Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[George]

If someone CHOOSES to ignore the laws of the land and other people's rights (property, privacy, peace of mind) then they should forfeit their rights. So, if anything unpleasant happens to them - get shot, beaten up or fall through a skylight - they should have no recourse to the law (and waste more taxpayers' money). Unlike the current nonsense where they ignore the laws they want to yet demand others be upheld. Absurd.

This was like my thinking in my post #1 when I opened this thread. But perhaps I'm now having a rethink, partly due to GT68 bringing in the prospect of an intruder being raped and, if anything was allowed, the rapist would not even be charged. That can't be right, so I thank GT68 for bringing up the risk of rape and similar atrocities.

I never meant to introduce rape in my opening post. I now realise I was confused between two different scenes in different movies. I should have recalled the scene in 'Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels' where some poor guy is suspended from the ceiling upside down, having golf balls hit at him. In my mind, I'd confused that with a scene in 'Pulp Fiction' where two guys have balls stuffed in their mouths, tied up to chairs, and one is subsequently raped. That scene is so bad, I'm surprised it even got past the British censor.

[Geoff]

He was the victim. He should not have been convicted (which will automatically bar him from entering the US).

It will not necessarily bar him from entry. Entry to the US for people with convictions is, I understand, discretionary.

And as the law in the US tends to be much more "victim friendly" than the UK (I am referring to the real victims) I am sure he would be made welcome.

In fact he would probably be afforded celebrity status in certain parts of Texas.

 

[trekbat]

It will not necessarily bar him from entry. Entry to the US for people with convictions is, I understand, discretionary.

Perhaps - apparently he would no longer be entitled to enter under the 'Visa Waiver Program'. And with a name like Hussain I don't fancy his chances of getting a visa (especially with a conviction for a violent offence).

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/north-central-america/united-states?ta=entryRequirements&pg

Several million British nationals travel to the US annually under the VWP without any problems. Only people described as a "British Citizen" on the photo page in their passport qualify to enter the US under the VWP. If you are described as a "British Subject", "British National (Overseas)", "British Overseas Territories Citizen", "British Dependent Territories Citizen", "British Protected Person" or "British Overseas Citizen", you will need a visa.

You will also probably need a visa if you fall into one of the following categories (Note: this list is not exhaustive).

You intend to stay longer than 90 days
You intend to travel to the US for a reason other than business, pleasure or transit
You are conducting official government business
You have been arrested (even if not convicted)
You have a criminal record
You have a serious, communicable disease
You have been refused entry to the US on a previous occasion
You have been deported from the US
You have overstayed during a previous visit

[Hatfield Girl]

What I think is interesting is that the press keep publishing Myleen Klass's side of the story, but for some reason they won't publish the Police statement.  Seems to be a common fault with the media in that they only publish one side of any story and usually the one which will sell more papers!  It seems that the whole story in this case is one persons perceptions of a conversation verses another.  A Police warning is an Official process involving admitting offences and signing papers to that efect, as opposed to a 'waving a knife is not a good idea as if they break in they could use it against you' kind of warning. 

[Lid]

What I think is interesting is that the press keep publishing Myleen Klass's side of the story, but for some reason they won't publish the Police statement. 

Do you mean this?

[Hatfield Girl]

Sorry Lid, I can't open that (Computer playing up).  I have read somthing which said that statements were issued but the press decided not to print them.  I just wish the press was made to print a balanced story, what ever the story.
 
Personally I think it's one of those things that is best not to judge either way unless you heard both sides of the conversation yourself, as it sounds like two different interpetations on the same story.

[George]

A Police warning is an Official process involving admitting offences and signing papers to that efect, as opposed to a 'waving a knife is not a good idea as if they break in they could use it against you' kind of warning. 

I agree with you that the press should always try and represent both sides of an agrument. I'm sure you're right that any warning was informal, but Myleene Klass obviously thought it was a bit aggressive even if it's wasn't an official caution. It's interesting that the Herts Police web page does not deny that such a conversation took place. The omission speaks volumes.

[jonmorris]

I heard it was a casual, polite, warning - not a police warning that the press might have wanted people to presume (I say this because any journalist should know the difference, so to print it vaguely means they deliberately wanted to mislead).

[trekbat]

This was like my thinking in my post #1 when I opened this thread. But perhaps I'm now having a rethink, partly due to GT68 bringing in the prospect of an intruder being raped and, if anything was allowed, the rapist would not even be charged. That can't be right, so I thank GT68 for bringing up the risk of rape and similar atrocities.

My initial reaction, based on the usual revulsion against rape and sadistic crimes, would be to introduce some exclusions. Then I thought that some people only care about themselves - consequently only respond to things that affect them. So no, let it stand - it'd be a huge deterrent.

They don't break in = they don't get hurt.

[Kay]

going back to the original thread......

It is disgusting how the victim is made to feel like a perpetrator of crime!

If anyone tried tog et into my home while I am there, I WILL take the baseball bat from where I keep it and hit them as hard as I can.

FACT: They chose to break into a property - they should take the consequences.

FACT: No one in their right mind, is not going to try and protect either family or valuables and just wave someone off with them. e.g. say "it's OK luvvy, you help yourself and here are the car keys/a warm coat for when you leave".

Lovely Human Rights.........  Rights of everyone that doesn't lead an honest life (except if they are an MP of course!).  In which case, they can appeal on expenses and get them written off or pay less back (same as taking from a til in my opinion).

tt4n
Kay

[Anne]

It gets more and more like the Itchy and Scratchy show each day!

I can't be bothered reading 'they said this / they said that' stuff. As I see it, whatever is said, by whom, to whom, the 'winner' is the one who walks away!

[George]

I think the latest government defence of Jon Venables - looking after his best interests - falls under the 'soft on criminals' heading. He should never have been given a new ID costing £millions presumably, but allowed to take his chance back in society. Actually, they should never have been let out so soon, in the first place. And now Venables is back in the news, we should certainly be told what's going on.

[Geoff]

I think the latest government defence of Jon Venables - looking after his best interests - falls under the 'soft on criminals' heading. He should never have been given a new ID costing £millions presumably, but allowed to take his chance back in society. Actually, they should never have been let out so soon, in the first place. And now Venables is back in the news, we should certainly be told what's going on.

I have said it before and will say it again. The legal process in this country is a complete joke.  Venables, and his partner in crime, were given a "second chance", something which James Bulger never had.  No doubt the bleeding heart brigade will cobble together some mealy mouthed excuse for this apology of a person and, after serving a few months in prison, he will doubtless be released with a stern warning not to do it again ringing in his ears. I am no psychiatrist but I find it difficult to imagine individuals capable of such barbarity in childhood being "repairable".

Some crimes demand that a life sentence means just that.  I anticipate in a few years the two obnoxious little scum bags who tortured children in Yorkshire will be back in mainstream society surrounded and mollycoddled no doubt by a veritable plethora of social workers and counsellors.

[Mighty Hatfield]

I think the latest government defence of Jon Venables - looking after his best interests - falls under the 'soft on criminals' heading. He should never have been given a new ID costing £millions presumably, but allowed to take his chance back in society. Actually, they should never have been let out so soon, in the first place. And now Venables is back in the news, we should certainly be told what's going on.

Im struggling to find one line in that, that doesnt contradict itself immediately.

[George]

Im struggling to find one line in that, that doesnt contradict itself immediately.

Let's look at it sentence by sentence, then:

1. "I think the latest government defence of Jon Venables - looking after his best interests - falls under the 'soft on criminals' heading." They appear to be looking after his best interests by keeping his ID secret at huge public cost, and by and not telling the public what's going on. It's true he's been locked up (which isn't in his interest, I admit) but that's the least we could expect.

2. "He should never have been given a new ID costing £millions presumably, but allowed to take his chance back in society." Contradiction?

3. "Actually, they should never have been let out so soon, in the first place." I'm saying 8 years was too short. Contradiction?

4. "And now Venables is back in the news, we should certainly be told what's going on." Contradiction?