Justice

[no-infernomark]

You'd have great job security though

This is true. Bit like the recession I don't know what the fuss was my work wasc booming

 

[NitroBall]

This is true. Bit like the recession I don't know what the fuss was my work wasc booming

Closterphobic in that rat cage Mark ?

 

[Buddha 3]

infermark i personally know plenty of guys that have been done for burglary on several occasions and are still walking the streets same with drug dealers etc etc
so tell me the the three strike system is employed here and i`ll tell you it isn`t

It does not work that way in the states either. The three strikes rule only applies to violent crime, i.e. assault, murder, armed robbery.

 

[Biscuit]

buddha see what you mean but saying that then they have got it right
there are plenty of cases that show a long run of violence before they are caught for murder etc
Missy rapists should all be lined up and shot,if one crime hurts me the most it is this as a family member as gone through this

 

[Missy-Q]

buddha see what you mean but saying that then they have got it right
there are plenty of cases that show a long run of violence before they are caught for murder etc
Missy rapists should all be lined up and shot,if one crime hurts me the most it is this as a family member as gone through this

Bisc me old pal, there's no such thing as a 'Missy Rapist', trust me on that. Those fuxxers are sick, but they're not that sick.

 

[Biscuit]

missy i believe you should be ,in charge of all rapists
boy is it going too hurt

 

[Robbo]

Missy and Pete, i can see exactly what your saying.
But you're wrong Pete, Mark did mean a life sentence and was not "saved" by my post.
I have a friend very high up in the probation service so this 11 year thing was fairly obvious to me as i knew where the conversation was going. From a totally neutral position and on face value i can see how your fixating on the 11 year sentence, as that was what Mark wrote, but he was taking the last post further without the need to fully explain the situation.

I have completely changed my response here mainly because I just cannot be arsed to engage any further here when the premise of a discussion being rooted in commonsense is ignored in favour of retrospective amendments.. it's absurd what you are saying Tom and whilst it's ok to defend your friends, I got no problem in that whatsoever but in this case, it's gone beyond the pale ... I'm done with a thread that jettisons the notion of believing what someone writes only to change it at a later date just because the first statement was unequivocally incorrect.
I am unable to argue a 2+2 = 4 case any further .. you have your opinion and I have mine ...