tough on crime ..tough on the victims of crime....huh?
 

very smyptomatic of to-days bizaare culture--this heroic guy was punished by his employer for protecting the companys customers over the companys money--respect i see..yes that would be it then..:damn:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/5203042.stm


no mention of the gangsters that committed the crime of course---slap on wrist if caught--bags of respect down the hood with their mates----
yes that's respect these days..yes ok we got the message ..no need to rub it in...

Welcome to Great Britain, we would kindly ask that you drop the 'Great' 'cause we ain't no more. Have a nice day, preferably with your cranium intact. :lol::nope:

Oh dear... maybe somebody will see sense :hmm:

:rotfl: :rotfl:
I don't think our bureaucracy is even that bad.

Thats what happens when public service becomes a profit seeking one. Its all about the bottom line. And how could they justify that him standing in the way of armed thugs was safer for everyone? He was nearly killed when he did what the thugs wanted him to do!

If I was him I would tell them to get stuffed and go and stick that suggestion up their jumper where it belongs.:mad: :mad:

yes...so he may well be expected to compensate his employers for the loss of their money to the tune of around 3,000 pounds....:hmm:
and if he doesn't pay or can't what then--no doubt an eventual jail sentence---certainly he will lose his job in that scenario.. if indeed he ever feels recovered enough to want it anyway--he'll have a criminal record too..

can the police force government and the entire establishment be taken to court and charged with perverting the course of justice...?

hopeless of course...no doubt the criminals find all this extremely entertaining..

"I don't think our bureaucracy is even that bad."


You're right...it has become infinitely worse.....

All hail the Red Tape. (just venting here)

And what is behind all this? The answer PC Madness:x I've had it up to here with this crap, how much longer is this going to control are lives.:damn:

i kinda think that PC is actually post ironic feminism...which is a bit mad...but probably true..at least the thought isn't pc..stands to reason
that as our government has a large percentage of women MP's ...that at some level women MP's should take some of the responsibility..or is that so outrageously un pc...who knows...shhhh big brothers coming..
PC thinking kinda reminds me of something...it's rather like being nagged to death...
tell you what allso..having thought about it...it kinda reminds me of something else ...school yard bullying..that "lets make this guys life a misery..and behave as if what was happening to him was an entirely trivial set of minor events that any normal person could deal with without a seconds thought" reverse logic bizaareness that leaves you wondering if you have just been transported to an alternative reality...:damn: :hmm:
a horrific situation in the school yard..utterly unspeakable when it is enforced thru legislation and government:ping:
reminds me of a lot of things...

the series of events that could happen to this postmaster simply because he dared to behave like a decent human being- he bucked the system--makes every one else look bad...heaven knows if he's allowed to get away with it we all might be expected to behave decently--and that would be the ultimate in non PC

because PC is about making every-one else behave decently ,whilst you sit back and have a good laugh because you are too wise to fall for that old gag..

Well, I can understand the reason for this rule. If you allow criminals to get what they want, crime is rewarded and criminals are encouraged to perform more crimes. This may, in the long run, cost more lives than doing everything possible to keep the criminals away from the money, even when that causes more immediate risks.

Of course, taking this a little bit further one might argue that it would be best if everyone nearby just assaulted the robbers in a fight to the death. Of course, people usually won't risk that, but it would probably reduce crime drastically if it were feasible.

well you have a point ...but agressive self defense or indeed attacking a criminal in the legitimate process of commiting a crime is deemed a much more serious criminal offense than any offense imaginable under law that may or may not be commited by a legitimate criminal..(they have badges you know..go on training courses and every thing..) in the states eyes an innocent bystander has a much lower legal status than a criminal going about his socaily justified daily buisness..

sides which general speaking on average a lot of adults don't have a great desire to spend their lives in a Rambo/die hard film set...sad really as were obviously missing out on all the fun..:oops:

really this postmaster should be taken out and publically flogged..

i agree --one of the new ideas is that a criminal will get a reduced sentence if he agrees to apologise to his/her victim...
no one of course stopped to imagine wether
a/ the victim wants to to be forced against their will to accept an apology from some assh*le they don't know and wouldn't want to know if they were the last human being on the face of the planet...
b/what if the victim doesn't accept the apology...yes great all the criminals mates will burn his/her house down -steal their car shove excrement through their letter box and ohh lots of other very entertaining jolly japes and shinanigens ..tho not neccesarily of course in that order...re the letter box thing and the burning down of the house..of course..silly me..
c/taking for granted that the criminal hasn't really got a hieghtened sense of socail finery..all he/she has to do is open their mad sick gobs and utter two words...whom exactly will be there to assertain the sincerity of the statement...and will this be taken into consideration whilst adjusting the sentence...who decides...all very freudian and abstract in nature..
d/oh i can't be bothered...if i'm a victim i'll probably be charged with contempt of court if i refuse to turn up for this apology...yet again the situation of the criminal is my responsibility not his/hers...yawn..it's getting VERY old now...
b~ll*cks to it..!!!

i can be fined 200 pounds for smoking in a pub whilst all hell is breaking loose on the street out side because every single idiot in the country has decided that it is impossibly un cool to drink just two pints ...you have to get drunk...meantime three people are pernamently disfigured because they have been very politely glassed and seven hundred thousand girls are constantly repeating "he's not worth it" over and over again whilst collectively jumping up and down with glee and showing their back side to passers by..(as a rule..)

nothing makes sense..it's just not "joined up thinking" it's legislation by two year olds for two year olds..dam shame as i'm far too old now being as i am four years old and all i want is to sit in a pub drink two pints over a period of 4 hours whilst smoking the occasional ciggerrete..(now a criminal offense)..funnily i have never seen street fights requiring half the local police forces attendance along with just as many ambulances and even the occasional fire engine out side the tobaconist on the courner...strange that...still ho hum

and so it goes ever on...some one some where has got to be having a laugh..

Here in england should a burgaler injur himself on your property you are liable and he can sue you for it, now thats what i call stupid.