On 02/02/2012 15:09, Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:34:58 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 1, 8:08=A0pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson

wrote:
I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. =A0Some would have to stay there for ever =
but
who cares?
And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?
Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply). =A0Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child. =A0Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.
Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Now you are a complete buffon. Every one of those has victims.

If you think so, then tell me what victims there are in each case.

I will raise him.

There is no victim in looking at any image - if he believes there are
.... why are they a 'victim' and what are they a 'victim' of?

WM

"Ste" wrote in message
...

Now you are worrying me.

You seem to be ruled by fear of other people.

If you had seen the driving I have seen you would be scared of other drivers
too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...


"Ste" wrote in message
...

Now you are worrying me.

You seem to be ruled by fear of other people.

If you had seen the driving I have seen you would be scared of other
drivers too.

Years ago, more than many of you can remember, when my father was teaching
me the basic rudiments of driving, he said to me two things which I have
remembered which has given me a clean driving licence after more years than
some of you, MOST of you have been around. (And for the gardeners in that
newsgroup, more years being married to a gardener than some have been
around)

"Remember, the most dangerous nut in the car is the one behind the wheel"

"Imagine that the other motorist is going to do the unimaginable"

In all of my many miles of motoring, diving anything from vans and buses to
a Rolls Royce, I have seen 'many nuts behind the wheel' and motorists who
have 'done the unimaginable'

Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On Feb 2, 1:51*pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:14*pm, harry wrote:

On Feb 1, 2:12*pm, (Cynic) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:28:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

--
Cynic

There is no such thing.

What about those homosexuals that are being hanger or stoned to death
in some countries, or teh woment hat once raped are stoned to death,
oh sorry the victim is the male rapist because it was the womens fault
he raped her.

Why have we suddenly moved to another country?
Were you in danger of losing the argument?
Am I in order to accusey ou of racism now?

On 01/02/2012 12:10, dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/2012 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
Why shouldn't they agree, its a statement of fact.
If you drive faster than the limit you are speeding.
If you drive faster than its safe you are dangerous driving.
The limit is the lower of the two.

Are you seriously saying that it's always safe to drive at the limit,
regardless of conditions?

Are you seriously claiming to have read what I said?

Oh good, it's a misunderstanding!

If you drive faster than the limit you are speeding.
If you drive faster than its safe you are dangerous driving.
The limit is the lower of the two.

Sounded to me as if you meant the limit had to be lower that the safe speed.

Andy

On 02/02/2012 15:13, Nigel Oldfield wrote:

There is no victim in looking at any image - if he believes there are
... why are they a 'victim' and what are they a 'victim' of?

In that particular case, and with some images the harm is done to the
subject of the picture when it is originally produced, not when it is
viewed. It is the aim of the legislation to destroy the market for such
images.

Whether it will work is another matter.

Andy

In message , Christina Websell
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Christina Websell
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Christina Websell
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
.. .
In message , Christina Websell
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
.. .
In message , Christina Websell
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Christina Websell
writes
Each one of those charcoalled persons were loved
by their families.

How do you know that?

Because they had a mother.

You have lead a sheltered life.

I do not need to have led a sheltered life to know that one part of me
says
"Yay - serves them right - great result" and the other part says "OMG,
what
a terrible thing for their family."
I don't know why they chose to risk their life, I can only assume it
was
for
something like funding a drug addiction - but even so, that is not a
capital
offence.
I'm glad I saw that, it gave me things to think about.

Until quite recently, when I chose early retirement, I was working in
a
child protection team for 21 years, so sheltered life I have not have.


Then you will know that most abuse takes place within the family so
you
cannot automatically assume that these individuals were loved by their
families

I can assure you that they were.



Did you know them personally?
--
Yes


Really, tell us more.
--
No.


Of course no, because as has been pointed out (by Janet) this incident
took place in the USA and you haven't the faintest idea who these
unfortunates were or anything about their families.
Unless of course you work for International rescue - are you Lady
Penelope in disguise?
--
hugh

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:57:37 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

Seeing myself as being both a consumer and a producer, it is obvious
that in general I want some sort of balance between the two. And even
as the builder, I don't really want individual consumers to be stung
with covering the full cost of my family emergency. But clearly I want
some general power to take time off to deal with irregular
emergencies, without total collapse of my lifestyle and reduction to
penury.

Can you not see that for a great many employers, paying an extra
salary every month to someone who does not actually do any work can be
just as devastating, and could easily result in bankruptcy for the
employer? That would especially be the case if such a thing became
law, because for every genuine case there would bound to be several
chancers who did not *really* have to stay at home as a carer.

If money were to be taken from someone (I suspect you would like it to
come from myself and other taxpayers) to pay for you to look after a
disabled relative, how about a situation in which your partner leaves
you or dies and you are left literally holding the baby? You will
have to find a way to care for your infant in that situation.

I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

--
Cynic

In article 4f2c0467.141281750@localhost,
Cynic wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a profit?

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 4f2c0467.141281750@localhost,
Cynic wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article 4f2c0467.141281750@localhost, Cynic
wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I
mentioned - friends and relatives who do not work step in and help.
The second is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility
that you will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory? The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.
Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many employers have
pulled out of providing them without choice to their employees.

Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in it
were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not the
case now, and many industries are the same. In a few years time perhaps
the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on.
Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm
glad I won't be around to see it.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article 4f2c0467.141281750@localhost, Cynic
wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I
mentioned - friends and relatives who do not work step in and help.
The second is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility
that you will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

no, just let the state learn from the private sector work out how to make
it more efficiently.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
charles wrote:
No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

no, just let the state learn from the private sector work out how to make
it more efficiently.

RBS. I rest my case. And countless insurance companies have gone bust over
the years.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/02/2012 16:37, charles wrote:
In ,
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article4f2c0467.141281750@localhost,
wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I mentioned
- friends and relatives who do not work step in and help. The second
is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility that you
will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)


Which is why private companies are essential to bridge the gap.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 03/02/2012 17:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

no, just let the state learn from the private sector work out how to make
it more efficiently.

RBS. I rest my case. And countless insurance companies have gone bust over
the years.


Countless! Absolute ********.

Still it's a funny world, isn't it, the RBS on a one off got the same
support that the NHS gets on a permanent basis. Still, only £12billion
for their failed computer operation - which will be blamed on someone
else, of course.

--
Moving things in still pictures