Cat bin woman fined

[Mr Prime]

Of course it's an over-reaction. No one died (nor was anyone likely to). The rest of your post is irrelevant as this is the UK justice system, not the insanity that is the US version.

 

 

 

It'd be even harder to prove that someone had driven over a cat deliberately.

 

There you go again. To quote you let me say in your opinion in regard to whether it's an over reaction. It's a pity you do whatever job you do as you clearly know how to react with application of the law better than the judge.

 

If I want to contrast her treatment with the US and ask what would happen to her over here I will. That's the stimulus of debate. To you this is an argument to be won at any cost. Now you follow me around deciding what is and isn't irrelevant and crossing out my words. Again, in 5 years of forum activity I have never come across anyone like you.

[fake]

Is it? It went to court and she paid a fine. She's not doing time or anything. An American judge I read about discovered a woman over there discarded a load of kittens in some woods in the middle of the night. That judge ruled that the woman had to spend a night in the woods by herself with no proper coat if I remember rightly. This was an elected equivalent of a magistrate. How do you think our nutter would have fared if left at the mercy of an elected community judge?

 

Thank God we are not like the USA and have the HRA and others to protect peoples rights.

[sccsux]

Now you follow me around

 

Behave. I posted on this thread on the first page (quite a time before you).

 

Looks more like you're following me around (especially seeing as how you quoted me on the other BBC thread).

 

Now... Grow up.

[Mr Prime]

Behave. I posted on this thread on the first page (quite a time before you).

 

Looks more like you're following me around (especially seeing as how you quoted me on the other BBC thread).

 

Now... Grow up.

 

Going around stating opinion as fact to the point of crossing out people's words is not something I recall seeing on here before.

 

Having lost the TV licence argument by resorting to nit picking over sentence meaning you now resort to crossing them out! Unbelievable, I thought I had seen some opinionated people on here but you take the biscuit.

 

Grow up? You're 44 and crossing out sentences because you absolutely must win the 'game'. Amazing.

[sccsux]

Going around stating opinion as fact to the point of crossing out people's words is not something I recall seeing on here before

 

Oh dear.

 

Once again (for the interlectually challenged):

 

The words you typed were/are irrelevant as this case was in the UK. You tried to "Americanise" it by bringing in non-questions/non-points. Which is why I struck them out, and if you've never seen it done on here before, then you need to look a little harder as it has been used many, many times by various users. Seems like you haven't read that many posts/threads on here during you time on SF:rolleyes:.

 

If you don't like what I'm saying, then don't respond (ie ignore me).

[splodgeyAl]

I don't see anything logical in letting people starve or spewing chemicals into the sea but that's just me.

 

That's because you're not trying to steal the natural resources in the country they live in, or trying to avoid paying proper disposal costs, as examples.

 

I have not stated being weird is a crime. However when you think about it criminals are people who refuse to follow the same rules as ordinary people. Either because they think they are special which they aren't or that they can get away with it, which they can't. That is pretty weird.

You may not have said it's a crime, but you said the weird should be punished. Are you advocating a vigilante group now?

[Conrod]

I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly.

No, your attitude and needless argument is the silly bit.

 

I can hardly quote specifics, but I mentioned the following examples:

 

Kids on 'at risk' registers, kids taken to hospital too many times with bruises, young kids left unsupervised, kids not fed properly because parents spend their money on drugs, babies given drugs to keep them from crying.

 

All of which have been real and have been cases where kids have not been taken into care - or at least not quickly enough, and parents have not been prosecuted until far too late after too many incidents.

 

If you are suggesting none of this happens, it's pointless replying to any more of your posts.

[spindrift]

 

I can hardly quote specifics

 

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.

[Mr Prime]

That's because you're not trying to steal the natural resources in the country they live in, or trying to avoid paying proper disposal costs, as examples.

 

You may not have said it's a crime, but you said the weird should be punished. Are you advocating a vigilante group now?

 

Definitely, all anoraks rounded up and put into camps where we can keep an eye on em. You never know what they're up to.

[spindrift]

It's utterly bonkers this story has taken priority on the BBC site over the Islamic militants who have tried to blow up Chechnya's parliament.