Azelle Rodney: Tough Tits?

Thanks for that Sluffy. I remember the trial collapsing due to that stupid, stupid bitch from the jury contacting one of the defendants on Facebook.

OK, handling stolen goods. Like Del Boy and Rodney then, and Uncle Albert.

Point I am making is that normally, people who are in favour of capital punishment, see it as a deterrent/punishment for the most serious of crimes such as murder, rape and child sex offences. So it does seem a bit odd when we're OK with unarmed men being shot dead because they have committed 'lesser' crimes than these.

Think there is a big difference between the police 'knowing' what people have got up to and 'proving' it.

Reminds me of the documentary on the terrorists that attempted to blow up planes with 'liquid' bombs - which as meant from then on we all have to go through boarding checks without our bottles of water etc.

Basically the British police found out that terrorist had a plan to blow up US planes and told the US government accordingly. The thing was that we couldn't 'prove' the case under British law with sufficient certainty that they would be convicted until they actually went through with the plan. The US could not believe us and basically blew the whistle themselves to protect their own citizens, meaning that the police had to arrest them and hope they had enough circumstantial evidence to convict them - which as it turned out they had - but it really was touch and go.

Similarly in a way (as per the Our War series on BBC) British soldiers cannot shoot at known terrorists who are carrying loaded weapons UNLESS they shoot at the soldier first!

I understand the reason for the line to be drawn but I believe also in the old saying about 'rules being for the abeyance of fools but the guidance of wise men'.

Sluffy wrote:
Similarly in a way (as per the Our War series on BBC) British soldiers cannot shoot at known terrorists who are carrying loaded weapons UNLESS they shoot at the soldier first!

That's not how I remember it when I was in the RAF. The IRA were very active on the mainland back then and our "Green Card" which detailed rules of engagement stated that if you felt that your patrol or guard was in danger of being compromised you could open fire. I remember one guy at Wittering was charged with endagering his own guard for not opening fire on a car that was driven at high speed directly at the main gate. It was some young local yokels playing around and they did a hand-brake turn and fucked off. What they did was considered enough to have opened fire though in the current climate which was Bikini state Amber, which means information has been received regarding threats to Military or Governmental targets.

Good to see the couple who gave the burglars some buckshot as a goodbye present have been released without charge. If I woke up in the night to find some masked face slavering over me I would stab my stiletto straight through his gonads.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/06/article-2198753-14DA45A5000005DC-839_308x436.jpg

I know it's from the Daily Mail but I still think the decision not to prosecute them is the correct one.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

I know it's from the Daily Mail but I still think the decision not to prosecute them is the correct one.

Cue message from Largehat/Hipster saying burglars have rights.

The thought did cross my mind when I posted it!

This one will get the blood boiling!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198934/The-chance-saloon-immigration-control-Landmark-debate-discuss-pressure-caused-unprecedented-levels.html