QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

lemonjelly

The_White_Horse wrote: »

...yes, thats right, the lefties let them collect dole in jail. what a joke. and why? it will help them prepare for life on the outside. jokers.

No, that is either made up by you as it fits your belief system, or something more sinister...

The rules for JSA explicitly prevent you from claiming whilst in prison.

I mean, how can you be "available for and actively seeking work" whilst incarcerated.

You aren't entitled to welfare benefits in prison. You may claim them upon release.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

No, that is either made up by you as it fits your belief system, or something more sinister...

The rules for JSA explicitly prevent you from claiming whilst in prison.

I mean, how can you be "available for and actively seeking work" whilst incarcerated.

You aren't entitled to welfare benefits in prison. You may claim them upon release.

Actually, i heard something about this recently, but I'm sorry I can't remember where to check the validity of if. It was reported as £2.50 sick pay or something in prison if the prison operates a work scheme, as white horse said, its meant to prepare for real life...


edit: damn damn damn, wasn't going to reply, lready deleted a reply, darn...

tomterm8

Cleaver wrote: »

. I just don't understand why there aren't mandatory, simple, non-negotiable standard punishments for crimes.
.

I quite like the fact a judge can... well... judge and take a reasoned view of what sentence is best. In those countries where there are simple standard punishments for crime, there is often a lot of injustice. For example, if you make it an automatic 2 year sentence for petty theft, you give the same penalty to someone who steals a loaf of bread for their kid to eat, as to someone who steals the toys of a babies grave for no reason.

Cleaver wrote: »

.
I don't get why there are TVs, computers, games consoles, mobile phones and other luxuries in prison. .

The logic is that if you take away everything from someone, there is no incentive for them to cooperate at all. You get the kind of scenario that they often have in US prisons. If you give prisoners limited privileges they can lose, they have an incentive to do what you want.

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

You have already been given it by several posters!

The moment we regress to state sponsored murder (i.e. the death penalty) we have lost the moral argument and become nothing better than those we execute!

However, I will make an exception to the con: in your case it wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to how sick you are.

All I see WH is an angry, vengeful and viscious person with some serious "issues" of their own. You need to fix yourself before you can make any measured and intelligent comment on anyone else in Society.

Do you know what I like about Cleaver? He doesn't resort to the name calling nonsense you do. Why is it ok to execute me for my valid opinion, yet you wish to save child murderers???? I think only one of us is sick, and it certainly isn't me.

Yesterday, you kindly highlighted a spelling error I made. I am not usually petty, but it is "vicious" not "viscious".

I see the argument you are trying to make, and I note Cleaver attempts to use the same argument - namely:

moggylover wrote: »

The moment we regress to state sponsored murder (i.e. the death penalty) we have lost the moral argument and become nothing better than those we execute!

So, if a man is arrested for kidnapping and locking up their victim for many years - say like that Austrian bloke who kept his daughter under the house or that American case, Jaycee something or other, have we not lost the moral highground there by incarcerating the incarcerator??????? Same thing I think. You are just choosing to think of it differently.

The_White_Horse

lemonjelly wrote: »

No, that is either made up by you as it fits your belief system, or something more sinister...

The rules for JSA explicitly prevent you from claiming whilst in prison.

I mean, how can you be "available for and actively seeking work" whilst incarcerated.

You aren't entitled to welfare benefits in prison. You may claim them upon release.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162126/Scandal-as-prisoners-claim-100m-in-benefits

fool

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

The logic is that if you take away everything from someone, there is no incentive for them to cooperate at all. You get the kind of scenario that they often have in US prisons. If you give prisoners limited privileges they can lose, they have an incentive to do what you want.

Yet losing freedom is not incentive enough to stop crimes...

lemonjelly

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Do you know what I like about Cleaver? He doesn't resort to the name calling nonsense you do.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

fool

Hypocrite - within 2 posts.

The_White_Horse

tomterm8 wrote: »

The logic is that if you take away everything from someone, there is no incentive for them to cooperate at all. You get the kind of scenario that they often have in US prisons. If you give prisoners limited privileges they can lose, they have an incentive to do what you want.

But prisoners should just sit in their empty cell 24/7. I don't want them to do anything except sit there contemplating their wrong doing.

The_White_Horse

lemonjelly wrote: »

Hypocrite - within 2 posts.

i didn't say I didn't do it. I just said that is why I like Cleaver better than Moggy.

fool.

Do I get an apology soon, seeing as you said I made it up to fit my belief system. Remember, I never have to make stuff up about lefties. They really ARE THAT STUPID!!!

Cleaver

tomterm8 wrote: »

I quite like the fact a judge can... well... judge and take a reasoned view of what sentence is best. In those countries where there are simple standard punishments for crime, there is often a lot of injustice. For example, if you make it an automatic 2 year sentence for petty theft, you give the same penalty to someone who steals a loaf of bread for their kid to eat, as to someone who steals the toys of a babies grave for no reason.

tomterm8 wrote: »

The logic is that if you take away everything from someone, there is no incentive for them to cooperate at all. You get the kind of scenario that they often have in US prisons. If you give prisoners limited privileges they can lose, they have an incentive to do what you want.

Both cracking points. I love it when this forum makes me question my views.

With regard to the first one, I probably phrased that badly. What I mean is, you get 6 years for something. But you might be out after 3, or maybe 5, or possibly even 2. I agree that a judge should have some room for bespoke sentencing, I meant more that what the judge dishes out is simple, clear and non-negotiable. For example: you have 6 years. If you meet this stringent set of criteria then you can get out in 4. Job done.

For the second point, I can't really argue with that as you've really made me think. However, at the risk of sounding like the Daily Mail, do you think we've maybe gone too far the other way? I had a friend go to prison last year for drug dealing and he served around 6 months. He had never been to prison before, but found it quite shocking how lapse it was and how little he was asked to do. He basically said that he watched TV and played video games in his cell pretty much all day every day. Just seems weird to me.