Jump to content

LQQ

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LQQ

  • Birthday 07/03/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    zurich

LQQ's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. The poor don't get richer they get less poor - else they wouldn't be the poor.
  2. There is a difference but I guess you could argue that if you are the sort of person to loose your temper and thump someone today what will stop you doing it tomorrow? It is the same with drink - he such a nice man he only gets violent when he drinks, and he only drinks at the weekends, Thrusday and every other Wednesday. Anyway ai_Driod it's been nice arguing with you - espcially on an emotive topic - as you, and the other contributors, have managed to keep it more like a debate and less like a slanging match. A very rare feat on a forum.
  3. An interesting hypothetical argument, but today large scale production and sale of cocaine is illegal worldwide, so I don't see how it fits in with criticising this sentence. Well brought back on track - the thread was drifting (interesting though the drift was/is) In this case it wasn't the legality of the criminal act it was the severity of the sentence compared with violent crimes and other similar crimes that provoked the thread. Whilst drug dealing is illegal I would want to see drug dealers locked up. I just don't think they should be going to jail for longer than rapists and perpetrators of vicious assaults.
  4. I think you're over simplifying. How where the drugs produced? Who was exploited? How did they make it into europe, and then into the UK? Who had to risk a life sentence or even execution in some countries with a life threatening belly full of drugs to get them here? Did an innocent traveller face life in a foreign prison because his bag was used without his knowledge to get the drugs through customs? A bit of charlie at a party seems pretty innocent, but these aren't victimless crimes, far from it. Although I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying you could be talking about wearing trendy trainers which have been produced in sweat shops in China or India. Which is to say the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy. But the victims in your list are the victims of the state which imposes laws against drugs. I think that most of the problems associated with drugs come from the illegal status of the drug and not from some inherent quality of it. So I would like to be able to answer: They were produced in a pharmaceutical factory in Basel Switzerland. The exploited were the same who are exploited by any company which makes a profit. They made it into the UK via a haulage company. No one put them in their belly or broke any laws as drugs are legal and so too is their sale and transportation.
  5. To an extent - certainly agree that most of the links I provided were to lenient sentences. There are some people on here who argue that legalising drugs is acceptable (I am probably on their side in that - even though I am a middle aged father with two young daughters) And although people will argue against that I don't think there are many who would argue for Murder, Rape, etc and yet the sentencing for this crime seems to have placed it in that category. I have never been a supporter of punishing people for potential crimes - if the Cocaine they seized was impure and potentially highly toxic I would charge the guy with intent to harm life (other than the harm which taking cocaine can cause). If not then I don't think you can add in the extra harm to the sentence. If a dealer is ruining peoples lives then you would have to show he forced the drugs on people - or perhaps sold them to under 18s (which may be should be a different crime anyway) And if the judge thinks they guy had gotten away with previous crimes and was giving him a sentence to represent that - then isn't he doing himself out of a job - we don't need a courts if we are going try people without evidence. The other things he seems to be accused of are tax evasion and welfare fraud. I don’t condone that but they should be brought before the courts as separate cases. Judges should have the right of discretion but there does seem to be a bit too much leeway. A disproportionately long sentence can do as much harm to the justice system one that is too short. --End rambling reply--
  6. Here are a few examples. The GBH ones tend to be the worst - ie punishment not fitting the crime. There are others you could find where people have been given extreme sentences for the same crimes: which in a way is what this thread is about. Manslaughter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/s...ast/7600498.stm http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=1804 http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200...slaughter.shtml Rape http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=6046 http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=3698 http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroughs/gree...ing_little_girl GBH http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ter/7481587.stm http://cms.met.police.uk/met/layout/set/pr...nths_for_gbh__1 http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Gang-Sent...cers_15335.html
  7. The trouble with the Anti-Terror laws is that usage is not restricted. There were cases last year where a council was using anti-terror laws to spy on parents to make sure they really lived in a school catchment area. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ily-807873.html
  8. The only problem I have with this is the lack of real comparison and the missing data. These are no figures from 1688 – 2000 The figures from 1485-1688 cover West Sussex whilst the 2000 & 2007 figures cover an unspecified area. The historical data shows that from ‘around’ 1,000 inquests 413 were the result of injury and 124 from land travel. The figure from 2007 shows that there were 182,115 road accidents of which 27,036 resulted in death - it doesn’t say out of how many total deaths or how many deaths as a result of injury were involved. There are no figures given from the year 2000 just that the WHO said 25% of deaths relate to Road Accidents.
  9. Hi Cret, Congratulations on getting your bedroom back!! You won't need to put the monitor near the baby they are really sensitive and if they start crying a monitor on the other side of the room will easily detect a 7 month old. I had a little wind up music toy I used to play when I put my eldest daughter down at night. This lasted about 2 minutes which was enough for me to get back downstairs and let me know the monitor was working. I have a baby the same age and also a 2 year old and understand the paranoia. All of a sudden a 1 in 1000000 chance is too big a risk when the 1 could be your baby. You kind of get back a normal sense of proportion as they grow older. Good luck
  10. You are right I was talking about tax avoidance and tax evasion as the same thing - sorry. I wouldn't mind earning enough to be paying £100,000 in tax though
  11. “You are right, they would pay no tax” – No income tax. They would still pay VAT on any purchases they make in the country. Any money they spend would also be going in to the economy and supporting business – as well as supporting business through cheap labour. I also suspect the amounts they earn would keep them relatively near the income tax threshold and so probably wouldn’t be paying much anyway. I am a tax payer (income tax road tax VAT TV what ever is going really) and am more concerned about the million/billionaire tax evaders who could be making a serious financial contribution to the system who instead register their addresses in Monaco and pay no income tax either. By the way - this is my first post so hello Am due to move to the island with my family at the end of the year. Am enjoying this forum in the mean time.
×
×
  • Create New...