Armed with what? A fake gun or a fake bomb? And he stole not even 4000 pounds.

Are you for real or just an automated troll bot?

The way the Tories are handling this country at the moment, £4000 is a fortune to those struggling to survive.

Fake gun or bomb? Would you care to stand in front of one & laugh at the person holding it & tell them it's a fake?

You need to wake up & smell the roses boy,

The way the Tories are handling this country at the moment, £4000 is a fortune to those struggling to survive.

And if he stole that money from a regular person by robbing their house, that would actually be a good point. But he stole the money from a bank, aka, he harmed no one. Aren't banks insured against robberies? And are banks really the types of organization we need to pity?

Fake gun or bomb? Would you care to stand in front of one & laugh at the person holding it & tell them it's a fake?

Well the one who encountered the fake gun told him to f*** off. The person encountering the fake bomb was more distressed, which I can completely understand and I do think that calls for a heavier punishment than normal. Which is why 7,5 years of prison seems like a very proportional sentence. If he hadn't used a fake bomb to rob the bank, I would have given him a lighter sentence.

Also, keep in mind this guy is a junk. He will keep robbing people to pay for his addiction as long as he is using drugs. Perhaps he would be best helped by going to rehab. Perhaps the judge should have sentenced him to a mandatory rehab clinic next to his regular punishment.

So in one respect, you condone theft just because it was a bank? In another, you're condoning his actions because he's a junkie?

We all have choices, some make the right ones others do not. Those that do not shouldn't be treated like victims.

God help us if you ever get into politics! Seeing what you're studying, can't see any other option for you :-(

So in one respect, you condone theft just because it was a bank? In another, you're condoning his actions because he's a junkie?

We all have choices, some make the right ones others do not. Those that do not shouldn't be treated like victims.

God help us if you ever get into politics! Seeing what you're studying, can't see any other option for you :-(

I'm not condoning anything. Did I say he shouldn't be punished for what he did? Pretty sure I said that the current punishment of 7,5 years of jail is a proportional punishment.

I am saying that your argument that '4000 pounds is a lot of people who are struggling to get by' is not exactly relevant when you steal the money from a bank. And I'm saying that someone who is addicted to drugs is likely going to keep stealing in order to pay for his drug habit. Thats what addicts do.

So in one respect, you condone theft just because it was a bank? In another, you're condoning his actions because he's a junkie?

We all have choices, some make the right ones others do not. Those that do not shouldn't be treated like victims.

God help us if you ever get into politics! Seeing what you're studying, can't see any other option for you :-(

I'm not condoning anything. Did I say he shouldn't be punished for what he did? Pretty sure I said that the current punishment of 7,5 years of jail is a proportional punishment.

I am saying that your argument that '4000 pounds is a lot of people who are struggling to get by' is not exactly relevant when you steal the money from a bank. And I'm saying that someone who is addicted to drugs is likely going to keep stealing in order to pay for his drug habit. Thats what addicts do.

You've proved my point.

Theft is theft, no excuses!

You've proved my point.

Theft is theft, no excuses!

Its not an excuse, its a point about how your argument doesn't apply.

You've proved my point.

Theft is theft, no excuses!

Its not an excuse, its a point about how your argument doesn't apply.

I'm retiring soon, so why don't you visit Ireland & see how well you will stand up to an armed man.

I'll lay odds on that your pants won't remain clean or have the courage to tell me to FO.

Over the past several months, you have shown that you're clearly disposed to just the one profession suitable for you - Politics, anything else, you will not be able to cope with.

Oh dear me, we really have let our veneer slip haven't we. Ok folks, here we have a 26 year old Uni student, who has already gone on public record as saying that all this terrorism business is a load of rubbish because hardly anybody ever gets killed. Now we hear his views about banks and their innocent employees.

And once again you show your contempt for facts when they stand in the way of how you feel about things. This is the true tragedy of today, a society that is focused on emotional experiences that it purposefully ignores facts when they contradict said emotional experience.

If you had bothered to read the report you would have known that he already was under suspended sentences from previous court convictions. I take it that you do understand what a suspended sentence actually means?

I have and that is why I know he got that sentence reinstated which means he'll serve an additional 18 months in jail. Whats your point? That he should have remained in jail? Okay, he wouldn't have robbed that bank and tried to rob this store, instead he would have robbed something at a later date. As I said, the guy is a junk, this is what junks do. You are better off with sending them to rehab and have them kick their habit than throw them in jail and then let them wander the streets.

God help us! so in your view attempting to rob a bank is nothing to make a fuss about and furthermore they probably deserve it anyway?

When done in such a clumsy manner, and when he only steals 4000 pounds, yes I don't think that is something to make a fuss about. The guy is no John Dillinger, no criminal mastermind. And I never said that banks deserve to be robbed, I said I don't pity them as organizations when someone steals 4000 pounds.

You have done your credbility a great disservice today, and the more you struggle to try to wriggle out of it, the deeper the hole you dig. Want an honest opinion, take the advice of that Halifax cashier.

You haven't answered my question, why does someone as inept as this person deserve longer jail time? What specifically makes you think that people like this need to be locked away for longer?

I'm retiring soon, so why don't you visit Ireland & see how well you will stand up to an armed man.

I'll lay odds on that your pants won't remain clean or have the courage to tell me to FO.

Over the past several months, you have shown that you're clearly disposed to just the one profession suitable for you - Politics, anything else, you will not be able to cope with.

And me responding to someone waving a gun in my face will prove your argument about money how exactly?

Also, I know that you think calling someone a 'politician' is an insult, just as being a 'know it all', academic and intellectual have been used by a certain group of people on these boards as insults. But frankly, such insults say more about the people using them than the people they are being applied to.

And me responding to someone waving a gun in my face will prove your argument about money how exactly?

Just how feckless you are & a drain on the taxpayers within Europe.

All you are doing is picking up on certain points & arguing on an academic/bureaucratic level with no real life experience to temper your arguments. Without that, you're just an academic, who is beginning to show that you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Someone mentioned some time ago & unfortunately I have to agree with their statement - "Come back in 20 years & talk then".

And me responding to someone waving a gun in my face will prove your argument about money how exactly?

Just how feckless you are & a drain on the taxpayers within Europe.

Interesting, so being intimidated by someone who waves a gun in your face means you are a drain on the taxpayer. Well I imagine that most people would be a drain then. Yeah I don't really see how that works.

All you are doing is picking up on certain points & arguing on an academic/bureaucratic level with no real life experience to temper your arguments. Without that, you're just an academic, who is beginning to show that you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Someone mentioned some time ago & unfortunately I have to agree with their statement - "Come back in 20 years & talk then".

Bureaucratic level? What is that exactly? No seriously, I have no idea what you mean with that. Do give me an example of when I talk at a 'bureaucratic level'.

And if I'm arguing for the sake of argument, I would be playing the devils advocate a lot, as a way to create a discussion. I don't play the devils advocate over here. I argue because I genuinely disagree with some people on some issues on these forums.

@Gary - nice try old son, but no cigar. Crime never pays, in the UK or elsewhere. That of course obviously does not include Drug barons or organised crime. Upon the face of this report it would seem that this man has got away with far too much for too long and should have been dealt with more severely much earlier. He was aged 55 but it is not clear how young he was when the 50 offences began, but 1 or 2 a year from age 20 would fit.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-figures-show-police-solved-4729609
29% of reported crime solved. Take that 50 times got caught and divide by 29%. More like 172 crimes committed. Can't find a good stat for how much crime is not reported, did see one listing 20% So divide again and we are up to 215 crimes!

This is the real cost to society, one which many refuse to understand. I'd say ordinary crime does pay.

---

So in your view criminals should be sentenced and jailed according to how good they are being a criminal? Does not the fact of committing a criminal offence in the first place mean anything to you at all?

No, but the severity of the crime should be taken into account. Tell me, if you were to steal say 40 pounds instead of 4000 pounds, don't you think that person should be punished lighter? The crime was less severe. At the same time, if someone steals 40.000 pounds, shouldn't he be punished more severe than someone who only steals 4000 pounds? Or should they all get the same punishment? If you answer yes, it means that someone who steals 40 pounds ends up in jail for the same amount of time compared to someone who stole 40.000 pounds. That is rather disproportional.

If being bad at crime means that you steal less, I think that should be reflected in the punishment.

You are just not for real are you? You are a disgrace to the University that you study at and an embarrassment to the Dutch nation.

Oh, so you do want to make a fuss about this. Face it, the only reason you even bother to talk about this is because Gary posted a link about it. Otherwise you probably wouldn't even have known this happened. Thats how much you normally care about things like this.

Also, the great thing about being an adult is that you can just tell someone you disagree with them, rather than throw a temper tantrum that befits an 8 year old. How distasteful.

Hold on that is duff maths and conclusions!

29% of reported crime solved.

That very well may be so. But that would necessarily be an overall figure, and not applicable to every single person.

Take that 50 times got caught and divide by 29%. More like 172 crimes committed.

You are assuming that he did other crimes that didn't get reported or he didn't get caught for! You have no real basis upon which to assume that, in this particular case.

And you have no basis to say it isn't correct, to say this isn't an ordinary individual. You assume he is the most bumbling type ever and gets caught 100% of the time. What poppycock. I say he is average and gets caught the average 29% of the time. You don't even address how much of his average crime doesn't get reported. Maybe he is one of the smart ones and does tiny crime so that most of it is never reported.

In your rate of 1 to 2 crimes a year for him, you forgot to subtract out the time he spent in custody, thus increasing the number of crimes he commits per year while roaming your street. Do that and assume he is an average criminal and you get a number of crimes a year showing he lives off crime.

This guy is a one man crime spree and you won't admit it, because I'm a Yankee pointing it out to you. You can go on with your delusion that the British system is perfect. And before you blow your top, I'm not saying the Yankee system is better; It can't be as it is based on the British system at its core.

---

This man is CLEARLY a one man crime spree, and if I had known about him years ago, and had been in any position to have done anything about it, his feet wouldn't have touched I can assure you of that.

Did you just say that you think politics belongs in the courtroom?! That courts should be swayed by public opinion?! Or are you saying you should be king/dictator?! Just not sure where your part about being in some position to do something fits in with the legal system, or how you think the legal system should be designed. Especially that part about calling people into account. That sounds like you want them subject to the whipsaw whims of politics.

---

@Sirius B

Theft is theft, no excuses!

It seems not everyone thinks so.

@Мишель

If you rip sentences apart and thus ignore their context, yeah it might seem I'm ridiculing your entire post. In reality, I was merely ridiculing your claim that the people in power view war as an efficient and cost effective tool for population control.

You are crediting the "mandated" delinquents presently governing the UK, with more acumen than they may in fact possess :-) but I take your point. Cheers for the response.

@Chris S You said:

Ok folks, here we have a 26 year old Uni student, who has already gone on public record as saying that all this terrorism business is a load of rubbish because hardly anybody ever gets killed.

Your paraphrasing notwithstanding, the statistics bear the 26 year old uni student out. Any one of us is four times more likely to get killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack, and our chances of getting struck by lightning is a scary one in five and a half million. :-)

If you were posting from Iraq, where deaths from terrorism accounted for 35 per cent of those who died in that country in 2013, it would be wrong of me to accuse you of presenting us all with a myopic perspective. You are not, so it isn't.

Perhaps, sir, you should follow your own advice,

you might want to stop before you make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

Whilst you try, this might help you relax: Top ten causes of death

Against a backdrop of around 56 million people who died worldwide in 2012:

15,500 died from terrorist attacks whilst: Road traffic injuries claimed nearly 3500 lives each day; and 6.6 million children died of entirely preventable causes, before reaching their fifth birthday.

In high-income countries 7 in every 10 deaths are among people aged 70 years and older... predominantly dying of chronic diseases: cardiovascular diseases, cancers, dementia, chronic obstructive lung disease or diabetes. Lower respiratory infections remain the only leading infectious cause of death.

In low-income countries only 2 in every 10 deaths are among people aged 70 years and older, with 4 in every 10 deaths among children under 15 years.

Feel better about your future? :-) Hang in there long enough, and who knows - with local and foreign UK policy successfully radicalising our communities, and the positive correlation between western "anti-terror" spending and deaths from terrorist attacks worldwide



graphed for us here from the perspective of our special allies

...you MIGHT one day edge nearer to being right than the very mistaken that you are at present.

---

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Apart from pain. And maybe humiliation. And obviously death. And failure. But apart from fear, pain and humiliation, failure and the unknown and death - we have nothing to fear. Who’s with me?

You are crediting the "mandated" delinquents presently governing the UK, with more acumen than they may in fact possess :-) but I take your point. Cheers for the response.

Eh, I don't like your politicians or their policies, but I don't think they are dumb in the sense that they can't do basic math.

There should only be one answer YES...

Should the UK remain in the EU?

Should the UK exit the EU?

...please tick one or the other...

...the YES campaign wins :-)

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An' if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

Leaving aside the humanitarian aspect of that, just who is going to pay for them? The Tories have been making too many devastating cuts across the board.