Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: user23 Aug 23 2011, 06:43 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17637

I wonder whether folk in West Berkshire think that if found guilty the same punishment should be given to him as the two lads that got four years for what I suspect was something fairly similar.

I guess this does prove one thing, that those that doubted the reach and influence of Social Media were wrong.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 06:48 PM

For starters, he has to be found guilty! Second, we would have to understand any mitigation.


What do you mean?

Posted by: user23 Aug 23 2011, 06:51 PM

Well yes, of course if found guilty.

I thought that would be obvious but I've amended my post accordingly.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 23 2011, 06:52 PM

? As the trouble he was allegedly inciting did not happen I suggest that this shows that social media are not as influential as some might like to think.

Posted by: user23 Aug 23 2011, 06:57 PM

Many shops, pubs and the cinema closed early because of rumours spread through social media, though I'm not suggesting that this was the work of the bloke named in the article.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 07:06 PM

It is the sort of point I would expect you to make if it were posted by someone else!

We then need to know of any mitigation. I would imagine he's 'bricking' himself at the moment. I wonder if the stiff sentencing will put 'casual' looters off?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2011, 07:08 PM

Define "stiff sentencing".

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 07:11 PM

It is widely acknowledged that the punishments have been stiff compared to precedent.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2011, 08:18 PM

So the correct word is stiffer?

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 23 2011, 08:21 PM

stiff or stiffer....... does it matter that much?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 08:45 PM

If you are just here to pick an argument, you will have to seek someone else to play with.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2011, 09:05 PM

Yes, because these people are being handed out stiffer than normal sentences as AC pointed out but, in my opinion, they are not stiff sentences.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 09:08 PM

I'd say 4 years gaol for a victimless crime is stiff, however; the point I was making was I suspect that the sentences dished out will most likely put people off who were not previously known criminals, from joining in on any future looting (or any that have not joined in yet, but might have considered it in the future).

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 23 2011, 09:11 PM

There is no such thing as a victimless crime, as an intelligent man you should understand this

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2011, 09:11 PM

Yes I thought we might differ on that one.
Leave it there eh?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 09:13 PM

I disagree, and as you're an apparently intelligent man, I would expect you to understand my use of this figure of speech.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2011, 09:17 PM

As we are arguing different points, I feel you are being a little premature to state we differ (although I strongly suspect you will be proved right). You have seemingly high-jacked my post to suit your political position on the justice system.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 07:35 AM

This bloke tried to incite a riot. There can be no mitigating circumstances to excuse this action.
He deserves to get 4 years and I hope he does.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 07:36 AM

Might do to some people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 08:32 AM

In a fair world, there is always room for mitigation, should there be any.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 08:39 AM

OK, what would you say were mitigating circumstances for this mans actions?

Posted by: Darren Aug 24 2011, 08:41 AM

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Just goes to prove that the Internet is not a save haven where you can post whatever you like without any consequences.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Aug 24 2011, 08:46 AM

The two lads who got four years should have been giving stiff community punishment orders. No riots took place as a result, and if this lad in Hungerford is found guilty he should be given a couple hundred hours community service and a strong fine. A prison sentance would not be justified as there was no incident, but anyone who was posting about organising "a riot" should be given a very severe community punishment.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 09:04 AM

I disagree. Anything other than a custodial sentence sends out the message that inciting a riot, whether or not it is successful, is an action that is not serious enough to warrant a term in jail. His actions could have very serious consequences which is what he intended.
The soft sentences that you suggest do not serve to discourage this sort of mindless, violent and criminal behaviour.
You forget that people were killed and families wrecked as a direct result of these riots and that should not be allowed to happen because the law does not protect people and businesses.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 09:23 AM

Off the top of my head: low mental age (or some other pre-acknowledged mental disorder), or he might not have worked alone (it might not even be him). The people who got 4 years might have had previous, this might be his first offence.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2011, 09:25 AM

Does a stiff fine & community service also apply to say someone inciting terrorism?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 09:31 AM

I think attempted, or conspiracy, should carry similar weight as accomplished acts. I'm not sure that trying to organise a riot is the same as attempted murder though.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 09:39 AM

In which case he needs to be held in a secure environment where he is restricted from inciting a riot.

There are a lot of "mights" in the rest of your post. I am saying that if it is proved that he did attempt to incite a riot then he needs locking up as do the others who were proved to be guilty.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2011, 09:41 AM

Terrorism does not have to mean killing people.

I have the feeling the Govts. 'stiff' response to the looting last month is a precursor to ushering in some draconian legislation. Govts. have a habit of using something the public feel strongly about to rush through changes in the law which otherwise they'd not get away with. The public get all fired up & demand action & the Govt. take advantage of the hightened state of feeling.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 09:41 AM

Of course, if there are mitgating circumstances.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 24 2011, 09:44 AM

You could be right. I guess we wait and see. However I believe that the present justice system is far too weak and needs to be beefed up.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2011, 09:44 AM

So no more deporting folk then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 11:00 AM

I suspect there are a lot of people now who would ignore a 'call to arms', based on the sentencing dished out.


Of course there are 'mights', but you asked what possible mitigation could there be, and I am just giving you some examples.

The OP was 'should this person receive the same sentence as the other two'. I said that should depend on whether he is guilty, and what mitigation is argued. I am not arguing that he should not under any circumstances be given the same sentence.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 11:08 AM

Of course, but I think there is a difference between conspiring to kill people, and conspiring to make people feel their life is in danger.

While it is tragic that people died, I don't think one can rightly argue that trying to organise a riot is tantamount to conspiring to kill. Although it might not be far off. Trying to suggest that looting and rioting is as bad as conspiring to kill only gives the government a mandate to introduce legislation that we all might suffer from, or infringe personal liberties we enjoy.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 24 2011, 11:57 AM

I am sure that it's not planned that way, but it could easily end up that way. Is there any difference to when a person dies from a heart attack in a robbery?




What do you do in this scenario then? A fire is started in a looted store, trapping several of the looters and the the owners in an upstairs flat. What personal liberties are lost? The right to start a fire? The right to riot?

I believe in protest and taking it to the streets if necessary, but I don't think it's an invasion of my rights to limit what I can do in that protest.



Warning, warning, liberal alert. The intention of the two lads was to cause damage and chaos. Are you suggesting that laws should be changed to give custodial sentences to those who actually commit crimes. It's ok then to plan them up to the point of executing them?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 12:22 PM

'Any difference to when a person dies from a heart attack in a robbery', and what?


I'm sorry, you've lost me.


Thin end of the wedge. Labour introduced laws that were abused in such a way that an OAP was forcibly ejected from a Labour conference and detained under the Terrorism Act for simply heckling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm


That is what he seems to be saying, but your 'warning, warning, liberal alert' is rude and uncalled for.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 24 2011, 12:47 PM

The person who committed the robbery didn't mean to cause the person to have a heart attack, but it did happen as a result of the robbery.




The police should have the right to disperse people if the protest seems to be approaching a point where it's getting out of hand. Your example is a poor example in this discussion, as it is apparent that the steward and not the police were at fault. According to the
example, he was not even detained, just a little "interaction" occured.



Sorry if my comments appear rude, but again it seems like the arguements are going on the side of those who want to break the law for what seems like little more than greed. If you gave these rioters jobs, how many will still be in them 3, 6, 12 months down the line, especially if they are menial or manual labor jobs. Unless I am mistaken, if you plan a crime, it is then conspiracy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 01:23 PM

That bit I understand, it is just that you asked what is the dereference between this and ... ?


He was refuse re-entry and detained under the Terrorism Act, although never charged with anything. His liberties were impinged.

"After being ejected Mr Wolfgang's pass was seized and he was detained under the Terrorism Act when he tried to re-enter the conference on Wednesday. "

I'm sure given time I could come up with other examples, but this just one off the top of my head.


People are expressing what they feel is appropriate justice, and just because they may not be as you see it, doesn't mean that they are feeling compassion for criminals at the expense of the victim.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 24 2011, 01:48 PM

I'm not the one suggesting it - the Govt. is by handing out custodial sentences for what could be called 'aggravated shoplifting' to first time offenders.

The media ( inc the NWN ) thrives on paranoia. Can you imagine the thoughts going through the minds of certain members of the local community after the 'Liquid incident'?

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 24 2011, 01:54 PM

Whenever you commit an act of violence, there is always the possiblity a death may occur. The fact that you planned the act of violence, you have to accept the consequences of whatever happens.




Was re-entry refused by the police or the stewards/security where the event was taking place. I really doubt the police arrested the man under the Terrorism act for heckling. Your example also says the person next to the heckler was removed, because she complained about the actions of the steward. Again, what did this have to do with actions of the police.




So you think acting in a lawless and violent manner you should be treated as a normal shoplifter?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 03:07 PM

I think whether it was intended is taken into consideration when sentencing. Hence murder or manslaughter. One is a worse than the other.


The police detained the man under the Terrorism Act, which is not an arrest. Stewards have no right of detention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3620110/The-police-must-end-their-abuse-of-anti-terror-legislation.html

Here are more
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oct/04/ukcrime.humanrights
http://londonphotographers.org/2010/05/abuse-terror-laws-continues/


I think you are getting muddled.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2011, 04:11 PM

Which would you get rid of or revise given the choice?
Human rights Act?
Terrorism Act?

Posted by: user23 Aug 24 2011, 04:49 PM

Should there be more Government control over social media and internet forums?

The events of last week strengthen those who make the case for less anonymity and privacy on the Internet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2011, 05:00 PM

Both are subject to misuse, so possibly both, although I couldn't tell you how. This is why we need to be careful when Government announce new restrictions of movement or behaviour. We need to realise that there is always a cost to anything.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Aug 24 2011, 09:21 PM

we don't even know the context of the alledged comments. What if he had reposted a joke about having a riot? I think a few hundred hours community service actually teaches a big lesson, his peers will see him working and will take over a year to complete. Prison sentences aren't the answer to everything you know.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 25 2011, 10:10 AM

No, what happened in the riots was nothing more that mob rule rabid animal behaviour. It wasn't like it was a kid going into a shop stealing some sweets.

The penalties should be harsh to discourage behaviour like this in the future.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 25 2011, 10:39 AM

Electronic forms of mass communication have never, ever, been free from Govt. control & have always lacked any kind of privacy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 25 2011, 10:40 AM

The law should be seen to be equitable.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2011, 02:29 PM

Perhaps we should deal with him (them) something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04clpd7h0b0?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Aug 25 2011, 02:47 PM

LOL @ second comment down

"Thumbs up if you were linked here by a right-wing nutter."

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 25 2011, 03:01 PM

Only if they have more than 2 kids which they don't pay anything for....


Just kidding..


That would be too extreme.

Let them face the avengers of crime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm2LY1y0F0s

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2011, 04:59 PM

Yes I saw that.
Seems like folks can't take a bit of fun.
Can't think what they mean - I would only cut them off in extreme circumstances!
Does not compare with the things I have been linked to by left wing loonies. They are serious!:P

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 25 2011, 05:34 PM

I think beneath the humour lies a reasonable idea.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Aug 26 2011, 11:06 AM

How do you know they are 'left wing'?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2011, 11:23 AM

That's like posing the question - How did the commenter's supporters on the You Tube site know the "nutter" was right wing?
Left wing, right wing, surely you go by the way their views swing??

Posted by: Weavers Walk Aug 26 2011, 12:04 PM

Up to a point, but I don't see that pointing that someone has 'right wing' views makes that person 'left wing' Does it?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2011, 12:17 PM

I see what you mean.
No, difficult to label anyone really, everyone's views differs from those of others'.
Some of my views would be labelled as "right wing" and many others would be labelled as "left wing", so which am I?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2011, 01:20 PM

I guess that implies you're mainly Left Wing. Although I must have been out the country when that happened!

Being left or right wing tends to make similar animals. Both generally have bigoted or narrow-minded ideas. You then have the undecideds, like me, who will sit on the fence so long that they forget why.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 26 2011, 02:57 PM

Whoa, what a statement to make.

What would I be then?

I believe that there should a minimum income level, but you must contribute at minimum between 60 to 75 % of it, and the rest you get in non cash coupon for items such as heat and electricty. People on disablity is another matter.

I believe in child benefits for all at the current level, as by producing children you are adding future taxpayers.

I believe in strong punishment for criminals, but at the same time I believe there should be more programs such as apprenticeships and a National Service that is not only military based but community based.

I believe in a strong military. Not only does it ensure your prepared, but it also creates loads of jobs.

I believe in capitalism, but at the same time I feel the banks have made a mockery of the system.

I believe that OAP's should not be taxed on any of their income after the age of 65 and their retired.

I think there should be no fees for school children below the age of 18 if your using public transport, as it keeps cars off the road.

So what am I, left or right wing?

Posted by: JeffG Aug 26 2011, 03:16 PM

I don't understand at all what this means.


Are you suggesting that children who go to fee-paying schools (as opposed to state schools) should not have to pay fees if they use public transport?

Posted by: Squelchy Aug 26 2011, 03:17 PM

Confused

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2011, 03:18 PM

Squelchy took the words from my mouth.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2011, 03:48 PM

Why?
(OOOps sorry, thought you were talking about me when you were quoting Phil. I am definitely not! )

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 26 2011, 05:58 PM

It means that there should be a minimum income level for low earners to have a decent standard of living, but you have to work to get the subsidies. No more free rides..





Yes



No, opinionated but trying to apply some common sense.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2011, 06:18 PM

The trouble with you tree hugging bleeding heart loony left democrats, is that you have no idea of how much everything costs!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 26 2011, 06:31 PM

Left, right, or centre, this has to be the strangest and least defensible suggestion I have ever read. If parents choose to pay for their child's education that is up to them. I have absolutely no problem with that. What is crazy is the notion that if they put them on a bus to get to school, they should get it for free. So the taxpayer should pay for someone who goes to Eton, say, and happens to get there by train. What about boarders? They are using even fewer transport resources, so maybe they should be paid something extra.

The mind boggles.

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 26 2011, 06:45 PM

As long as the children grow up with the idea that they too must work and contribute to society, maybe having been taught to think about having a job before they have their own kids?


Nice idea, but what about the very wealthy? If Rupert Murdoch retired to the UK, he should not pay tax on any of his income? And income from taxpayer funded/subsidised pensions, stockmarket investments and rental properties should all be tax free as long as one is over 65 and declared retired?


No school fees for any child who takes the bus/train to school? So an education at any school should be free as long as my children get there on public transport?!?

You are indeed a benevolent chap. Rgds

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 27 2011, 07:34 AM

How many Rupert Murdoch's are there in the UK? How many OAP's now live below the poverty line? Would the government not save on various other handouts if they didn't tax OAP's? You mention people on taxpayer funded/subsided pensions, didn't they contribute to that too while in their working lives? Those stocks market investments and rental properities were also taxed. At what point do you allow people to enjoy what they worked for after 50 years of working? I bet there are more OAP's who are just about getting by that those living the high life.



Tree hugging bleeding heart loony left democrat! Far from it. If you look closely as I said about the minimum income, that would force everyone capable back to work. If they don't work, you don't get squat in benefits. Having someone contribute at least 60 to 75 percent of their income before top ups is much better than having someone collect 100 percent benefits. If we force them into a national service type organization, how much better would the parks, roads, and inner cities look? Get a person working and they just might get back their dignity and work to get out of the "minimum income" bracket.
As for kids getting free transport, if you want to send you kid to a private school, you pay the fees. How many kids go to public schools opposed to going to state schools? Also, think about this. If the cost of getting to school is being picked up, how much more money just may be put back into the local economies because Mom and Dad have just that more to spend?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2011, 09:40 AM

I be joking!


What if they only 'contribute' 56%? I do agree with a principle that people get 'rewarded' for working, but that can be done also by taking the bottom earners out of PAYE.


So the 'professional' people who usually do this will join the rest on the low income?


How does cleaning litter help them out of the minimum income/poverty bracket?


I say abolish choice. Go to the nearest state school and mandate schools to a high minimum level.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 27 2011, 11:42 AM

That's completely different to what you said earlier. You said taxpayers should pick up the fees (by definition private/public schools) for any child that travels by public transport. Now you are effectively saying give all kids attending school bus passes, so they don't pay fares, which is what used to happen anyway, and is fine by me.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Aug 27 2011, 11:45 PM

Sorry, I omitted the word "transport" before fees. There should be no transport fees if your below the age of 18.



Then it should be done...



No, you make them supervise these folks. Then those at the bottom rung have a chance for career progression, thus giving them a goal to shoot for.



You should have the right to choose to pay for your childs education. I agree with the minimum level. When I left high school, I had to pass two exams to leave. Regardless of what my grades were, if I failed them I wouldn't graduate. I personally think that citizenship, language skills (reading and writing) and basic maths should be the minimum needed to leave school. As for me, I had to pass english and american history. If you had a bad day taking one of those tests, you attended summer school and if you passed them then you graduated in January.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 28 2011, 09:12 AM

I agree, I'm talking about state education.


That should prevent people inciting riots on the Internet!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Aug 28 2011, 10:53 AM

Strong community punishments are the way to go I feel.

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 28 2011, 05:43 PM

Oh, you were talking about transport fees. I am with you now...I think.

So, I believe you are now saying there should be no transport fees for those under 18, unless they attend private school.

Rgds

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 28 2011, 06:14 PM

"et Tue"

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 28 2011, 07:10 PM

15th March included (if it's a weekday, but ide have to check).

Back on topic, I agree with the community punishment model for some crimes, as long as it is seen as a real punishment and not just a soft alternative to prison. As for the individual who made the comments on a social networking site, I would like to see what he actually wrote, before I took a view on any sentence.

Rgds

Posted by: user23 Aug 29 2011, 08:17 AM

Should working to better one's community be seen as a punishment?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 29 2011, 08:48 AM

That would be established if they carry on their duties after their obligation is complete.

Posted by: user23 Aug 29 2011, 10:27 AM

My point was in making one group carry out as punishment work that others would voluntarily do to improve their community does that not devalue the actions of the latter?

Posted by: Strafin Aug 29 2011, 11:05 AM

No, it shows people who otherwise wouldn't bother how it feels to be useful and to be involved in the community.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2011, 02:28 PM

Check out the William Harvey scheme in Guildford back in the 1930's Same was said about that and the unemployed - the reverse was found to be true.

I've often thought that sending Jeffery Archer to jail was a waste of time and effort. A community service order would have been fare better if applied properly and enforced. Imagine, he is the lavatory cleaner at Waterloo working under the official paid one that might have done the trick!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2011, 06:59 PM

I mentioned the other day that Newbury Town Council had put Community Payback on the allotments. I'm not sure how uesful your average theiving scrote would feel about having dug that drainage, but I'm pretty sure their experience on the allotments won't have done anything to dispel their social alienation and exclusion - soon after they arrived to start on the ditches the Council put notices up around the site warning allotmenteers to be vigilant about petty criminality on site and to report any incidents or concerns to the police. I'm guessing that if I was a petty criminal on Community Payback that would have made me feel about as welcome as a fart in a space suit.

Social exclusion is a terrible thing, and I don't think working in a chain gang with an orange tabbard is the way to combat it.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 29 2011, 07:54 PM

I can't believe you managed to get the allotments into this thread as well. I hope they send some arsonists your way so I won't have to keep hearing about them all the time.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 29 2011, 08:36 PM

You're nice. And you have the cheek to moan about bad behaviour within our society!

I think Simon Kirby makes a valid point. People being chain ganged will not necessarily make a better place to live. Whether through the quality of work they do, the exposure to more opportunities to do that which put them in the position in the first place, or simply placing these people in an environment that will put them in conflict with the general public.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 29 2011, 08:41 PM

--

Posted by: Strafin Aug 29 2011, 08:55 PM

I'm just fed up Andy. Simon's point may be valid to some, but his opinions seem to change and are dependant on whoever posted previously. I have also had it up to "here" with the allotments constantly being a point of reference. Having interests and experience is fine, but I am sure he must do more than one thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 29 2011, 09:22 PM

What is the problem so long as it is on topic? In this instance, it is a first hand example of restorative justice in action. I see it as totally valid. The fact it was in an allotment is coincidental.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 30 2011, 05:09 PM

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it strikes me that any time Simon posts after me it is usually to wind me up. Also I seriously have had enough of hearing about the allotments there's at least three different threads on here started by Simon who is against NTC every step of the way, unless of course I post something negative, and then NTC can do no wrong. Perhaps I'm too grumpy I don't know but I don't care either. I found Panda a bit too much really but I am starting to see where she is coming from.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2011, 05:54 PM

It is up to you what is right or not. For me, it comes down to is it valid or not, or is there room for debate. I couldn't care less about the inspiration, I just take it on face value.

As an aside, I'd say your infatuation with 'would have or of' is over the top and unnecessary, but I would normally let that go. I don't see it as my place to decide what people should post.

Posted by: Vodabury Aug 30 2011, 06:51 PM

Sorry, am confused at this.

Rgds

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2011, 07:02 PM

It should say 'unnecessary'.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 30 2011, 07:28 PM

Spelling mistakes are one thing - using the wrongs words really grates me especially when it has been pointed out (and not just by me). I do wonder if I am becoming too "stroppy" for the forum, it is just a forum after all.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2011, 07:34 PM

Like I sort of said already, we all post for slightly different reasons.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 30 2011, 07:38 PM

I used to enjoy and have a good laugh at the same time as a bit of debate, it has; for me at least; become a bit tedious. Therefore I don't enjoy it and probably end up upsetting people who are also here for fun. Maybe I'll just read for a bit rather than post and see how that goes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2011, 07:54 PM

People tend to vent spleens, but I see no reason to purposely not post. Is that a split infinitive!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 30 2011, 07:58 PM

No I just think I need to calm down a bit and come back with some more constructive viewpoints. Maybe for a couple of days the withdrawal may make the forum fun again when I come back on after a couple of days! Too much of a good thing and all that. I still enjoy it more often than not, and I do learn things, and generally I would say I put my hand up if I am wrong. I'll see, but one thing is for sure - I need to take things less personally!

Posted by: On the edge Aug 31 2011, 09:49 AM

Don't loose heart!! dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone, dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known.... kept Tony Benn going! Even if you disagree with him, the fights still there at his age. Keep it coming Strafin society needs you.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 31 2011, 10:21 AM

Of course it is (probably a double one, too - well done)! And that should be a question mark, not an exclamation mark. (Just kidding!! )

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 1 2011, 07:36 AM

I hope you don't change your views or the manner in which you post. I think you add to the value of this forum and besides I kinda think of you as a active member of the "hang em high" club. along with Biker, TDH, Turin, Phil and others.
Stay with us, we need to keep fighting the fight with the "Jessies"

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 1 2011, 08:31 AM

Post of the week!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 1 2011, 11:33 AM

Not quite, there's still a couple of days left.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 2 2011, 08:54 PM

Thanks for your kind words - I wasn't fishing but it was nice to read what you guys said. Anyway couple of days off and a bit of R&R and I'm all geared up to go again!