The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Page:
Firebrand wrote:
>
> I don't think it does work though, and only seems to remove people
> from society to mix with other criminals and share thieving skills.
> On the bright side though, sex offenders don't fare too well,
> especially this sort, in prison. and so his five years should be more
> punishing than most...
A pity he won't be sent to Durham. They don't segregate sex offenders there. Which is why I found myself once defending a (grinning) client who was already doing 3 years. He had been accused of slashing a paedophile in prison. He never told me he'd done it until after the CPS decided not to proceed (as a prosecution would not be in the public interest), but he explained to me in detail just how terrifying life in prison is for a paedophile.
>
> I don't think it does work though, and only seems to remove people
> from society to mix with other criminals and share thieving skills.
> On the bright side though, sex offenders don't fare too well,
> especially this sort, in prison. and so his five years should be more
> punishing than most...
A pity he won't be sent to Durham. They don't segregate sex offenders there. Which is why I found myself once defending a (grinning) client who was already doing 3 years. He had been accused of slashing a paedophile in prison. He never told me he'd done it until after the CPS decided not to proceed (as a prosecution would not be in the public interest), but he explained to me in detail just how terrifying life in prison is for a paedophile.
Heh. What's slightly more worrying is that I'd forgotten that I had to get it out in the 2nd Act. And I'd forgotten that it's one of the other cast members who yanks my pants down...I would imagine that my face would have been quite a picture yesterday....
Exactly 2 weeks until the first night. And you know what the scariest thing is? I'm not in the least scared about the nudity. Maybe I'm part swedish or something.
Exactly 2 weeks until the first night. And you know what the scariest thing is? I'm not in the least scared about the nudity. Maybe I'm part swedish or something.
"Give him a big hand..."
Not exactly theatre related, but it's a gig gag nonetheless.
Not exactly theatre related, but it's a gig gag nonetheless.
Light wrote:
> To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut
> last night. Only in rehearsals, but there y'go...
I'm trying desperately to think of theatre related knob gags, but all I can come up with is...
Did it raise the roof?
> To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut
> last night. Only in rehearsals, but there y'go...
I'm trying desperately to think of theatre related knob gags, but all I can come up with is...
Did it raise the roof?
Light wrote:
> To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut
> last night.
Is it normally in a jar backstage, or do you buy it a seat?
> To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut
> last night.
Is it normally in a jar backstage, or do you buy it a seat?
5 years is a very long time. If the prison system worked, in terms of actually rehabilitating inmates, 5 years should be quite enough.
I don't think it does work though, and only seems to remove people from society to mix with other criminals and share thieving skills. On the bright side though, sex offenders don't fare too well, especially this sort, in prison. and so his five years should be more punishing than most...
I don't think it does work though, and only seems to remove people from society to mix with other criminals and share thieving skills. On the bright side though, sex offenders don't fare too well, especially this sort, in prison. and so his five years should be more punishing than most...
Heh. Fair point. Sorry.
To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut last night. Only in rehearsals, but there y'go...
To change the subject again however, my knob made it's stage debut last night. Only in rehearsals, but there y'go...
You want to argue about the 45 minutes claim? Then do it in a separate forum damn it!
Why does everything descend into the war with Iraq?
Now, to answer the ORIGINAL POINT, I think that 5 years doesn't seem to be too long.
However, I'm not about to jump on the bandwagon like the rest of the Sun/Daily Mail readers. The sentence is based on Scottish law rather than English law which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
And it's worthwhile to remember that the statutes are based on a series of means to adjudicate guilt and pass sentence rather than succumb to the angry squealings of a cretinous lynch mob, determined to instill their own form of "justice".
Why does everything descend into the war with Iraq?
Now, to answer the ORIGINAL POINT, I think that 5 years doesn't seem to be too long.
However, I'm not about to jump on the bandwagon like the rest of the Sun/Daily Mail readers. The sentence is based on Scottish law rather than English law which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
And it's worthwhile to remember that the statutes are based on a series of means to adjudicate guilt and pass sentence rather than succumb to the angry squealings of a cretinous lynch mob, determined to instill their own form of "justice".
Belldandy wrote:
> No they did not, they testified they had doubts, they testified they
> were worried, they testified many things but not one person has said
> it was lies, not one person has said it was purposely false.
No, but they have (as Blank accurately says) said (and I'm sure Blank was paraphrasing...) that the claim was pants with stains. Not purposefully false, but a load of old nadgers. Incorrect. Wrong. Not in keeping with the actuality.
> No they did not, they testified they had doubts, they testified they
> were worried, they testified many things but not one person has said
> it was lies, not one person has said it was purposely false.
No, but they have (as Blank accurately says) said (and I'm sure Blank was paraphrasing...) that the claim was pants with stains. Not purposefully false, but a load of old nadgers. Incorrect. Wrong. Not in keeping with the actuality.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
>
> A Sky reporter, on the night coalition forces crossed into Iraq en
> masse, claimed to have filmed, live, the launching of a cruise
> missile from a Royal Navy Submarine, and that's how it was reported.
> What was not found out until later on, was that he'd knowingly done
> the initial report (from inside the sub) live, then spliced in
> archive footage obtained on the submarine to give the appearance that
> he was filming a live launch. His commentary was live, but not the
> launch.
>
> A Fox reporter did another "live" report, he was embedded
> with a US Infantry division, claiming the convoy was under enemy fire
> and he, again live, directed viewers to footage of said
> "fire" - which later turned out to be US Troops doing
> practice night firing exercises to test newly issued equipment.
>
> Both were sacked.
Not wishing to cast doubt on you, but who were they? Do you happen to have their names, or a link with their names on?
In the latter case, does 'fired' mean 'removed from his embedded unit'?
> Light wrote:
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
>
> A Sky reporter, on the night coalition forces crossed into Iraq en
> masse, claimed to have filmed, live, the launching of a cruise
> missile from a Royal Navy Submarine, and that's how it was reported.
> What was not found out until later on, was that he'd knowingly done
> the initial report (from inside the sub) live, then spliced in
> archive footage obtained on the submarine to give the appearance that
> he was filming a live launch. His commentary was live, but not the
> launch.
>
> A Fox reporter did another "live" report, he was embedded
> with a US Infantry division, claiming the convoy was under enemy fire
> and he, again live, directed viewers to footage of said
> "fire" - which later turned out to be US Troops doing
> practice night firing exercises to test newly issued equipment.
>
> Both were sacked.
Not wishing to cast doubt on you, but who were they? Do you happen to have their names, or a link with their names on?
In the latter case, does 'fired' mean 'removed from his embedded unit'?
Page: