This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I find this bloke and his wretched circle pretty hard to take:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-21365109
Evil b*stard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-21365109
Evil b*stard.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Sound like a cracking bunch.
Strange, as the instigator or the one who arranged the 'hit', shouldn't Theresa Atkinson also be up for something too?
Sound like a cracking bunch.
Strange, as the instigator or the one who arranged the 'hit', shouldn't Theresa Atkinson also be up for something too?
In reply to Enty:
I wonder what should be done with someone as odious as that. Strikes me that prison will just be an opportunity to strengthen his networks.
I wonder what should be done with someone as odious as that. Strikes me that prison will just be an opportunity to strengthen his networks.
In reply to Tall Clare: I'm trying so hard to not assume guilty before jury, etc etc etc but ... prison may strengthen his networks, it'll strengthen his right arm a lot more and the nasty little sh*t will be at least in his 50s before he gets out (which believe me, is no age to be setting up new enterprises...)
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Which kind of leaves no choice other than criminality, either that or benefits considering how employable he'll probably be. Should he be found guilty that is.
> (In reply to Tall Clare) I'm trying so hard to not assume guilty before jury, etc etc etc but ... prison may strengthen his networks, it'll strengthen his right arm a lot more and the nasty little sh*t will be at least in his 50s before he gets out (which believe me, is no age to be setting up new enterprises...)
Which kind of leaves no choice other than criminality, either that or benefits considering how employable he'll probably be. Should he be found guilty that is.
In reply to Timmd: Benefits it will have to be then, because I have no doubt that if he so much as drops a sweet wrapper he'll be back inside. Should he be found guilty etc etc.
He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
To be honest Rob - if he's guilty of everything which we've seen in the media he's not going to see freedom again. Maybe we'll have a home secretary debating his parole at the age of 80 or something ?
Then again if the fluffies do get their way......
Right that's it from me. No more.
Night.
E
> (In reply to Timmd) Benefits it will have to be then, because I have no doubt that if he so much as drops a sweet wrapper he'll be back inside. Should he be found guilty etc etc.
>
> He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
>
> He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
To be honest Rob - if he's guilty of everything which we've seen in the media he's not going to see freedom again. Maybe we'll have a home secretary debating his parole at the age of 80 or something ?
Then again if the fluffies do get their way......
Right that's it from me. No more.
Night.
E
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I wouldn't want him to be able to damange anymore peoples' lives, but there's a bit of me still thinks something must have gone awry somewhere, the wrong mix of upbringing and circumstances, and genes as well. I'm not sure how much we should believe in evil.
After hearing a forensic psychologist talking about discovering he shared the same brain type as psychopaths, and that he had several serial killers in his ancestors, it seems to have changed how I think about people. People might be serious threats, but if i'm thinking scientifically i'm not sure i'd call them evil or odious etc. He described how he went form thinking 'nature' was behiend how people turned out, to thinking that 'nurture' plays at least as big a part in how people turn out, and that though he can be rather cold emotionally and a difficult person to be emotionally close to, he put how he turned out down to his very positive and loving upbringing.
In everyday life i'll decide somebody is odious or nasty if they seem like it, but on an intellectual level i'm not sure if it's true.
As we find out more I think it might raise ehtical questions aboug how we treat prisoners, if we subject them to new medical treatment to change thier behaviour or personalities.
I'm still very carefull to avoid anybody who seems like a nutter mind you, with Clive Anderson once mentioning how if two people attack somebody it often turns into a murder case in mind, I think i'll always be glad to have outrun two scary blokes during my teens on one occasion.
They had the kind of eyes which you don't get any warmth back from, it's been stored away for if I come across anybody like that again in the future.
> (In reply to Timmd) Benefits it will have to be then, because I have no doubt that if he so much as drops a sweet wrapper he'll be back inside. Should he be found guilty etc etc.
>
> He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
>
> He's pushed beyond the envelope of my fluffiness.
I wouldn't want him to be able to damange anymore peoples' lives, but there's a bit of me still thinks something must have gone awry somewhere, the wrong mix of upbringing and circumstances, and genes as well. I'm not sure how much we should believe in evil.
After hearing a forensic psychologist talking about discovering he shared the same brain type as psychopaths, and that he had several serial killers in his ancestors, it seems to have changed how I think about people. People might be serious threats, but if i'm thinking scientifically i'm not sure i'd call them evil or odious etc. He described how he went form thinking 'nature' was behiend how people turned out, to thinking that 'nurture' plays at least as big a part in how people turn out, and that though he can be rather cold emotionally and a difficult person to be emotionally close to, he put how he turned out down to his very positive and loving upbringing.
In everyday life i'll decide somebody is odious or nasty if they seem like it, but on an intellectual level i'm not sure if it's true.
As we find out more I think it might raise ehtical questions aboug how we treat prisoners, if we subject them to new medical treatment to change thier behaviour or personalities.
I'm still very carefull to avoid anybody who seems like a nutter mind you, with Clive Anderson once mentioning how if two people attack somebody it often turns into a murder case in mind, I think i'll always be glad to have outrun two scary blokes during my teens on one occasion.
They had the kind of eyes which you don't get any warmth back from, it's been stored away for if I come across anybody like that again in the future.
In reply to Enty:
I don't think this guy is likely to see the light of day again, I certainly think he should be punished for his crimes (and I'm not convinced how much prison achieves that), and I doubt he is reformable, so I would not be uncomfortable for both punitive and public safety reasons, for him to spend most if not all of his life in prison.
> To be honest Rob - if he's guilty of everything which we've seen in the media he's not going to see freedom again. Maybe we'll have a home secretary debating his parole at the age of 80 or something ?
>
> Then again if the fluffies do get their way......
>
> Then again if the fluffies do get their way......
I don't think this guy is likely to see the light of day again, I certainly think he should be punished for his crimes (and I'm not convinced how much prison achieves that), and I doubt he is reformable, so I would not be uncomfortable for both punitive and public safety reasons, for him to spend most if not all of his life in prison.
In reply to Jimbo W:
+1 Jimbo.
E
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think this guy is likely to see the light of day again, I certainly think he should be punished for his crimes (and I'm not convinced how much prison achieves that), and I doubt he is reformable, so I would not be uncomfortable for both punitive and public safety reasons, for him to spend most if not all of his life in prison.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think this guy is likely to see the light of day again, I certainly think he should be punished for his crimes (and I'm not convinced how much prison achieves that), and I doubt he is reformable, so I would not be uncomfortable for both punitive and public safety reasons, for him to spend most if not all of his life in prison.
+1 Jimbo.
E
In reply to Enty:
Glad somebody is at least giving a bit of a nod to the idea that a trial is actually required.
I assume that by fluffies, you mean liberal minded types, I can't see too many liberal types seeking an early release if he is found guilty. He will no doubt be a bit of a hero to some very illiberal unfluffy types.
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
>
> To be honest Rob - if he's guilty of everything which we've seen in the media he's not going to see freedom again. Maybe we'll have a home secretary debating his parole at the age of 80 or something ?
> [...]
>
> To be honest Rob - if he's guilty of everything which we've seen in the media he's not going to see freedom again. Maybe we'll have a home secretary debating his parole at the age of 80 or something ?
Glad somebody is at least giving a bit of a nod to the idea that a trial is actually required.
> Then again if the fluffies do get their way......
I assume that by fluffies, you mean liberal minded types, I can't see too many liberal types seeking an early release if he is found guilty. He will no doubt be a bit of a hero to some very illiberal unfluffy types.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Prison will do for me if he's convicted.
jk
> I wonder what should be done with someone as odious as that. Strikes me that prison will just be an opportunity to strengthen his networks.
Prison will do for me if he's convicted.
jk
In reply to The New NickB:
I was thinking along the lines of Lord Longford.
E
> (In reply to Enty)
> [...]
>
> Glad somebody is at least giving a bit of a nod to the idea that a trial is actually required.
>
Thanks!> [...]
>
> Glad somebody is at least giving a bit of a nod to the idea that a trial is actually required.
>
> [...]
>
> I assume that by fluffies, you mean liberal minded types, I can't see too many liberal types seeking an early release if he is found guilty.
>
> I assume that by fluffies, you mean liberal minded types, I can't see too many liberal types seeking an early release if he is found guilty.
I was thinking along the lines of Lord Longford.
E
In reply to Enty:
Come off it now. We have had people on here over the past few days vacillating about the legal rights of Bin Laden and even Hitler, when it should understood that Myra Hindley was actually, in her latter years, a political prisoner. She was not kept inside because of the requirements of our legal system, but because no Home Secretary wanted to damage his party's electoral chances by putting his name on her release papers.
Come off it now. We have had people on here over the past few days vacillating about the legal rights of Bin Laden and even Hitler, when it should understood that Myra Hindley was actually, in her latter years, a political prisoner. She was not kept inside because of the requirements of our legal system, but because no Home Secretary wanted to damage his party's electoral chances by putting his name on her release papers.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Do you think Hindley should have been released?
Torturing little kids to death and and tape recording it is IMO at least one crime worthy of being locked up forever.
E
Do you think Hindley should have been released?
Torturing little kids to death and and tape recording it is IMO at least one crime worthy of being locked up forever.
E
In reply to Enty: What's the point of keeping her locked up forever as opposed to killing her? Is it in case it transpires she's innocent?
In reply to Enty:
Not really, no more than Hitler or Bin Laden should have been given a trial. My point was that the "rule of law" which people keep referring to on other threads was clearly given second place to political expediency in Hindley's case.
Not really, no more than Hitler or Bin Laden should have been given a trial. My point was that the "rule of law" which people keep referring to on other threads was clearly given second place to political expediency in Hindley's case.
In reply to Tom Valentine: Really? Which law isn't being adhered to in Hindley's case?
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Are you sure? I though it was in a court where the decision by Jack Straw to keep her locked up was made.
E
Are you sure? I though it was in a court where the decision by Jack Straw to keep her locked up was made.
E
In reply to Enty:
Sorry for expressing myself so badly. I meant that the normal legal processes for parole were overruled, not just by Jack Straw but by at least two of his predecessors on the other team.
Sorry for expressing myself so badly. I meant that the normal legal processes for parole were overruled, not just by Jack Straw but by at least two of his predecessors on the other team.
In reply to Sir Chasm: Er - she's dead, you know.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Get away!! who you trying to kid?
E
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) Er - she's dead, you know.
Get away!! who you trying to kid?
E
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I know, you're a clever chap I'm sure you can apply the past tense. So, what was the point of keeping her locked up for 40 years?
In reply to Sir Chasm:One answer might be so that she could suffer?
I don't know if I have it in me to decide that should happen to somebody, but I think I can see where people are coming from who'd think that.
I don't know if I have it in me to decide that should happen to somebody, but I think I can see where people are coming from who'd think that.
In reply to Sir Chasm: 'Which law isn't being adhered to in Hindley's case?'
I just thought you might like to know - you seemed to be pretty present tense to me.
What was the point of keeping her banged up? Well the jury considered that she had been a willing accomplice in pretty much the most abominable crimes that could possibly be imagined. So she had to do a great deal of time, which inevitably rendered her institutionalised. And after that, seems to me that any effort to try and 'rehabilitate' would have been costly, unlikely to succeed and really difficult to justify to the electorate. And they may have been right.
I just thought you might like to know - you seemed to be pretty present tense to me.
What was the point of keeping her banged up? Well the jury considered that she had been a willing accomplice in pretty much the most abominable crimes that could possibly be imagined. So she had to do a great deal of time, which inevitably rendered her institutionalised. And after that, seems to me that any effort to try and 'rehabilitate' would have been costly, unlikely to succeed and really difficult to justify to the electorate. And they may have been right.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: So, if there was no doubt about what she was guilty of, and she was going to spend the rest of her life in prison anyway, why not kill her to start with?
In reply to Sir Chasm:Incase she tells any parents still alive where thier children are burried?
In reply to Sir Chasm: Reasonable question. Because for lots of reasons we now believe there are limits to the power a state can legitimately exercise, and killing people in cold blood is one of them.
Fine by me.
Fine by me.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: No, we (the state) decide to kill people all the time. Which is, presumably, fine by you.
In reply to Timmd:
Timm.....you talk a lot of sense on here but, on this occasion I can't agree.
I'm not a forensic psychologist but I am a clinical one....there is so much money and effort spent on forensics it makes me really cross. We have so few resources in the NHS to help some of the most horrendously abused kids.
There is no 'medical' treatment or 'brain types'....he is a murderer....lock him up and throw away the key.
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> After hearing a forensic psychologist talking about discovering he shared the same brain type as psychopaths, and that he had several serial killers in his ancestors, it seems to have changed how I think about people.
>
, if we subject them to new medical treatment to change thier behaviour or personalities.> After hearing a forensic psychologist talking about discovering he shared the same brain type as psychopaths, and that he had several serial killers in his ancestors, it seems to have changed how I think about people.
>
>
Timm.....you talk a lot of sense on here but, on this occasion I can't agree.
I'm not a forensic psychologist but I am a clinical one....there is so much money and effort spent on forensics it makes me really cross. We have so few resources in the NHS to help some of the most horrendously abused kids.
There is no 'medical' treatment or 'brain types'....he is a murderer....lock him up and throw away the key.
In reply to abr1966:
I know there's no medical treatment, but i'm thinking in the future there may be, which could raise ethical issues.
It might not have been brain type he talked about, but sharing the same brain pattern as he put it, but anymore i've no idea. This guy was an American.
Thanks by the way. ()
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> [...]
> , if we subject them to new medical treatment to change thier behaviour or personalities.
> [...]
>
> Timm.....you talk a lot of sense on here but, on this occasion I can't agree.
>
> I'm not a forensic psychologist but I am a clinical one....there is so much money and effort spent on forensics it makes me really cross. We have so few resources in the NHS to help some of the most horrendously abused kids.
>
> There is no 'medical' treatment or 'brain types'....he is a murderer....lock him up and throw away the key.
> [...]
>
> [...]
> , if we subject them to new medical treatment to change thier behaviour or personalities.
> [...]
>
> Timm.....you talk a lot of sense on here but, on this occasion I can't agree.
>
> I'm not a forensic psychologist but I am a clinical one....there is so much money and effort spent on forensics it makes me really cross. We have so few resources in the NHS to help some of the most horrendously abused kids.
>
> There is no 'medical' treatment or 'brain types'....he is a murderer....lock him up and throw away the key.
I know there's no medical treatment, but i'm thinking in the future there may be, which could raise ethical issues.
It might not have been brain type he talked about, but sharing the same brain pattern as he put it, but anymore i've no idea. This guy was an American.
Thanks by the way. ()
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If we as a society believe that some people are beyond rehabilitation then we should tell them that at the time of sentencing.
And you are right about the electorate; judges do not have to justify their decisions to the electorate, whereas politicians do, in the pursuance of maintaining power. That is precisely why they are unfit to pronounce on such matters.
>
>
And after that, seems to me that any effort to try and 'rehabilitate' ...would have been really difficult to justify to the electorate. >
If we as a society believe that some people are beyond rehabilitation then we should tell them that at the time of sentencing.
And you are right about the electorate; judges do not have to justify their decisions to the electorate, whereas politicians do, in the pursuance of maintaining power. That is precisely why they are unfit to pronounce on such matters.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...