby if you re-offend then you are taken out of society with a life term, irrespective of what crime you reoffended on.
The reoffending rates are above 60% so we end up with an enormous prison population that needs to be paid for.
There are more people locked up now than 20 years ago so that either suggests that prison is not working, going to prison prevents re-admission to regular society so further creating a criminal underclass, or society is falling in general.Or a mixture of all 3.
Wish I had some answers :-?
bring back the death sentance why should we keep people who have commited murder,repeat offenders stick em in slums and keep em there(eventually they will do each other in save the system the job)that small bit there would free up some cell space and relieve some tension to at least try and rehabilitate some folk
-
Well we've got it now :y
I live remotly and would go on the offensive if I or mine were threatend ............
------------------------
Self-defence law 'to be introduced'
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern has denied that legislation which would allow householders to use lethal force when defending their own was a licence to kill.
The draft Criminal Law (Defences) Bill 2009, published in a report by the Law Reform Commission, will be enacted in early 2010, he said.
“I don’t honestly think that it’s a licence to kill anybody,” Mr Ahern said. “It’s clarifying the existing law that somebody is entitled to use force against somebody who comes in with criminal intent into the home,” he said, adding that the force used had be proportionate and reasonable.
Mr Ahern said that the recommendations “tipping the balance” in favour of the homeowner and would clarify existing law.
“Every case is decided by the judge and jury on its merits…and obviously a jury would have to make their mind up based on what’s put before them.”
He said the Government would also be accepting the recommendation that there will not be a requirement to retreat or flee from their home. “People are entitled to stay in the home and to defend themselves within the home,” he said.
He noted that the Law Reform Commission were also recommending that the dwelling home be defined, not just as the house itself but the area immediately surrounding the house, adding that this was an issue which would have to be determined.
Speaking on RTÉ radio earlier this afternoon, Mr Ahern said the Government had prepared a Bill on the matter in 2007 but shelved the legislation pending the publication of the report by the Law Reform Commission.
Describing the LRC report as a "very major report", Mr Ahern said: "We do intend to pick the issue of home defence out of the report". He said: "based on the comments they have made and the recommendations they have made", the Government would "build on this existing piece of legislation that we were drafting".
"This is putting burglars on notice that if they do go into houses in this way that the person in the house is given more protection than here-to-fore," Mr Ahern said.
"They should take cognisance of that," he added.
A group representing rural communities has welcomed the proposal, but civil rights groups have described it as a “have-a-go” charter.
National network Irish Rural Link (IRL) chief executive Seamus Boland said: “Any such change would be welcomed by rural communities and would counter a growing sense of helplessness in rural areas. It would provide certainty on the rights of homeowners to defend their property.
"In a submission to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights in October Irish Rural Link warned that ambiguity about the rights of homeowners to defend their property against trespassers is adding to a sense of vulnerability in rural communities."
Mr Boland said removing ambiguity around the rights of homeowners in their own homes to ensure they are able to protect themselves and their families was important.
"There is a perception that the deep-rooted psychological effects home robberies have on those affected are not considered by the justice system and this must also be addressed.
"The most effective way to deter robberies and those who intend to harm others remains ensuring that they are fearful of being caught, prosecuted and convicted."
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) has described the proposals on home defence as a “have-a-go” charter, which it said would rely on murder trials to tell householders they have been wrong to use lethal force.
ICCL director Mark Kelly said: “Changing the law to encourage householders to 'stand their ground' when confronted by burglars will be understood by householders as a charter to 'have-a-go'.”
Mr Kelly said a householder who used lethal force against a burglar would still face a murder trial and "may well be convicted”.
“The State has a duty to protect the right to life of householders, including through laws that reduce, not increase, the risks they face.
"That duty is not properly discharged by encouraging people to stand their ground and face violence which they could safely avoid. Nor are murder trials for householders the best means to discourage them from using lethal force unless it is absolutely necessary.”
The Government rejected a Fine Gael Bill in September that would have protected householders who attack burglars in their home.
The party’s justice spokesman Charlie Flanagan said: “I believe that the law should clearly entitle a homeowner or occupier to defend themselves and their family.
“I’m not advocating a licence to kill but what I’m doing is promoting a redress of the balance of law.”
The draft Bill is appended to a report on Defences in Criminal Law, which will be launched by Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, this evening.
Mr Ahern recently told the Dáil that intrusion into a home “should not be tolerated”.
The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 makes clear that reasonable force may be applied by somebody seeking to protect themselves or their family from injury, assault or detention.
Force can also be used to protect one’s property from “destruction or damage caused by trespass”.
However, it is not clear where a citizen stands legally when simply confronting an intruder in his or her home.
The LRC report contains 46 recommendations and includes a draft Criminal Law (Defences) Bill 2009.
View all stories
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
I'm sorry Entwood but if you really believe what you've written then I'm sad to say there's no hope for this world and the criminal element and snivelling gutless PC brigade will have all us law abiding people looking over our shoulders waiting to be the next crime statistic's page filler!!!
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
I'm sorry Entwood but if you really believe what you've written then I'm sad to say there's no hope for this world and the criminal element and snivelling gutless PC brigade will have all us law abiding people looking over our shoulders waiting to be the next crime statistic's page filler!!!
Do you have a solution to this very difficult problem Pete? :)
-
I'm all in favour of home owners being backed where they use proportionate force in the repulsion of intruders. It is a minefield though, even without the PC brigade.
What happens where neighbours come to "reciprocal agreements"? Or whole streets come to that? Will the baddies profile homes to just pick on the elderly and infirm? What happens if you are attacked from property not owned by you, or you're a guest, or you're visiting your widowed mother?
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
I'm sorry Entwood but if you really believe what you've written then I'm sad to say there's no hope for this world and the criminal element and snivelling gutless PC brigade will have all us law abiding people looking over our shoulders waiting to be the next crime statistic's page filler!!!
That is the whole point .. he did NOT abide by the law .. he took it into his own hands when he wacked the guy with a cricket bat 100 yards down the road. If he had obeyed the law and stopped the guy with "reasonable force" he would not be in prison.
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
I'm sorry Entwood but if you really believe what you've written then I'm sad to say there's no hope for this world and the criminal element and snivelling gutless PC brigade will have all us law abiding people looking over our shoulders waiting to be the next crime statistic's page filler!!!
Do you have a solution to this very difficult problem Pete? :)
Yes Zulu but unfortunately the criminal scumbags won't like it ;D.
-
How in anyones mind does chasing someone down the road, tripping them up, then smacking them in the head with a cricket bat even come close to "self defence" ???
The guy lost it and went OTT. I excuse him losing it due to what he had just gone through, but he acted as judge, jury, and very nearly, executioner.
Simply not allowed. Vigilante behaviour NOT self defence.
His actions were wholly disproportionate .. ie unreasonable
And that is what he was done for. Simple really.
I'm sorry Entwood but if you really believe what you've written then I'm sad to say there's no hope for this world and the criminal element and snivelling gutless PC brigade will have all us law abiding people looking over our shoulders waiting to be the next crime statistic's page filler!!!
That is the whole point .. he did NOT abide by the law .. he took it into his own hands when he wacked the guy with a cricket bat 100 yards down the road. If he had obeyed the law and stopped the guy with "reasonable force" he would not be in prison.
Quite frankly with what he and his family had been put through i don't as should have the jury think reasonable force comes into it and he was doing society a huge favour deleting this piece of worthless shite from it!!!
I know that the law is the law but when in Gods name are these antiquated laws and the subsequent punishments for breaking them going to be brought into the 21st century >:(.
Rant over :-X.
BTW Entwood i have to agree with what you say because unfortunately that's how the laws such as they are stand today but hopefully for all our sakes, [size=14]not for much longer[/size] :(.
Merry Christmas,
Pete :).