Somebody Please Explain

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Fed up with people seeking offence.

is that sentence actually very good English?. just enquiring.

[Nibor]

FFS what do you want?, that sentence is beyond belief.

Had he just said "because you have got yourself off of drugs, I am prepared to give you chance" fair enough but that sentence is taking the piss it matters not what he said before or after that sentence, that sentence in isolation is an insult to everybody concerned.

Read the whole thing in context rather than just taking one sentence out of context maybe?

You're really fitting the stereotype perfectly.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Read the whole thing in context rather than just taking one sentence out of context maybe?

You're really fitting the stereotype perfectly.

As several people have mentioned recently, as long as everybody accepts you are correct the world is fine, but disagree with you and the superior attitude and snide comments appear.

Explain to me exactly how that particular sentence could possibly be taken out of context? and secondly you seem to have read the whole summing up so as with the English teacher and his extremely flimsy alternative definition of the word courage, please share it with us or are you fitting your particular stereotype perfectly as well?.

PS:- The next sentence as far as I can see reads

“Yet somehow, bolstered by drugs and desperation, you were prepared to do that.

Judge Peter Bowers admitted he could be “pilloried” for his decision not to jail Richard Rochford after the thief admitted to a string of burglaries. He was absolutely wrong in that assumption, hopefully his decision might yet be vindicated, but he is being pilloried for the one specific sentence plus the very next sentence, if this experienced judge did not believe that this part of his summing up would cause an uproar he is patently in the wrong job, the non jailing of this guy for the reasons given would not have even registered even to the 'daily mail' because decisions like that are made on a daily basis throughout the UK.

But as I said earlier as long as we have judges like this guy trial by jury in the UK will remain in UK for a very long time.

[Spud55]

As several people have mentioned recently, as long as everybody accepts you are correct the world is fine, but disagree with you and the superior attitude and snide comments appear.

Explain to me exactly how that particular sentence could possibly be taken out of context? and secondly you seem to have read the whole summing up so as with the English teacher and his extremely flimsy alternative definition of the word courage, please share it with us or are you fitting your particular stereotype perfectly as well?.

PS:- The next sentence as far as I can see reads

“Yet somehow, bolstered by drugs and desperation, you were prepared to do that.

Judge Peter Bowers admitted he could be “pilloried” for his decision not to jail Richard Rochford after the thief admitted to a string of burglaries. He was absolutely wrong in that assumption, hopefully his decision might yet be vindicated, but he is being pilloried for the one specific sentence plus the very next sentence, if this experienced judge did not believe that this part of his summing up would cause an uproar he is patently in the wrong job, the non jailing of this guy for the reasons given would not have even registered even to the 'daily mail' because decisions like that are made on a daily basis throughout the UK.

But as I said earlier as long as we have judges like this guy trial by jury in the UK will remain in UK for a very long time.

It's not an alternate definition of the word courage, it IS the definition of the word courage, it neither implies good or bad, it can take just as much courage to do something horrific as it does to do something heroic.

Just because most people fail to have a basic command of the english language doesn't mean that the judge was wrong. I could quite hapily argue that he is competely wrong, in that i would say it's more likely that his depseration far outweghed his fears of getting caught, and it was desperation not courage that allowed him the nerve to burgle houses. That argument i would hapily accept from the daily hate, but it's just peddling right wing bollocks to small minded idiots, while being completely sensationalist in it's reporting.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It's not an alternate definition of the word courage, it IS the definition of the word courage, it neither implies good or bad, it can take just as much courage to do something horrific as it does to do something heroic.

Just because most people fail to have a basic command of the english language doesn't mean that the judge was wrong. I could quite hapily argue that he is competely wrong, in that i would say it's more likely that his depseration far outweghed his fears of getting caught, and it was desperation not courage that allowed him the nerve to burgle houses. That argument i would hapily accept from the daily hate, but it's just peddling right wing bollocks to small minded idiots, while being completely sensationalist in it's reporting.

What I find amusing about your reply is your last sentence stigmatises/labels an over whelming majority of the UK population. Because you must be correct and the majority wrong, well that's the UK for you.

[Nibor]

As several people have mentioned recently, as long as everybody accepts you are correct the world is fine, but disagree with you and the superior attitude and snide comments appear.

This is usually the whine of someone on the defensive because they've run out of actual arguments, you read your own tone into posts.

Explain to me exactly how that particular sentence could possibly be taken out of context? and secondly you seem to have read the whole summing up so as with the English teacher and his extremely flimsy alternative definition of the word courage, please share it with us or are you fitting your particular stereotype perfectly as well?.

PS:- The next sentence as far as I can see reads

“Yet somehow, bolstered by drugs and desperation, you were prepared to do that.

Judge Peter Bowers admitted he could be “pilloried” for his decision not to jail Richard Rochford after the thief admitted to a string of burglaries. He was absolutely wrong in that assumption, hopefully his decision might yet be vindicated, but he is being pilloried for the one specific sentence plus the very next sentence, if this experienced judge did not believe that this part of his summing up would cause an uproar he is patently in the wrong job, the non jailing of this guy for the reasons given would not have even registered even to the 'daily mail' because decisions like that are made on a daily basis throughout the UK.

But as I said earlier as long as we have judges like this guy trial by jury in the UK will remain in UK for a very long time.

You've taken it out of context because:

a) you've misunderstood what courage means and think it was some sort of compliment.

b) you haven't read the entire judgement.

c) you aren't aware of the facts of the case surrounding the judgement.

You're being a stereotypical Mail reader because despite all this, you've trusted that lying rag to report accurately and allowed yourself to become outraged by one single sentence from what was surely a much longer narrative. If you can't see why this is silly, then just carry on being angry. You seem to like it.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This is usually the whine of someone on the defensive because they've run out of actual arguments, you read your own tone into posts.

You've taken it out of context because:

a) you've misunderstood what courage means and think it was some sort of compliment.

b) you haven't read the entire judgement.

c) you aren't aware of the facts of the case surrounding the judgement.

You're being a stereotypical Mail reader because despite all this, you've trusted that lying rag to report accurately and allowed yourself to become outraged by one single sentence from what was surely a much longer narrative. If you can't see why this is silly, then just carry on being angry. You seem to like it.

and obviously neither of you or you would have supplied a link, because you must be correct.

[Nibor]

and obviously neither of you or you would have supplied a link, because you must be correct.

Of course I haven't read the whole judgement or seen the facts of the case. I'm not the one being outraged by the misreporting of a small quote from it though am I? The only "correct" point of view here is to recognise that the Mail are a bunch of shysters that lie to the naive to get them all worked up.

[marshy]

If courage is 'bolstered by drugs' can it really be referred to as courage or should it be termed 'Dutch courage' ? Or maybe another expression is called for.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Of course I haven't read the whole judgement or seen the facts of the case. I'm not the one being outraged by the misreporting of a small quote from it though am I? The only "correct" point of view here is to recognise that the Mail are a bunch of shysters that lie to the naive to get them all worked up.

Priceless, absolutely no evidence but the press and people who are not happy are all wrong but Flashman of the OTIB is correct, that is the law.

[Nibor]

Priceless, absolutely no evidence but the press and people who are not happy are all wrong but Flashman of the OTIB is correct, that is the law.

Are you actually serious? I don't need to read the judgement to know that taking one sentence out of it's context and being outraged about it is wrong. I've offered no opinion on the judgement, just on your irrational ranting. I bet Paul Dacre goes to bed every night dreaming about people as naive and easy to stir up as you are.

[The Fat Controller]

Just out of interest, has anyone here been the victim of burglary?

[Nibor]

Just out of interest, has anyone here been the victim of burglary?

Three times.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Are you actually serious? I don't need to read the judgement to know that taking one sentence out of it's context and being outraged about it is wrong. I've offered no opinion on the judgement, just on your irrational ranting. I bet Paul Dacre goes to bed every night dreaming about people as naive and easy to stir up as you are.

No the sentence is taken in isolation, to be taken out of context you need to have read the whole judgement.

[And Its Smith]

Just out of interest, has anyone here been the victim of burglary?

Twice. Why do you ask?

[Nibor]

No the sentence is taken in isolation, to be taken out of context you need to have read the whole judgement.

So now you're going to try to play word games badly? I'm not sure what language you're speaking but it's not English. If you take a sentence out of something larger you've taken it out of context by definition. I can't believe you're even arguing this point to be honest, it's you that was condemning a judge for saying something you haven't read in context or understood, not me. You've got yourself into a right old muddle.

[TRL]

So now you're going to try to play word games badly? I'm not sure what language you're speaking but it's not English. If you take a sentence out of something larger you've taken it out of context by definition. I can't believe you're even arguing this point to be honest, it's you that was condemning a judge for saying something you haven't read in context or understood, not me. You've got yourself into a right old muddle.

Edit, can't be arsed getting myself in a pointless argument on a Sunday, so deleted original text

[Esmond Million's Bung]

So now you're going to try to play word games badly? I'm not sure what language you're speaking but it's not English. If you take a sentence out of something larger you've taken it out of context by definition. I can't believe you're even arguing this point to be honest, it's you that was condemning a judge for saying something you haven't read in context or understood, not me. You've got yourself into a right old muddle.

Really, of course it could'nt be you because of course your never wrong are you?.

So how does one evaluate the context, without the full text?.

Below is a piece from the New Stateman, a very well written piece that comes to this conclusion,

In passing the sentence, and in attempting to engage with the defendant in his sentencing remarks, Judge Peter Bowers said something which was at best unfortunate.

But that was not the only thing he did.

It would appear that Judge Peter Bowers imposed a sentence which was both correct at law and also likely to lead to a lower risk of the defendant re-offending; and he should be praised for doing this, even if his remarks were obtuse.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/judge-peter-bowers

[Red-Robbo]

I expect you do have to have nerves of steel to pull off a burglary. Bravery certainly, but I agree with those who said the word courage does have connotations of righteousness that makes the judge's comments pretty ill-thought through at best.

He's under investigation from the judicial standards body now, so he may be hanging up his gavel for good before too long.

[Nibor]

Really, of course it could'nt be you because of course your never wrong are you?.

I'm wrong all the time actually. Which is why I always have a little chuckle when someone bereft of arguments resorts to that little irrelevant insult.

If you can point out where I'm wrong with a bit of logic I'll happily admit it and apologise.

I don't think you can though.

So how does one evaluate the context, without the full text?.

One doesn't, which is precisely the point.

I don't need to know what the rest of the context was to know that it isn't there in the article that's upset you so much.

But this is all a sideshow really, since you've admitted that there was a context, that you still aren't aware of it and you've demonstrated you didn't understand what the word courage means too.

So, your rant about the judge was just the pointless ravings of a stereotypical angry daily fail reader.

[The Fat Controller]

Twice. Why do you ask?

How do you feel purportrators of burglary or similar crimes should be punished, as a "victim"?

N.B I only ask because i'm genuinely interested - no other reason.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I'm wrong all the time actually. Which is why I always have a little chuckle when someone bereft of arguments resorts to that little irrelevant insult.

If you can point out where I'm wrong with a bit of logic I'll happily admit it and apologise.

I don't think you can though.

One doesn't, which is precisely the point.

I don't need to know what the rest of the context was to know that it isn't there in the article that's upset you so much.

But this is all a sideshow really, since you've admitted that there was a context, that you still aren't aware of it and you've demonstrated you didn't understand what the word courage means too.

So, your rant about the judge was just the pointless ravings of a stereotypical angry daily fail reader.

Well you have now convinced me, the judge was correct in all aspects, his summing up contained nothing ill advised or even remotely obtuse and has obviously been taken completely out of context (whatever that context might be) and if the bar association find anything remotely inappropriate about this case in their investigations, I will gladly join forces with you to start a campaign to clear Judge Peter Bowers name. Also I have written to the ogranisers of the pride of Britain awards to have an award for the most courageous burglar of the year award.

[Nibor]

How do you feel purportrators of burglary or similar crimes should be punished, as a "victim"?

N.B I only ask because i'm genuinely interested - no other reason.

Personally I was pretty ******* angry at the time. I'd have happily done him some damage not that he'd have cared.

The old bill actually caught the guy (and his missus) who broke into my place in Easton. He was stupid enough to leave fingerprints all over the place. He copped to a couple of dozen burglaries to be taken into consideration and got 18 months.

They told me me when they'd charged him that it was the second time he'd been done. The first time he went inside as 19 yr old for a much shorter period after getting caught breaking into sheds nicking bikes and tools. He was a minor problem who needed re direction, but he got banged up and he came out a smackhead.

A couple of years on he'd managed to get to the point where heroin just wasn't doing it for him anymore and started doing speedball (cocaine and heroin intravenously at the same time), he'd done all the burglaries in the last couple of weeks when he was totally off his tits. He'd apparently been holding down a job until then but then stopped showing up, moved into a squat/crack den and started nicking to feed it.

There's not much satisfaction in knowing he went back inside. A little bit of "ha, have it you thieving scumbag" but really it doesn't change anything. You're still angry someone's been in your home. He's still going to come out a smackhead and do it again. Addicts don't reform in prison. No problem's been solved, just a lot of time and money has been wasted and anger caused. The cycle will continue until the addict dies from an overdose or rehabs properly.

There's a reason why rehab programmes that work don't deal with punishment and atonement until after everything else. It's because an addict doesn't have any self respect, so they don't give a **** about being punished or what "right minded" people think about them. You have to put some of that back first or it's all just water off a duck's back.

The saddest thing is this guy had two kids under the age of five. I'll give you better than even money on them ending up in the same cycle, they haven't got a chance really. Of course this all sounds like bleeding heart liberal stuff, but I couldn't give a toss for the politics really. I would just prefer that whatever we do about it actually worked.

That's why ignorant suckers who fall for the daily fail outrage irritate me, they aren't interested in actually solving any problems, just in having a rant.

[TRL]

Personally I was pretty ******* angry at the time. I'd have happily done him some damage not that he'd have cared.

The old bill actually caught the guy (and his missus) who broke into my place in Easton. He was stupid enough to leave fingerprints all over the place. He copped to a couple of dozen burglaries to be taken into consideration and got 18 months.

They told me me when they'd charged him that it was the second time he'd been done. The first time he went inside as 19 yr old for a much shorter period after getting caught breaking into sheds nicking bikes and tools. He was a minor problem who needed re direction, but he got banged up and he came out a smackhead.

A couple of years on he'd managed to get to the point where heroin just wasn't doing it for him anymore and started doing speedball (cocaine and heroin intravenously at the same time), he'd done all the burglaries in the last couple of weeks when he was totally off his tits. He'd apparently been holding down a job until then but then stopped showing up, moved into a squat/crack den and started nicking to feed it.

There's not much satisfaction in knowing he went back inside. A little bit of "ha, have it you thieving scumbag" but really it doesn't change anything. You're still angry someone's been in your home. He's still going to come out a smackhead and do it again. Addicts don't reform in prison. No problem's been solved, just a lot of time and money has been wasted and anger caused. The cycle will continue until the addict dies from an overdose or rehabs properly.

There's a reason why rehab programmes that work don't deal with punishment and atonement until after everything else. It's because an addict doesn't have any self respect, so they don't give a **** about being punished or what "right minded" people think about them. You have to put some of that back first or it's all just water off a duck's back.

The saddest thing is this guy had two kids under the age of five. I'll give you better than even money on them ending up in the same cycle, they haven't got a chance really. Of course this all sounds like bleeding heart liberal stuff, but I couldn't give a toss for the politics really. I would just prefer that whatever we do about it actually worked.

That's why ignorant suckers who fall for the daily fail outrage irritate me, they aren't interested in actually solving any problems, just in having a rant.

I can see both sides to the argument, clearly a lot of the time jail time just breeds more criminal activity, but on the flip side, my grandmother got burgled and threatened with a knife. She was scared to stay in her flat until the burgler was jailed.

Now we have to make a decision, find a way of getting these criminals some self respect back and hope it keeps them on the straight and narrow, or we help the victims of the crime, who are often left a shallow imitation of themselves, scared to go out, and in my grand mothers case, afraid to stay in her own home.

Rock and hard place. Very easy to support either side. And no real happy medium, as it is very hard to pin point criminals before they become criminals.

I think we should look after the victims first and foremost and get these criminals off the street, but to stop re offending, something drastically needs changing, whatever happens behind bars, clearly doesn't work for a lot of people.

Just as well I wasn't near this thug that threatened my grand mother, as I suspect I may have been in jail now while he was out.

[And Its Smith]

Chris_Brown, I couldn't put it any better than Nibor to be honest.

To send a burglar to the same place that he took up drugs just continues the vicious circle. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. Re-offending rates prove conclusively that the prison system is in an absolute mess. I see lots of politicians not being brave enough to make radical decisions to give it an overhaul. Any decisions should be left-leaning as we need to delve a lot deeper into people's problems than is currently happening.

One thing I do know is that the state rehab in this country is an absolute joke when it comes to all drink and drugs. To give a heroin addict a heroin substitute to try to get them clean is insane.

My brother was an alcoholic for many years. He was on incapacity benefit as, due to the drink, he was never in a fit state to work. So he 'earned' £150 per week and had most of his rent paid. That is more than enough money to get drunk everyday so (thankfully I guess) he didn't have to steal to get his fix. After years and years he decided he wanted to get clean so went to his GP. His doctor told him that he could be enrolled on a programme to help him but that there was an eight-week waiting list. His liver was so bad that he needed to drink every day or else he might die (the same as how Amy Winehouse died). So, basically, a doctor was telling an alcoholic to drink every day. And of course he did this and missed the course due to being drunk. He didnt have the self-control to drink one can per day.

Thankfully, in the end we somehow managed to get him pushed to the top of the list at a time where he was at his absolute lowest and wanted to get help. But he had to get very very close to death to get the immediate help.

I digress away from the general conversation on this thread but the overall problem of rehab is at the core of this whole problem, in my opinion.

[Nibor]

Yeah, when someone's burgling and robbing it's too late really. I agree about protecting people but there's more heroin addicts than there are prison places for a start. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked up, I'm saying they shouldn't be JUST locked up.

Social services generally can pinpoint the kids who are going to be problems, but they are pretty powerless until something major's gone wrong. By that time the problem children are busy hatching the next generation.

Our drugs policies are informed by politicians (driven by media rants like the article here) rather than by experts, and while that continues little will change. Everybody knows prohibition doesn't work, nobody in public office has the balls to do something about it. No surprise - look at what happened to David Nutt.

[And Its Smith]

No surprise - look at what happened to David Nutt.

I was so happy when he said what he said and so angry when he subsequently got sacked. Politicians are so scared of the press.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Yeah, when someone's burgling and robbing it's too late really. I agree about protecting people but there's more heroin addicts than there are prison places for a start. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked up, I'm saying they shouldn't be JUST locked up.

Social services generally can pinpoint the kids who are going to be problems, but they are pretty powerless until something major's gone wrong. By that time the problem children are busy hatching the next generation.

Our drugs policies are informed by politicians (driven by media rants like the article here) rather than by experts, and while that continues little will change. Everybody knows prohibition doesn't work, nobody in public office has the balls to do something about it. No surprise - look at what happened to David Nutt.

and it never will change, I have heard successive governments since the early 60's government of Alec Douglas Hume, through Harold Wilson and onto Tony Blair tells us they were going rehabilitate criminals and later addicts and very little has actually changed, under funded like most things apart from the NHS and doomed to failure. Usually overseen by people from distinctly the wrong background and experience with justice administered by an out of touch judiciary.

Red Dave makes a very interesting point of state sponsorship of addicts, the problem being as we know sooner or later even that is not enough to fund a habit.

I had 3 very close friends who were alcoholics, all of them highly intelligent people, 2 drank themselves out of marriages of over 20 years standing and eventually to death and a 3rd drank himself into a mental hospital, all at a young age.

I think much of the problem is that within rehabilitation programmes as with community service and probation there appears to be little or no consequences when the person does fall off of the wagon, re-offend or simply dosen't turn up, of course unless it's a high profile case or public safety is believed to be compromised.

[And Its Smith]

Drugs or no drugs.

He stole and was convicted at 10 yrs of age.

He served a prison sentence for arson.

Things he stole were not all for money for drugs.

The car he simply destroyed and abandoned.

The above is a pretty serious string of offences for a very young man, so irrespective of the arguments between the 'liberally inclined handwringers' and the 'right leaning "off with his head"', thats a pretty fair list of stuff to have done - and thats all he was caught doing, which as we all know is probably as small % of what he actually did.

I'm not sure 12 months suspended will send the right message somehow, and will expect to see him back in the dock, especially on the back of his honours 'sensationalist' verdict to recieve a 5 year whack next time.

It would seem the Police can't win either. They either don't do enough or when they actually catch someone, the judiciary let them off.

And to totally invalidate anything I just wrote, is it just me or does the judge look a right I love you?

Ah, a new level of intellect to the debate...

[The Fat Controller]

Nibor and RedDave - thanks for the responses. Like i said i asked out of interest simply because i'm fortunate enough that its never happened to me. I imagine i'd be incandescent with rage but i guess you never know until these things happen to you.