afransen
Senior Member
Black isn't my favourite person, and I think he should serve his sentence. But he has a right to be published, and I'll even read it, if not agree with it.
|
|
|
Do Rich people (ie Snobelen) buy their way out of the hoosegoose?
- Thread starter jade_lee
- Start date
jade_lee
Active Member
slang of a slang?
Black is serving a sentence and writing and then publishing from prison. Who else has been allowed to do this? I can't think of a single inmate. BTW his column runs in the National Post.
Bad people who do bad things do not always catch the public eye but certainly people like Black and others do get our attention and their behaviour should be watched closely, Black is now a know felon. The public does hold a persons record against them and normally this does affect employment. It's a trust issue. Paying for ones crimes certainly is more than serving the time for the crime.
The thing about a thread is that it can become more inclusive of the central theme and/or branch out to other examples that may deviate somewhat, you know like a conversation.
Certainly rich people avoid prison terms for their criminal behaviour where the ordinary Joe may not for the same conviction but that does not make it acceptable and it's only common until the public demands otherwise. That's how that goes.
Last edited:
lordmandeep
Banned
you should ask the RCMP during the 2006 election
kEiThZ
Superstar
So what's the complaint here? Is it about rich people avoiding prison? If so Black and Snoeblen are poor examples because they have gotten convicted.
Or is the complaint that these people have kept their jobs as writers/editorialists? If that's the complaint, then jade_lee please tell us what other job you would take away from those convicted of crimes. And please elaborate for us how you would accomplish rehabilitation if you plan on ensuring that convicts remain unemployed for the rest of their lives.
As far as I see it, being gainfully employed is a good thing for those who have committed crimes. We wouldn't want them returning to their criminal ways. We want them to pay their dues, rehabilitate and become productive members of society. If they are employed as writers so be it. It's not illegal. And they are being employed by private enterprises that are fully aware of their histories. So what's the problem with it?
You have already said that you don't patronize the Post and the Sun, so what exactly is your issue here? If you don't like their writing you don't have to buy the paper. Or are you just upset that the National Post won't give you a regular space to rant in?
Or is the complaint that these people have kept their jobs as writers/editorialists? If that's the complaint, then jade_lee please tell us what other job you would take away from those convicted of crimes. And please elaborate for us how you would accomplish rehabilitation if you plan on ensuring that convicts remain unemployed for the rest of their lives.
As far as I see it, being gainfully employed is a good thing for those who have committed crimes. We wouldn't want them returning to their criminal ways. We want them to pay their dues, rehabilitate and become productive members of society. If they are employed as writers so be it. It's not illegal. And they are being employed by private enterprises that are fully aware of their histories. So what's the problem with it?
You have already said that you don't patronize the Post and the Sun, so what exactly is your issue here? If you don't like their writing you don't have to buy the paper. Or are you just upset that the National Post won't give you a regular space to rant in?
urbandreamer
recession proof
jade_lee
Active Member
Do I call you names?
I guess people value the opinions of crooks if that particular crook is admired by them?
Last edited: