ferrarilover wrote:f*** me, you are dumb, aren't you? You asked how anyone could distinguish between the defendants in terms of sentence (or sentance, as you like to call it). I told you to look in the sentencing remarks of the presider for the answer.
Not sure how you'll cope at PMQs if that has confused you.
Matt.
If you didn't speak in a manner which only you could understand then maybe I would get what you're trying to say. Instead you're being the arrogant, pathetic keyboard warrior who insults people as much as they can once again.
No doubt you'll reply because God forbid that you don't have the last word and somehow insult me in a way you wouldn't if you met me and spoke to me face to face.
Agree completely 100% with Dave on this one, should have been shot dead at the scene.
Bloody hell Matt I've had a quick look at some of the stuff you've posted on here and to be honest with you it's bollox. These two will now spend their lives behind bars (albeit in luxury, have you been in a modern prison? Well I have and believe me its a cushy number albeit with bars on the windows).
"If you didn't speak in a manner which only you could understand then maybe I would get what you're trying to say. Instead you're being the arrogant, pathetic keyboard warrior who insults people as much as they can once again. "
No doubt you'll reply because God forbid that you don't have the last word and somehow insult me in a way you wouldn't if you met me and spoke to me face to face."
This quote from Danny is all encompassing. You do come over as a bit of an arrogant, know it all tvvat.
I will say we don't all read the Daily Mail, we're not all members of UKIP or the NF but many do feel that anything less than the death sentence for many crimes isn't enough. So what if they're seen as martyrs? They'll be dead, and not a burden on society, which I and many others as taxpayers would welcome with open arms.
These two (and many more) deserve nothing but to die. I'd like it to be slowly in agony as a deterrent to future criminals but unfortunately in modern society evil scumbags have more 'human rights' than ordinary members of society, school kids, pensioners, even the victims of their crimes.
I despair.
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience!
I love that you can't see past death as the worst fate for these two. You judge them by your standards and then try to distance yourself from them. "So what if they're seen as martyrs" is a daft attitude. Why give them what they want simply to appease those too stupid to be any more creative in their thinking?
What I've written on this thread is nothing like bollocks (or bollox, as you insist on calling it, as if you're a 12 year old afraid of getting caught swearing). It's absolutely accurate, very simple to understand (unless you're an internet hardman knuckle dragger who struggles with spelling) and easy to follow.
I have recently lost my patience when dealing with other people on here. I tried being nice, but that just lead to a plethora of unfair, unsubstantiated shite being perpetuated by morons. It seems I have come on too strong for the liking of some, to which I can only respond with the old adage, "you can't please all of the people, all of the time."
Danny, you can't accuse me of being a keyboard warrior, then make childish, thinly veiled "my dad's bigger than your dad" threats. What are you going to do when the leader of the opposition says that your immigration policy is flawed and makes a quip about the very white nature of your front bench? Threaten to punch his lights out?
The reason I spelt bollocks with an x is because I'd had a few, another forum I use has a swear filter to get around so I got my wires crossed slightly, and it saved time!
As for the rest of the accusations about me (naughty 12 year old? internet hardman knuckle dragger who struggles with spelling?) Pathetic.
I remember meeting you for the first time at Sixfields if memory serves.
I quickly realised then the more often than not obnoxious persona you portray on here isn't a made up character you hide behind.
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level then beat you with their experience!
A whole life sentence and an effective whole life sentence is all you can do in this case. It is a tragic situation, but an incredibly rare scenario - you can't make laws based around extreme cases like these. If somebody killed my parents, siblings, friends or children then I would want revenge on them, but the whole point of the legal system is to take emotion out of it. These two men have committed a horrific crime, in an incredibly brutal manner. They will never again see freedom, or have any control over their lives - they will be told when to eat, sleep and bathe, and they won't be able to live in anything other than solitary confinement. Justice has been done to the best that it is possible to do given what they did.
Killing them would not bring Lee Rigby back, and it wouldn't do any good for anybody. In this example, they are clearly 100% guilty, but in other cases it is not this simple. Using the death penalty just means that you are going to kill a percentage of innocent people each year, and that's before you consider the moral principle of whether the state has the right to decide when to end someone's life.
Matt, the true art of getting your point across is not to just insult someones intelligence. Danny is bright enough to see through your belittling of him and Emet is more likely to give you a slap rather than bother trying to explain his point to you.
Can we all chill out and make our points without issuing pointless threats and insults?
The only sentence that would fit them is life without parole plus having them fed nothing but pork and shower them in bacon fat and beating them with leather shoes.
