Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You know nothing of genetics do you? The more narrow the gene pool, the higher the rate of inbreeding. The higher the rate of inbreeding, the increasing likelihood of recessive genetic diseases having

So you suggest that we promote generations of useless individuals breeding on sink estates simply to provide a bit of hybrid vigour? Modern travel takes care of that. Personally I worry about you

I think this thread has run its course if it's becoming just a "links" diverter .....

More reasoned debate .....less links......better threads !

I thought my link in reference to AESF was rather self explanatory would you not agree.

The repulsive Mark Dixie apparently had a history of suspected sexual assaults vs women. It's a pity the Australian authorities did not appear to notify their UK of their suspicions when they deported him.

I doubt being a drug user turned him into a sexual predator but most likely increased the severity of his actions. Fortunately the law did not allow him to use his drug use as a defence in relation to the act of murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought my link in reference to AESF was rather self explanatory would you not agree.

The repulsive Mark Dixie apparently had a history of suspected sexual assaults vs women. It's a pity the Australian authorities did not appear to notify their UK of their suspicions when they deported him.

I doubt being a drug user turned him into a sexual predator but most likely increased the severity of his actions. Fortunately the law did not allow him to use his drug use as a defence in relation to the act of murder.

He was also drunk, alcohol is a drug too you know? The description of cocaine given in AESF's post could quite easily describe alcohol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God - another link !

Are you totally incapable of formulating and expressing your own opinions ?

If I could be ar$ed I could provide hundreds of links to support the opposite theory . Read through this thread and you'll find I prefer to do it myself .

Why don't you do try the same for once in your life ....it's not as if you don't have the time <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

but yet you go and support ASEf when he posts yet another link.

Philipl's opinions have been expressed - the continuing prohibition of drugs is failing, and will never work, no matter how hard you make sentencing. Capiche?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is: that Aesf doesn’t make 20 posts a day, nor is he active & logged into the site 24 hrs a day 365 days a year.

BP is quite correct in what he says about Philipl, very really does he actually make a point. His posts are largely based on linking other people’s opinions, attacking other posters personaly and generally being obtuse.

Philpl – have you ever worked with substance abusers? My guess is probably not, if you’d had you would realize the extent that drugs contribute to mental health issues.

Class A drugs and people with either mental health issues or psychologically flawed personalities is not a good mix. Creating an environment where access to drugs is even easier than the current situation is not the answer. People react differently to drugs , take heroin for example : some people simply get stoned , in others it may bring out schizophrenic personalities : its impossible to predict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
very really does he make a point,
I agree, he does quite a lot, more than you, anyway. And how would you know how often he's logged in, that would mean you have to be online all the time checking up. But you stated previously that you'ld been away for a while, so again, I ask.

How would you know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, he does quite a lot, more than you, anyway. And how would you know how often he's logged in, that would mean you have to be online all the time checking up. But you stated previously that you'ld been away for a while, so again, I ask.

How would you know?

Sorry to pick on the Mods favourite, <_<

Every time I log: it’s guaranteed he will be logged in. Im not the only one who has noticed this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcohol and people with either mental health issues or psychologically flawed personalities is not a good mix. Creating an environment where access to alcohol is even easier than the current situation is not the answer. People react differently to drugs , take heroin for example : some people simply get stoned , in others it may bring out schizophrenic personalities : its impossible to predict.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is: that Aesf doesn’t make 20 posts a day, nor is he active & logged into the site 24 hrs a day 365 days a year.

BP is quite correct in what he says about Philipl, very really does he actually make a point. His posts are largely based on linking other people’s opinions, attacking other posters personaly and generally being obtuse.

Philpl – have you ever worked with substance abusers? My guess is probably not, if you’d had you would realize the extent that drugs contribute to mental health issues.

Class A drugs and people with either mental health issues or psychologically flawed personalities is not a good mix. Creating an environment where access to drugs is even easier than the current situation is not the answer. People react differently to drugs , take heroin for example : some people simply get stoned , in others it may bring out schizophrenic personalities : its impossible to predict.

They also make you paranoid

Link to post
Share on other sites
A bloke has just been given 12 years in Malta for growing cannibis- bonkers!

12 years in Malta doesn't seem like a bad sentence (unlike the one above!).

Some people pay good money to go there on holiday for just a couple of weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but yet you go and support ASEf when he posts yet another link.

Philipl's opinions have been expressed - the continuing prohibition of drugs is failing, and will never work, no matter how hard you make sentencing. Capiche?

The difference being that AESF provides links to support his own well written and argued opinions .

Links provided on their own are just a lazy and intellectually sterile means of making a point .

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you find them impressive .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lighter sentences for the druggies who burgle our homes and steal in shops

Gordon Brown was a senior member of the New Labour shadow cabinet who went along with Tony Blair's "Tough on crime" promise to the British people before the 1997 election. It turned out to be one of many broken promises from New Labour.

We have a situation now where violent and dangerous criminals are currently being freed early to keep prison numbers down. New Labour are soft on crime and soft on the druggie scumbags who heap misery on us by breaking into our homes and stealing our property to feed their drug habits.

There are approximately 80,000 prisoners in Britain and the jails are almost at bursting point. This is because New Labour have not built enough prisons over the last decade to keep up with a growing population in our country and consequently our jails are seriously overcrowded. (I'm probably not allowed to discuss the issue of foreign prisoners and immigrants heaping further significant pressure on our prisons.)

In my view New Labour should by now have built enough prisons to house at least 100,000 criminals. With a British population of at least 60 million, a prison capacity of 100,000 would mean roughly one prison place for every six hundred of the population. Given the violence and disorder we see and regularly hear about on our streets, I think it's fair to suggest that jailing one person for every six hundred people would not be excessive.

It would also mean that judges would be able to give the druggie scumbags who burgle our homes proper sentences which take them away from the streets and into secure prison accommodation. The current policy from New Labour of giving druggie burglars light community sentences and a little slap on the wrist is certainly not being "tough on crime".

Edited by Anti Euro Smiths Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites
take heroin for example : some people simply get stoned , in others it may bring out schizophrenic personalities : its impossible to predict.

Just the same with alcohol Bazza. Some people get happy, some morose and some irresponsible and frequently violent. The latter being the reason for the drink driving laws imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Britain would also be a more pleasant place if this berk were put behind bars for some considerable time.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/20...89520-20347501/

No doubt plod were too busy to arrest him because they were harrassing some poor Asian for non-payment of a parking fine.

Yeah quite right Jim... That Jeremy Clarksons too rich by far! I save my money by texting whilst I drive ..... oh and the best bit is that no one can get a piccy of me doing it either. :tu:

Edited by thenodrog
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh at posting articles from the Torygraph as information. You may as well just post www.conservatives.com as a source.

The part in AESF's post about 1 in 600 people in jail not being excessive given the level of violence etc, is just brilliant.

Edited by Napoleon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lighter sentences for the druggies who burgle our homes and steal in shops

Gordon Brown was a senior member of the New Labour shadow cabinet who went along with Tony Blair's "Tough on crime" promise to the British people before the 1997 election. It turned out to be one of many broken promises from New Labour.

We have a situation now where violent and dangerous criminals are currently being freed early to keep prison numbers down. New Labour are soft on crime and soft on the druggie scumbags who heap misery on us by breaking into our homes and stealing our property to feed their drug habits.

There are approximately 80,000 prisoners in Britain and the jails are almost at bursting point. This is because New Labour have not built enough prisons over the last decade to keep up with a growing population in our country and consequently our jails are seriously overcrowded. (I'm probably not allowed to discuss the issue of foreign prisoners and immigrants heaping further significant pressure on our prisons.)

In my view New Labour should by now have built enough prisons to house at least 100,000 criminals. With a British population of at least 60 million, a prison capacity of 100,000 would mean roughly one prison place for every six hundred of the population. Given the violence and disorder we see and regularly hear about on our streets, I think it's fair to suggest that jailing one person for every six hundred people would not be excessive.

It would also mean that judges would be able to give the druggie scumbags who burgle our homes proper sentences which take them away from the streets and into secure prison accommodation. The current policy from New Labour of giving druggie burglars light community sentences and a little slap on the wrist is certainly not being "tough on crime".

Well it's good to see that Prohibition is a resounding success... <_<

"Druggie scumbags"? It's good to see that the author has a grasp on the situation, instead of resorting of name-calling and fear-mongering... Building more prisons doesn't solve anything - you need to tackle the causes of crime, not just lock people away.

EDIT I've fonud this article which seems to sum up the arguments used in that Torygraph article. It's related to the US Governor who's resigned for shagging prostitutes, but applies to drugs as well:

Misadventures in logical reasoning

...

Sometimes, people use drugs (prescription or recreational), get addicted and then steal or act violently. Therefore, we should outlaw all drugs (rather than just outlaw theft and violence).

Sometimes, people force women against their will to work as prostitutes. Therefore, we should outlaw all prostitution (rather than just outlaw forced prostitution and human trafficking).

Things I learned over the last 48 hours

* It's possible to eliminate recreational activities that people have engaged in privately for thousands of years simply by making it illegal and then imprisoning the people who do it. Thus, we criminalize prostitution and drugs to ensure that nobody does those things.

...

* Sometimes, adults make choices for their own lives that other adults perceive to be bad choices. When that happens, the adults who know better have the right to step in, pass laws to restrict the bad choices, and even make the bad choices criminal -- all for the good of the adults who don't know what's good for them.

...

* The way you protect someone who is doing things you don't like is to turn them into criminals and force them to do it underground.

Edited by Gareth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two-year-old boy becomes the latest tragic victim of the drugs menace

For the 30-year-old man held on suspicion of neglect, I fear that he may get a pathetically low sentence, instead of the judge sending out a strong message to other drug users who are neglecting their kids.

In my view liberal Britain has not been tough enough in recent decades on the junkies and dealers who break the law. If Britain is to have any chance of winning the drugs war in this country, then tougher action and sentences are needed.

Edited by Anti Euro Smiths Fan
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.