Posts
It might be
a New Year but the same idiotic crap still goes on. Two beer thieves have been
let off with a caution, which according to the judge will act as a deterrent
and a warning to other would be thieves. Yeah right!
The pair
were caught trying to take £140 worth of beer from the Sitwell arms in Renishaw.
The quick thinking landlord pushed them down into the cellar, locked it and
called the police. However, because they admitted their guilt and because it
was a first-time offence, the Judge has let them off with a caution.
These upper
class judges, who live in cosy, safe neighbourhoods haven’t got a bloody clue
about what it’s like to live in the real world. Trust me ‘Your Honour’ this WON’T
act as a warning to other thieves, they’ll just see it as an open invitation to
go out and steal more, if all they’re going to get is a slap on the wrist and a
caution. BLOODY WAKE UP YOU MUPPETS!!!!!!!
After the
London riots I blogged a number of times about how, in order to deal with these
scumbags, you’ve got fully understand the mentality of the vermin you are
dealing with. To do that you have to first get right down into the gutter with
them; you have to breath the same air, cover yourself in the same putrid shit,
then and only then can you begin to understand how harsh and barbaric the
punishments have to be in order to stop these scum from doing what they do.
Applying liberal, civilised values to these people will simply never work.
For my money
countries like Thailand and Singapore have it exactly right; they understand
that the best way to deter would be criminals is by having punishments that put
the fear of God into most people. Yes, to most western eyes they seem cruel and
barbaric, but the simple fact is, they work most of the time (I realise nothing
can ever be 100% effective)
Bring back
public floggings and punishments that impart some real physical pain and a real
sense of fear into would be criminals’ minds, and you watch the crime rates
start to come down.
I am so sick
of the namby-pamby, bleeding heart, progressive approach to crime in this
country. Peter Hitchens wrote an excellent blog piece the other week about how
the liberal, progressive elite are to blame for the worsening crime rates in
this country. I don’t always agree with Mr. Hitchens, but I do on this occasion.
2 comments:
Hi CC!
Happy new arbitrary time wossname!
First time offence? My arse. First time caught, I would think. Surprised the landlord hasn't been arrested for wrongful imprisonment, or causing claustrophobia or some such.
As you say, it serves as no warning to anyone, other than to landlords, warning them that criminals will get away with anything.
Part of the problem is, there is no pride any more. I would be absolutely mortified to be arrested for anything. In fact, I would be mortified if anyone thought that I was a criminal of any nature. But like bankruptcy, there is no shame any more. Mediocrity is the watch word, everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Funny you should mention Mr Hitchens, when he isn't in godbotherer mode, he makes good sense.
Hiya, Tony.
Happy new whatsit to you too my friend, hahaha.
Totally agree with everything you say regarding shame, that is a large part of what is missing today.
I also agree wholeheartedly with you about Peter Hitchens. About the only time I don't agree with him is when he is on about religion and God. A couple of years ago I had a respectful debate with him (on his blog) regarding his inflexable view that if a person gets divorced they shouldn't be allowed to get married again in church. I pointed out that in some circumstances (as in cases of domestic abuse) the partner often has no choice but to leave, else often face eventual death.
Whilst Mr. Hitchens was sympathetic to such cases, he was still unwilling to admit that the partner who leaves had no choice, and that to break the vow of marrage should be inflexible. He believed that if couples spent more time getting to know each other better, such instances of domestic abuse would be largely erased.
Personally I strongly disagree with this as most abusers don't show their true colours until after the marrage, and have very subtle and sneaky ways of keeping their true nature hidden. I argued with him that whilst I agreed marrage vows should be as sacred as possible, where there was evidence of abuse, which leaves one partner with no alternative but to leave, these circumstances should be allowed and the abused partner should be allowed to marry again in church. However, Mr. Hitchens was totally inflexable to this point.
That is where he and I differ. Having said that I find myself agreeing more and more with what he says in all other matters.
Post a Comment