youreavinalaff

Not bait. Conversation.

I said nothing about pervert, sex pest or exposing one's self. You are twisting once again. I guess you have never been in a public changing room. I have and understand that it is likely there will be naked people getting changed or dressed. That is why changing rooms in public places are single sex.

What part if "discretionary" do you not understand? Hostage taking was not a life sentence crime at the time of the offense. It's all in the lawyers brief.

Discretionary sentence that expired in 2003. That was the situation. Charles Bronson, as pointed out by the lawyers, has only ever been sentenced to 33 years imprisonment. He has been in far longer. Longer still if you consider the fact, with the exception of whole life tarrifs, very few pridoners see out the entirety of their sentence. Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning what he did. I'm not suggesting he should or should not be released. I'm asking on what grounds he can legally be detained.

Hyperbole? This is a yes or no question. It would be nice for you to use either of those words in your one word answer. Here is the question.....would you find it an acceptable situation where female members of your family told you there was someone in the same, female only changing room they were in who was naked and showing a penis?

A discretionary life sentence to last for 3 years. Expired in 2003.

In reality, the would really need to charge him with another crime to keep him in. To me, that's what makes his case intriguing. I'm sure his lawyers will ask what he is being kept inside for.

Sorry? I don't understand your comment. I asked a genuine question. As an official photographer i would imagine you would know the answer

What were those in the parade proud of ?

That's one opinion. However, is it legal to keep someone in prison based on an opinion? This appears to be different to usual parole hearings. It's not a case of him being let out early. It's a case of can we still hold him as his sentence has expired. Reputations should be overlooked to a certain degree. As an example, look at how long the Krays stayed inside. Each of them jailed only for one murder. Many murderers were released whilst those two were in prison. Most having served less than their original sentence. The Krays were kept in because of other crimes they were thought to have committed Remember, no one goes to prison for committing a crime. They go to prison for getting caught, found guilty and being sentenced.

No one is trying to hang onto it. The Falkland Islanders voted to remain British.

Be careful what you wish for. You might drown in it.

1690 was not in 16th century

No. Very different from Chagos, which were inhabited by indigenous people. That part of British history is not a proud moment.

That is one government. Not successive. Also, as I pointed out earlier, your original post didn't give the full story. I believe, with no proof to back your claim, your original post is an unsubstantiated.

If you wish to continue pre dating, the first recorded British landings at Falklands were actually in 1690. At that time they were uninhibited.

The British have been on Falklands since 18th century.

Show us then.

The Crown are net contributors to the UK economy. They pay their way. Sure, publications will show that the "state" pays. However, where does the state get the funds from?

Yes, I sm sure. The state "pays". However, the source of the funds is the Crown.

Complaints from the tax payer? Why? The Crown paid for it.

Stolen? From whom? There are not and never have been indigenous Falkland Islanders. They were uninhabited when the Brits first landed in the 18th century. The only time Argentinians were expelled was in 1982.

Not quite. Why not tell the whole story?

Historical examples being irrelevant to this thread.

Some intelligence sharing, a few million gallons of aviation fuel and an unspecified amount of mortar shells. Hardly "significant military assistance".