This.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Corrosive substance attack
- Thread starter The Clamp
- Start date
Once again proving that the Tories have lost control of immigration.
Well, had labour been in, the usual twats would have said that about labour.
Tedious weaponizing of race, immigration, 'the mental health card' and other lazy bollocks. And this thread is awash with it.
I'd say 'shame on them' but they appear to love it. Shame on them for that.
Last edited:
Who was PM during all that? If we are looking for escape goats. As some seem to be.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,343
I'll say shame on them for you.
Someone posted the data on another thread. Could have been @Zeberdi (who is not the same poster as the one being a tit on this thread). It surprised me, I'll admit. But the data are there. It may be because the appeals and legals go on for ages. But it may also be related to the fact that the rigmarole of arranging the execution itself is onerous - medical people are bound by the hypocratic oath to not kill, so arranging a killing that fits the local laws, and is done by someone 'qualified' can be a big deal.
Of course, if anyone convicted of a crime of any seriousness were simply thrown into the nearest woodchipper, no appeals, no need for 'humane' process, no anaesthetic, or luxury final meal, it would be much cheaper. It seems that some people would be happy for this to be the rubric. However it isn't, so the 'money' argument is what it is (not a reason to opt for execution as a solution to prisoner costs).
And.....exhale.
And all the best
I posted some links earlier in this thread:
One link gives an over view, the second lists studies in individual states in the US. They were just the first two links when I googled. I'm sure there's plenty more other studies out there.
To be honest, I see this as worse than murder, what they are trying to achieve is a life of torment and pain. Also I really dislike the term attempted when it comes to crimes, for some reason attempted carries a lesser sentence, even though the desire and purpose was to commit the crime, so in effect we are rewarding incompetence. Attempted and Actual should carry the same sentence.
Nixonator
Well-known member
I agree. The goal of these rather sinister substance attacks is definitely to deliver to the extent possible, a fate worse than death.
I'm sure all the victims of these abhorrent crimes will be quoted as thankful to be alive... but the psychological trauma they will subsequently endure in addition to being maimed and blinded, is a sufficient reduction in quality of life that the penalty for these altogether sadistic methods should be as severe as taking a life.
Personally I'd sleep like a baby if they hung from the Tower of London. Anybody reaching the depths of depravity necessary to commit something like this should not be walking among us, ever again.
At least we respected his human rights. That's probably more important than anything else.
Important to whom?
Why don't you tell us all which of the tories in charge over the last 13 years is responsible for promoting human rights at the expense of public safety? Which of them has failed to changed the laws to protect innocent men and women and their families? What could possibly have distracted them from dealing properly with matters in hand?
Logically you have nobody to blame other that the government, a government that has been obsessed with asylum seekers. Some of us have stated repeatedly that the tories are not really interested in doing anything about asylum and illegal immigration, because they have found a wonderful trope to weaponize, to vacuum up the gammon vote.
Enjoy your day - there is an almost infinite scope for making snarky and unhelpful comments on this and other threads. Fill your boots.
Last edited:
Well the analysis (repeatedly posted on this thread) shows that the majority of attacks are done by white males of European heritage. So I disagree with your narrative. The analysis would allow 'reducing these factors' only if it identified some sort of minority (Islamic asylum seeker, for example) as the primary perpetrator. We could then do something about it. Such as send them all to Rwanda.
Sorry if I sound facetious but racial profiling is pointless unless you have a clear idea beforehand what you will do with the info. The best narrative I have see so far that illustrates this, and it goes back to the days of Swamp 81, is that having identified an ethnic minority with a high rate of a particular crime, we can stop and search them without any reason other than their ethnicity. That was the beginning and end of the plan. It further alienated that community from the police and resulted in significant harm to middle class members of the community who had the temerity to own a nice car. This was regarded by a large number of white people as a price worth paying, and it made a lot of white folk feel happy that these blacks were being taught a lesson (the lesson being don't come over here unless you're squeaky clean, because we don't like the look of you). And yet there is no evidence to support this having any positive effect on anything, because it had no impact on crime rate or crime clear up rate. Perhaps, having identified young black males in Brixton as over-represented in the mugging community, there could have been an intensive drive to improve integration and tackle the fractured immigrant culture where the father was often not on the scene while the mother brought up the kids alone. But that was never on the public crime-prevention agenda.
I am sure there are lessons to be learned from this case, but I am confident they won't be learned. This is partly because for many we already know what the problem is - illegal asylum seekers. And as I have posted elsewhere, the Tories do not want to tackle this, merely to weaponize it.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,131
I am not advocating racial profiling for a second HWT.
That post was about looking at the causes of of crime to try and reduce it. The poster I responded to thought we do this too much and I disagree.
Last edited:
You appear to have deleted your reply. That was quick 
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,317
are you saying this government have been too soft on immigration, not done enough? or they are being too hard? we all know it's not working, i haven't heard any suggestions how we fix it though. nasty people exist, some come here through immigration. apparently some will even lie, the system lets some through. a few even commit crimes and we dont eject them, because reasons.
He was given asylum here on the third attempt... claiming he was a Christian (presumably therefore victimised in his home country 
) and his religion and character was vouched for by a priest...aahh thanks your worship 
.
Oh, and he'd been convicted here before of sexual assault
.
) and his religion and character was vouched for by a priest...aahh thanks your worship .Oh, and he'd been convicted here before of sexual assault
.
He was given asylum here on the third attempt... claiming he was a Christian (presumably therefore victimised in his home country
Oh, and he'd been convicted here before of sexual assault
BBC went through that last part this morning. The decision to allow him to stay was correct, no error, based on our current immigration laws and the human rights convention.
Personally I see convictions for violence or ‘lesser’ sexual assault as a major red flag, I’d rather a harsher regime. But then the criminal can claim they’ll be murdered back home or that kicking them is a breach of their human rights.
So just the sort of person you'd want to live amongst. What a country we are.He was given asylum here on the third attempt... claiming he was a Christian (presumably therefore victimised in his home country
Oh, and he'd been convicted here before of sexual assault
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,297
I think some are misinterpreting one poster posting something and others responding with facts and debate here. There’s no harm in reacting to one poster’s comments - it’s called an open debate and free speech. Nobody should feel uncomfortable in dealing with these facts, yet many are dismissing them - maybe they’re scared of them or scared to discuss? I don’t know, but I thought it was healthy debate from the majority. Race, religion, sexism etc etc should be discussed (as I did with @BadFish ) with a certain level of freedom of speech and respected. It’s the world we live in and I can only speak for myself but I think the intentions are educational and positive - you can’t just shut down discussion if you don’t agree with the hard truths 
- Thread starter
- #118
Excuse me?
Not a bit of it. I posted the thread because it’s appalling and I wanted to share my opinion on it.
Absolutely nothing to do with race or whatever it is you lot are banging on about.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #119
Was my thought at first.
- Aug 7, 2003
- 7,805
Indeed. It's alarming that there is a significant percentage of the population saying "What's happening now is nothing, just wait until Labour gets in"