The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Crazy. You break into someone's house, knowingly, and with the intention of stealing their property. You deliberately break the law. Somehow during this you get hurt. So you can sue the owner of the house - not just if they themselves hurt you in self defense, but even if you hurt yourself on an object in their house. This, to me, is stupid for the following reasons:
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
1) You've already knowingly broken the law and committed a crime against them. This should nullify (possibly depending on the severity of what the owner does) anything they do.
2) What people put in their house or on their property is their own business. It's ridiculous that someone can't put on object on their land because if someone tries to break in they might injure themselves on it.
3) It could start a string of burglaries that have the sole purpose of getting the burglar injured. All you need to do is break a window, then hurt yourself on something in the house and it's quids in.
In my view house owners should be able to put as many things between themselves and burglars as possible - even, for instance, a trap that would break the law should it be set off. Because it would only happen in the event of the burglar breaking the law. And yet if such an event did happen, the burglar could sue the individual to high heaven while getting off scott free - it seems the judicial system conveniently forgets what the criminal did to provoke the action in the first place.
There would have to be some punishment for the owner if they went as far as to main, torture or kill the criminal, but I think prison is a bit harsh. Fines, maybe, community service, I don't know. Probably not community service because that's given to out and out criminals, and I don't think people who defend their home can be classed as such.
This whole issue annoys me. How long is it until Claims Diect cash in?
"Been in an accident during a bungled burglary in the last three years? Yes? Well this is your chacne to capitalise and make even more money from your hapless victim. Our team of no holds barred ruthless fresh out of training school solicitors will make the owner pay for buying a house in that position! It was clearly their fault all along! They should have put easy-shatter windows in, and not the messy sort that cuts you.
Take Mr Scum, he tried to parachute through his neighbours skylight - we got him £22 000! Or Mrs Fecklessidiot, when her tunnel collapsed after trying to dig under her victim's house, we got her £40 000! Or even Mr Benefitfraud, when the brick he threw bounced off the window and hit him in the jaw, we got him £5000, plus a new jaw! Remember, where there's blaim, there's a claim!"
The laws in this country are just too much in favour of the criminal. It's not right. If they want to have it this way they should make crime legal. That would sort out a lot of problems, but they would have to find a way around the whole contradictory element there.
Anyway, this was going to be a short post and it seems pretty long looking up from way down the bottom here, so I'll leave it there.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Probably to buy another gas cannister or put their kids in Reeboks for
> another term. Grrrr.
>
> You've touched on something I really hate there. My Mum's a dentist -
> she sees some really poor people who are on benefits and say they
> can't afford anything, even toothbrushes and toothpaste etc, and yet
> their five year old kids have the latest Nikes. People have their
> priorities all wrong.
I totally agree. A lot of the latest trainers go for £60, and in my opinion, just a normal pair of trainers isn't worth that in the first place. I can't believe parents would value thier childs shoes, more than their health and well-being.
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Probably to buy another gas cannister or put their kids in Reeboks for
> another term. Grrrr.
>
> You've touched on something I really hate there. My Mum's a dentist -
> she sees some really poor people who are on benefits and say they
> can't afford anything, even toothbrushes and toothpaste etc, and yet
> their five year old kids have the latest Nikes. People have their
> priorities all wrong.
I totally agree. A lot of the latest trainers go for £60, and in my opinion, just a normal pair of trainers isn't worth that in the first place. I can't believe parents would value thier childs shoes, more than their health and well-being.
VenomByte wrote:
> You cannot be serious.
>
> How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in
> the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
Oh i'm sure if u did own a rifle and sum1 broke into your house in the pitch black in the middle of the night, it wouldn't scare or anger you and you'd just let them get away scot free. Plus that kid will be dead in a few years anyway as he prolly burgling to fund a drug addiction.
> You cannot be serious.
>
> How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in
> the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
Oh i'm sure if u did own a rifle and sum1 broke into your house in the pitch black in the middle of the night, it wouldn't scare or anger you and you'd just let them get away scot free. Plus that kid will be dead in a few years anyway as he prolly burgling to fund a drug addiction.
Every single living person can see the stupidity of this whole situation, yet it still continues. I'll bet even the burglar p!ssed himself when he was told he could sue.
There'll be a new law soon:
"You must make your house safe enough so that anyone forcing entry through windows or door will no suffer any injuries whilst looking for, carrying or removing your valuable good"
And the world's gone mad.
There'll be a new law soon:
"You must make your house safe enough so that anyone forcing entry through windows or door will no suffer any injuries whilst looking for, carrying or removing your valuable good"
And the world's gone mad.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with the general ideas in this thread.
As soon as someone breaks any law, especially breaking and entering with a view to minor theft of insured property, it should be perfectly legal for the property owner / vigilante mob to do absolutely whatever they want to the person concerned, including (but not limited to) removal of nuts using a cheese grater and murder.
Remember, if they break into a house, they deserve to die.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> People complain about immigrants and foreigners all the time, but it's
> the people like this we need to get rid of: pikey, no-good chancers
> who'd happily ruin someone's elses life for a quick buck.
Oh yeah. Now this I can agree with. A part-exchange scheme would be great...
You get a bunch of people, most of whom will be decent, trustworthy folk, and swap them for people who seem to want to live somewhere crap - judging by the way they pull everyone else down.
Of course, if the new guys are so much better than the people we chuck out, maybe it'd be fairer to bring one immigrant in and give away 5.. 6.. 20 of 'our' people...
We could call it voluntary resettlement, and pick the first people out from the BNP's own membership list...
:^D
Do I seem two-faced now?
:^)
As soon as someone breaks any law, especially breaking and entering with a view to minor theft of insured property, it should be perfectly legal for the property owner / vigilante mob to do absolutely whatever they want to the person concerned, including (but not limited to) removal of nuts using a cheese grater and murder.
Remember, if they break into a house, they deserve to die.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> People complain about immigrants and foreigners all the time, but it's
> the people like this we need to get rid of: pikey, no-good chancers
> who'd happily ruin someone's elses life for a quick buck.
Oh yeah. Now this I can agree with. A part-exchange scheme would be great...
You get a bunch of people, most of whom will be decent, trustworthy folk, and swap them for people who seem to want to live somewhere crap - judging by the way they pull everyone else down.
Of course, if the new guys are so much better than the people we chuck out, maybe it'd be fairer to bring one immigrant in and give away 5.. 6.. 20 of 'our' people...
We could call it voluntary resettlement, and pick the first people out from the BNP's own membership list...
:^D
Do I seem two-faced now?
:^)
VenomByte wrote:
> You cannot be serious.
>
> How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in
> the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
Yeah, i would have at least shot him in the kneecaps.
> You cannot be serious.
>
> How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in
> the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
Yeah, i would have at least shot him in the kneecaps.
You cannot be serious.
How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
How many people do you think would actually shoot an unarmed kid in the back with a shotgun as he was trying to escape?
I was gonna start this topic myself, glad someone else did. Absolutely disgusting the British Justice System at the moment. Again you have to hand it to the americans they don't take this crap from scum like this burglar. Although tony martin was wrong to shoot the guy, i'm sure the majority of other ppl in the same situation wud've shot the kid. That Tony Martin has been in jail for a long time now, just for protecting his home, the government have got their priorities so wrong, someone needs to sort the legal system out and soon!
Lol, how obvious can you be?
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Probably to buy another gas cannister or put their kids in Reeboks for > another term. Grrrr.
You've touched on something I really hate there. My Mum's a dentist - she sees some really poor people who are on benefits and say they can't afford anything, even toothbrushes and toothpaste etc, and yet their five year old kids have the latest Nikes. People have their priorities all wrong.
> Probably to buy another gas cannister or put their kids in Reeboks for > another term. Grrrr.
You've touched on something I really hate there. My Mum's a dentist - she sees some really poor people who are on benefits and say they can't afford anything, even toothbrushes and toothpaste etc, and yet their five year old kids have the latest Nikes. People have their priorities all wrong.
Hey snuggly,
are you special reserve staff?
Do you have to work in SR (The shop) to become staff?
are you special reserve staff?
Do you have to work in SR (The shop) to become staff?
Page: