Page 2 of 4
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:21 pm
Don't get so upset. It's the same all over the world...Well, the Western world any way....Not including Guantanamo.
I must admit, I find it difficult to listen to my Didgeridoo music now...
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:57 am
bringing back the sitch with the sueing burgler...I STILL CAN'T GET OVER THAT!!!!!
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:33 am
If any one ever breaks into my house when I'm older, I dont care if they want to sue. Cause they aint walking out their alive. And their family be darned.
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:30 am
So someone comes in to rob your house, you'd shoot them on the spot? That just as bad as the Muslims rioting and proving the cartoon right. Gun-Crazy Americans shooting off their weapons. Really, now.
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:36 pm
Any shot on any one finding out the actual verdict for this... i know i'm slightly insane but I'm really intrigued lmao
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:50 pm
No not shoot, more like wave pointy objects around trying to scare them. Then if they dont leave or threaten me or my family they leave in a body bag. Im not that crazy to kill on sight....i hope
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:03 pm
Yes threatening your family is a completely different matter than to just breaking in and stealing stuff!
Glad you would not shoot on sight.
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:10 pm
"Shoot first, I havn't got any questions I am intereested in asking.":-D
Sam Vimes to Detritus. But I can NOT remember which book.
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:46 am
you know if i hit a person coming into my house to do anything they could sue me....
or if they tripped over wiring in my house whilst they were stealing they could sue me....
its dead messed up.
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:03 am
Same if your dog bites them.
The police are normaly quite sympathetic though. If you have hit some one seriously, they will put a few bruises on you if you ask, and will swear black was white in court, that they had arrived JUST as they saw the burgler attacking you. Before they could reach the scene you had defended your self adaquatly, but neccessarily.
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:26 am
Delightful isn't it lol, i swear that shouldn't have to happen
doing law can really make you mad sometimes lols.
but there are SOME good things i guess, like now they don't need a battered terrified woman's word to arrest and prosecute the abuse husband
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:32 am
O.K, the problem we always had was that for assault you need a complainant.
What we were after was for US to be able to be the complainant, which stopped these bloody stupid women reporting their men for assault every Saturday, and withdrawing the complaint every Monday. (Some were so regular, it was part of the office mans start of shift dutys to get the statements half written, name address, rough time (pub closing), all they needed was signature and a few minor details. He also prepared the complaint withdrawl forms before going home on Monday. NEVER failed, never had to throw ONE away.)
In this way we could actualy get some prosecutions aginst the men, and protect the Women.
Is THAT what they have brought in? If so, it may not be perfect, but it'HEL of a lot better.
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:41 am
basically i think so, it came up when we were doing the rape cases in "Mistake". the issue was brought up that it never used to be illegal to rape your wife and now that they don't have to do anything. the police take it totally into their hands i think, not entirely sure how its going to work in court but its better than not being able to do anything
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:03 am
I presume the courts handel it like murder. The Queen is the complainant, therefore the police, as her representatives.
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:43 am
it came on the radio when i was in photog actually, pretty handy.
basically the women have no part in it, its all done via the courts and the Justice people (yes i study law and i can't remember the damned name...)
now all we have to wait and see is... what bogus pathetic defenses will be raised.