Intruder taken out...

[MOCAŠ]

Do you have a more succint description, easily understood by all?

Obviously anyone identifed as such isn't fair game for summary execution - that's just plain silly.

The boys that bullied my vulnerable son in a selective, targeted, despicable way are scum in my eyes, but are obviously not fair game for summary execution

I don't wish to belittle what your son's experience - it sounds despicable - but this is why I have a problem with these blanket terms.

You say that the people who bullied him are scum, but that they do not deserve to be executed. Yet in a previous post you said of the burglar who was killed: "Low-life scum - he's dead and I'm happy." So, they're both scum, but only one deserved to lose his life?

Perhaps you can see why I don't find the term helpful. We need to avoid these tags, and concentrate on what the person has actually done. By writing off large sections of society as some kind of ill-defined underclass, we are just inviting them to exploit the ostracisation that this implies.

 

[Sp!ke]

Anyone with a rap sheet resembling that which is being reported, no longer has a place in society in my opinion.

If they suffer an early demise befitting with their chosen lifestyle then I will not shed a tear.

Live by the sword and all that.

 

[developer]

I don't wish to belittle what your son's experience - it sounds despicable - but this is why I have a problem with these blanket terms.

You say that the people who bullied him are scum, but that they do not deserve to be executed. Yet in a previous post you said of the burglar who was killed: "Low-life scum - he's dead and I'm happy." So, they're both scum, but only one deserved to lose his life?

Perhaps you can see why I don't find the term helpful. We need to avoid these tags, and concentrate on what the person has actually done. By writing off large sections of society as some kind of ill-defined underclass, we are just inviting them to exploit the ostracisation that this implies.

Hello Mocas,

You're overcomplicating this (IMO).

I'm happy with the burglar dying because he was a habitual bad'un.

The school bullies, however bad, don't deserve to die.

The use of the name scum or lowlife is a completely seperate issue -they are simply names that paint a picture of the type of person I'm describing, again IMO.

What I feel should happened to them is entirely based upon what they have done, not on what name I choose to give them.

If you can provide me with your alternative succint description I'm happy to consider it when I'm venting my anger about any other scumbags (sorry, insert new descriptor as applicable here ____________________)

 

[Stratman]

........................
I read somewhere the family of the dead pond life toe-rag may sue for damages. I can just see them listing all the previous burglaries to determine a figure for loss of earnings. What a joke!!

Perhaps his income tax returns should be used instead

 

[artyman]

The 'justice' system should consist of several parts, assurance of detection, rehabilitation, and punishment. If early offenders fail to respond to rehabilitation wich should include clear indication of what will happen if foolish enough to reoffend, then punishment should be harsh on reoffences. Perhaps a remote island where they have to build there own community and grow food to feed themselves with starvation as the alternative, back to medieval times when living was tough might make them appreciate and respect our current society.

 

[MOCAŠ]

If you can provide me with your alternative succint description I'm happy to consider it when I'm venting my anger about any other scumbags (sorry, insert new descriptor as applicable here ____________________)

Well, why not use a word that pertains to how they've acted rather than one that seeks to define what they are?

If you wish to express your contempt for what they've done, there is a whole range of succinct terms from 'rogue' to 'bąstard', depending on the strength of your feeling for their actions. If their behaviour is illegal, then we have 'criminal' for a casual exponent or 'recidivist' for a habitual one. And so forth.

All of these terms at least impart some meaningful degree of information about how seriously you feel about what they have done, whereas describing everyone from benefit cheats to paedophiles as 'scum' (etc) does not.

 

[st4]

All of these terms at least impart some meaningful degree of information about how seriously you feel about what they have done, whereas describing everyone from benefit cheats to paedophiles as 'scum' (etc) does not.

I think the word scum accurately describes those in that category.

Pedo's, burglars, benefit cheaps, pikeys (the criminal type), murderers, rioters, etc all scum.

Simples.

 

[finisterre]

artyman
I like the island idea.
I would suggest Rockall but I like puffins, they don't deserve to be eaten.

 

[tali]

Speaking as someone that has never (knowingly) described another person as 'lowlife', 'pondlife' or 'scum', I don't really find these terms particularly useful.

Would someone care to explain which types of people they are intended to describe, and whether the idea is that anyone identified as being such a person is fair game for summary execution if caught in the act?

The public will use these names -it's nothing new.
The execution theory is a worrying one - anyone entering ones property accidentally /innocently could indeed be fair game for attack by occupier.
Also any occupier who confronts a intruder is also putting his own life at serious risk -is such a sacrifice worth defending a LCD TV?
And look at the bizarre case of gangster Kenneth Noye who when concerned by intruder in garden, rather than call police walked out in the night , armed to confront a hidden threat .Noye willing entered a dangerous situation head on - and yet was cleared because he acted in self defence
And if i was a would be murderer i would certainly make sure that intended victim as at my property -then i could claim i caught him burgling my house.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Speaking as someone that has never (knowingly) described another person as 'lowlife', 'pondlife' or 'scum', I don't really find these terms particularly useful.

Would someone care to explain which types of people they are intended to describe, and whether the idea is that anyone identified as being such a person is fair game for summary execution if caught in the act?

Quorn lovers would be on my list.

And BMW drivers.

In no particular order.

 

[developer]

Quorn lovers would be on my list.

And BMW drivers.

In no particular order.

I'm a Quorn lover.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I'm a Quorn lover.

I rest my case your honour.

 

[Howard]

The 'justice' system should consist of several parts, assurance of detection, rehabilitation, and punishment. If early offenders fail to respond to rehabilitation wich should include clear indication of what will happen if foolish enough to reoffend, then punishment should be harsh on reoffences. Perhaps a remote island where they have to build there own community and grow food to feed themselves with starvation as the alternative, back to medieval times when living was tough might make them appreciate and respect our current society.

Here is a nice island

 

[MOCAŠ]

I think the word scum accurately describes those in that category.

Pedo's, burglars, benefit cheaps, pikeys (the criminal type), murderers, rioters, etc all scum.

Simples.

So they all deserve a similar fate? If burglar is caught in they act, the can be stabbed or shot. Same applies to someone caught fraudulently claiming benefits, or stealing Spinal's alloy wheels?

If all murderers are scum, does that make their motive irrelevant?

What I'm getting at is this: if they are all just scum, what's the solution? To eradicate them from society? If so, how would this be accomplished?

 

[Richard Elliot]

I think the word scum accurately describes those in that category.

Pedo's, burglars, benefit cheaps, pikeys (the criminal type), murderers, rioters, etc all scum.

Simples.

Personally I find it hard to empathise with the demise of this robber (not burglar) and won't be losing any sleep over it, but your list half implies that this is a summary of the qualities of a particular subculture - which it isn't, and why are 'criminal' pikeys given special mention over common-or-garden criminals? If you added tax-evaders, to accompany benefit cheats, you would probably cover 100% of the population.

 

[st4]

So they all deserve a similar fate? If burglar is caught in they act, the can be stabbed or shot. Same applies to someone caught fraudulently claiming benefits, or stealing Spinal's alloy wheels?

Entering someones home, and stealing, and using violence to achieve that if need be I would say they should be stabbed, or killed in the manner that the victim see's fit. So for example, if some pikey steals spinals wheels, he confronts them, and they attack, he should be able to deal with them in whatever manner he see's fit. Beating, stabbing, covering in petrol, his choice.

If all murderers are scum, does that make their motive irrelevant?

What I'm getting at is this: if they are all just scum, what's the solution? To eradicate them from society? If so, how would this be accomplished?

Motive is a tougher one but you see these murders that happen for no reason, just someone high on crack just randomly killing someone. I have to say public stoning to death does appeal.

What I am trying to say is violentcriminals who pose a risk to the safety and well being of other people should be killed with extreme prejudice. The theft is one aspect, but the real crime is the watton disregard for other peoples lives.

 

[Richard Elliot]

Furthermore, all of this stuff is just further evidence of the violence endemic in UK culture, from Reeves punching Mortimer to squaddies mistreating prisoners to the regular rucks outside the kebab shop. It just doesn't happen in the rest of Europe.

Your preference for stoning fits the brief.

 

[Richard Elliot]

...So for example, if some pikey steals spinals wheels, he confronts them, and they attack, he should be able to deal with them in whatever manner he see's fit...

You have a problem. What is this with 'pikeys'? This is derogatory generalising at its worst, you might as well go on about pakis, wogs or niggers.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Perhaps a remote island where they have to build there own community and grow food to feed themselves with starvation as the alternative, back to medieval times when living was tough might make them appreciate and respect our current society.

Assuming you could find a suitable remote island, how would you keep them there? You'd need guards round the clock, and those guards would need some kind of infrastructure. Sounds expensive.

If you're talking about a building a prison on an island, such as Alkatraz, then provided it's secure, how does locating it on an island offer any real benefit to society to offset the extra costs involved? People even managed to escape from Alkatraz.

 

[st4]

You have a problem. What is this with 'pikeys'? This is derogatory generalising at its worst, you might as well go on about pakis, wogs or niggers.

Its very likely a "pikey" will steal. Its endemic in their culture to defraud and be criminal. Hence my reasonable placement of the word "pikey".

I'll use the word thief from now on

If I caught someone pinching my alloys and I asked them to f*ck off and they went for me, I'd think it personally reasonable to try and kill them if they attacked me.