Eh?

[ChildeHarold]

55 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

I think it depends on your point of view.. I don’t  necessarily agree with you. Having said that, I don’t condone anything that this young woman has done or been party to but she was a minor at the time when she left, that means she was a child in the eyes of the law. However, the law has now had its say. I am hawkish about the involvement ..or lack of ... by her parents in all this .I’ll bet the security have been all over them like a cheap suit since this debacle has unfolded.

I believe her family were Islamic State sympathisers in private and stum in public. As for being a fucking "minor" in any reasonable but non legalese definition of the term!!!!! 

[cuntspotter]

34 minutes ago, ChildeHarold said:

I believe her family were Islamic State sympathisers in private and stum in public. As for being a fucking "minor" in any reasonable but non legalese definition of the term!!!!! 

I understand the ire that people feel over this sorry fucking mess but I believe that we can’t have the penny and the bun. My fear is that the state is picking and choosing how to interpret the law. A minor is a minor, whether it suits us or not. However, as I have said previously, the law has had its say.

[Penny Farthing]

19 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

I understand the ire that people feel over this sorry fucking mess but I believe that we can’t have the penny and the bun. My fear is that the state is picking and choosing how to interpret the law. A minor is a minor, whether it suits us or not. However, as I have said previously, the law has had its say.

The scenario I would have wanted to see would not have been her simply walking away unpunished .. it would have been more in line with how a juvenile would have been treated .. ie a trial and if found guilty of a terrorism offence a long prison sentence with any eventual release being under licence and possible recall.

[cuntspotter]

2 minutes ago, Dawn Chorus said:

The scenario I would have wanted to see would not have been her simply walking away unpunished .. it would have been more in line with how a juvenile would have been treated .. ie a trial and if found guilty of a terrorism offence a long prison sentence with any eventual release being under licence and possible recall.

Yes.

[King Billy]

1 hour ago, Dawn Chorus said:

I am not a lefty

So you hang to the right then sir? Suits you sir, suits you sir.

[Eric Cuntman]

11 minutes ago, Dawn Chorus said:

The scenario I would have wanted to see would not have been her simply walking away unpunished .. it would have been more in line with how a juvenile would have been treated .. ie a trial and if found guilty of a terrorism offence a long prison sentence with any eventual release being under licence and possible recall.

Treason. Witnessed and admitted. Hang the cunt. 

[The Beast]

28 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

I understand the ire that people feel over this sorry fucking mess but I believe that we can’t have the penny and the bun. My fear is that the state is picking and choosing how to interpret the law. A minor is a minor, whether it suits us or not. However, as I have said previously, the law has had its say.

Originally, I was for bringing her back, because of her status as a minor when she left.

However, I changed my mind after the TV interview she did 2 years ago or so. Her apparent desensitisation to victims of murder was a big no, no for me.

Thinking into it further, British law aside, within her own culture, with which she obviously more strongly identifies, at 15 years of age she would not be considered a minor.

She has made her bed and she has to lay in it for the time being. We have not heard the last of this saga, yet.

[King Billy]

1 hour ago, ChildeHarold said:

I believe her family were Islamic State sympathisers in private and stum in public. As for being a fucking "minor" in any reasonable but non legalese definition of the term!!!!! 

The age of criminal responsibility is ten. Therefore she was not a child in the eyes of the law. You however should be very wary re. your future actions as you must be approaching the last days of your immunity.

[Stubby Pecker]

31 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

I understand the ire that people feel over this sorry fucking mess but I believe that we can’t have the penny and the bun. My fear is that the state is picking and choosing how to interpret the law. A minor is a minor, whether it suits us or not. However, as I have said previously, the law has had its say.

When it was discovered she was lurking in some refugee camp with nowhere to go except back to blighty she should have been topped. 100 US$ To one her fellow outcasts would have been enough for a late night throat slit. I hope to god the real nasty cunts returning from the caliphate were snuffed out by the spooks. These cunts chose their side and should have had the balls to go down fighting 

Ah fuck it, just nuke the entire Middle East, turkey and the kikes included

[cuntspotter]

16 minutes ago, King Billy said:

The age of criminal responsibility is ten. Therefore she was not a child in the eyes of the law. You however should be very wary re. your future actions as you must be approaching the last days of your immunity.

You are a little mixed up about what constitutes a “minor” . The age of criminal responsibility is 16, though children aged 12 and over can be considered to have committed crimes. Children under 12 are considered incapable of breaking the law, and are treated as victims, not offenders, if they do something that would be considered a crime for someone older.

[Cuntybaws]

1 hour ago, cuntspotter said:

I understand the ire that people feel over this sorry fucking mess but I believe that we can’t have the penny and the bun. My fear is that the state is picking and choosing how to interpret the law. A minor is a minor, whether it suits us or not. However, as I have said previously, the law has had its say.

“We live in a primitive time, neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books.” 

[Stubby Pecker]

15 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

“We live in a primitive time, neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books.” 

“Whenever Feasible, One Should Always Try To Eat The Rude.”
 

*excluding jocks

[King Billy]

54 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

You are a little mixed up about what constitutes a “minor” . The age of criminal responsibility is 16, though children aged 12 and over can be considered to have committed crimes. Children under 12 are considered incapable of breaking the law, and are treated as victims, not offenders, if they do something that would be considered a crime for someone older.

Sorry but the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, which means that a 10 year old can be tried for any crime and with some safeguards be treated the same as an adult. eg. Thompson and Venables.

[cuntspotter]

11 minutes ago, King Billy said:

Sorry but the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, which means that a 10 year old can be tried for any crime and with some safeguards be treated the same as an adult. eg. Thompson and Venables.

Have you ever been in a children’s court? What the law says and what it does in the case of children  are two different things. Cases like Thompson and Venables are rare indeed. Yes the letter of the law is 10. But it is so rarely applied because the legal system has no faith in it for the reasons I stated above. The magic number is 12. Ask a Barrister who specialises. As a “by the way” . I was the first Clinical Nurse specialist appointed to the Youth Justice board in Wales. I have been in youth courts hundreds of times.

[King Billy]

1 minute ago, cuntspotter said:

Have you ever been in a children’s court?

Juvenile court, yes many times. And I’ve served a training school order 1 to 3 years and borstal order 6 months to 2 years. Juvenile courts have always been part of the criminal judicial system.

[cuntspotter]

1 minute ago, King Billy said:

Juvenile court, yes many times. And I’ve served a training school order 1 to 3 years and borstal order 6 months to 2 years. Juvenile courts have always been part of the criminal judicial system.

Sorry, I missed this...I was amending my post.

[King Billy]

4 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

Sorry, I missed this...I was amending my post.

Don’t go mad ‘amending your post’ Spot. Think of the hangover in the morning.

[cuntspotter]

1 minute ago, King Billy said:

Don’t go mad ‘amending your post’ Spot. Think of the hangover in the morning.

Where do you stand on this matter Bill?  It interests me that the Uk has “on the face of it” the lowest ACR ( nominally 10) but that only the Lib Dem’s actually support raising it. All the professional bodies concerned support a raise in ACR.

[King Billy]

13 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

Have you ever been in a children’s court? What the law says and what it does in the case of children  are two different things. Cases like Thompson and Venables are rare indeed. Yes the letter of the law is 10. But it is so rarely applied because the legal system has no faith in it for the reasons I stated above. The magic number is 12. Ask a Barrister who specialises. As a “by the way” . I was the first Clinical Nurse specialist appointed to the Youth Justice board in Wales. I have been in youth courts hundreds of times.

It may be the case that the law is not applied nowadays as it is written. In my day it was and kids were locked up commonly and that’s just a historical fact. I’m not saying it was the best way to deal with juvenile crime but the current application of the law ie multiple cautions, sometimes as many as twenty simply don’t deter the offenders and don’t protect the victims. But it was surely better than nowadays because  serious juvenile crime has rocketed in the last 30 years and the prisons are full of teenagers who’ve been slapped on the wrist so many times that they had no fear of the police or the justice system  until they get caught for a really serious offence, usually violent. 

[King Billy]

13 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

Where do you stand on this matter Bill?  It interests me that the Uk has “on the face of it” the lowest ACR ( nominally 10) but that only the Lib Dem’s actually support raising it. All the professional bodies concerned support a raise in ACR.

I don’t believe it should be raised as inner city gangs even now use kids under ten to move drugs and weapons around on pushbikes, knowing that if they get caught there is nothing whatsoever the Old Bill can do to them. Imagine the chaos if older kids were let loose on the streets with immunity from any consequences? Would you like to be robbed and stabbed by a 14 year old who laughed and walked away if he was captured?

[ratcum]

On ‎26‎/‎02‎/‎2021 at 19:45, camberwell gypsy said:

Kosher mince? Is that what jewish gays do?

naughty

[King Billy]

2 hours ago, The Beast said:

Thinking into it further, British law aside, within her own culture, with which she obviously more strongly identifies, at 15 years of age she would not be considered a minor

To many of her fellow savages she’d be considered a senior citizen, way too old for marriage or even rape. Useful only for cooking and cleaning purposes.

[cuntspotter]

6 hours ago, King Billy said:

It may be the case that the law is not applied nowadays as it is written. In my day it was and kids were locked up commonly and that’s just a historical fact. I’m not saying it was the best way to deal with juvenile crime but the current application of the law ie multiple cautions, sometimes as many as twenty simply don’t deter the offenders and don’t protect the victims. But it was surely better than nowadays because  serious juvenile crime has rocketed in the last 30 years and the prisons are full of teenagers who’ve been slapped on the wrist so many times that they had no fear of the police or the justice system  until they get caught for a really serious offence, usually violent. 

To clarify my previous pedantic response about the significance of age. The issue is, when are you treated like an adult?  The issue about capacity to understand (currently 10) does not mean that your actions will carry the full weight of adult law. Children’s courts are very , very different places these days from adult courts and have been for several decades. Being under the age of 16 presented certain guarantees. Acts committed over 16 but under eighteen are in a grey , crossover period which can lead to adult tariffs. The age of 16 is the cutoff for this concept of being a “minor” . I’m interested that , like the Bulger case, this young woman’s situation has triggered societies revulsion and need to see an example made of someone. I’m rather disappointed and disgusted in the Labour Party stance of this notion of 10 year old carrying the laughable expectation of understanding the implications and outcomes of their behaviour. Venables and Thompson are interesting cases in point that in some ways support rather than refute my position on this. However, sadly,  we would never convince the Bulger family of the rectitude of such a position. All that being said.... I hope that this woman’s position is a deterrent to other young people who are stirred to follow similar paths of idealism. I’m not aware at this time of how many others are in a similar position. (Being refused return to uk) particularly ex isis fighters. 

[Penny Farthing]

3 hours ago, cuntspotter said:

To clarify my previous pedantic response about the significance of age. The issue is, when are you treated like an adult?  The issue about capacity to understand (currently 10) does not mean that your actions will carry the full weight of adult law. Children’s courts are very , very different places these days from adult courts and have been for several decades. Being under the age of 16 presented certain guarantees. Acts committed over 16 but under eighteen are in a grey , crossover period which can lead to adult tariffs. The age of 16 is the cutoff for this concept of being a “minor” . I’m interested that , like the Bulger case, this young woman’s situation has triggered societies revulsion and need to see an example made of someone. I’m rather disappointed and disgusted in the Labour Party stance of this notion of 10 year old carrying the laughable expectation of understanding the implications and outcomes of their behaviour. Venables and Thompson are interesting cases in point that in some ways support rather than refute my position on this. However, sadly,  we would never convince the Bulger family of the rectitude of such a position. All that being said.... I hope that this woman’s position is a deterrent to other young people who are stirred to follow similar paths of idealism. I’m not aware at this time of how many others are in a similar position. (Being refused return to uk) particularly ex isis fighters. 

TBH it is has not been changed all that much for over 50 years, the Mary Bell case was in 1968 .. she was 11 years old at the time of the killings and her alleged accomplice two years older (in the latter case her older accomplice did not suffer any penalty). Mary Bell herself served 12 years in prison which if anything to was a couple of years shorter than it should have been but regardless to the best of my knowledge she has led a law abiding life since release and never reoffended .. what surprised and disappointed me in the Bulger case is that that Venables and Thompson served shorter sentences. I think that a minimum period of detention of around 15 years is appropriate and give ample to time to reprogramme and reconstruct the personalities of such damaged children. A point to consider regarding protection from identification is that these children might later have children of their own and that the intersts of those children need to be taken into account.

[Mrs Roops]

I suspect the European Court of Human Rights will reverse the decision made by the UK Supreme Court. I have to say the Supreme Court's ruling sits uneasy with me. The Court, in their ruling, did acknowledge that the judgment was "not ideal" but the Court's role was to judge the law and not Begum's circumstances principle of which was her circumstances leading up to absconding at 15 years of age.