MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Never thought that would ever happen , whats the forums thoughts ?
served his sentence, got released. Not much of a story is it.
You can't make up special rules just because you don't like how the rules were applied in a particular case. So I don't have a problem with it.
Its justice not revenge
Judging by the reports from the farm where he was being reintroduced back into the community, he is still very much an unreformed character.
He shouldn't have served a sentence, he should have been executed.
Quite a contrast to the treatment of Ched Evans I thought.
Same as Evans serve the sentence as dictated by the system. Got a problem with the system change it.
Only Evans isn't being treated as though he has served his time and can now go back to his chosen career .
He shouldn't have served a sentence, he should have been executed.
We don't have capital punishment in this country.
No but he should be.
[quote=Ramsey Neil ]Only Evans isn't being treated as though he has served his time and can now go back to his chosen career .
I don't think the courts can hand down a mandatory change of career as part of the sentence.
No but he should be.
So no capital punishment except for the people we really don't like?
The sooner we do away with all this namby pamby, liberal nonsense about independent judicuial procedures, and the rule of law, and have sentencing set directly by Paul Dacre, maybe in a phone-in poll in the Mail, the better!!!
[img] 
[/img]
I don't think the courts can hand down a mandatory change of career as part of the sentence.
Sometimes they can, such as stipulating that offenders can't work with / be anywhere near children for example, which, if they'd previously been a school teacher, amounts to it.
IRA blokes killed more and were released far sooner. in the name of peace....which makes it ok I suppose.
Author Kate Kray, who interviewed Roberts for her book Natural Born Killers (1999, ISBN 1857823826), said that he has no remorse for his victims and recreates the murders in art and pastry decorations, making apple pies and decorating them with pastry cut-outs of policemen being shot. Kray said that he also produces "precisely drawn and coloured" paintings depicting someone shooting a policeman
He should never of been let out.
Horrible piece of work and still is by all accounts.
Here's the view of someone who is effected by the decision:
[i].."It is an utter disgrace.”
+
Police chiefs, politicians and the loved one of those murdered by Roberts have lined up to condemn the Parole Board’s decision as “sickening” and “abhorrent”
[/i]
The Judge saying he should never be released carried no weight obviously .
Mentally ill. Needs treatment not incarceration.
Another part of this is surely about how well he will be able to adjust to life outside after having all his needs taken care of inside.
And, some Police's behaviour in recent times has no doubt diluted the respect and resultant ongoing outrage at the murder of one of their own too.
Mentally ill.
Really?
When was he diagnosed?
Have to agree with geoffj there
[i]said that he has no remorse for his victims and recreates the murders in art and pastry decorations, making apple pies and decorating them with pastry cut-outs of policemen being shot.[/i]
Even by the standards of this place, does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
What you unto there Harry?
What? This? Its a cheese and onion pasty featuring scenes of domestic violence
Oh... ok...... could I just take that knife out of your hand
He killed two policeman and was found guilty in relation to the murder of a third.
It sends, in my opinion, a poor message to society. If you murder a policeman it should mean LIFE imprisonment.
But then one assumes karma will prevail and he might fall down a set of stairs somewhere now he's out.....
Pyschopaths can only ever be controlled not rehabilitated.
If you murder a policeman it should mean LIFE imprisonment.
I think the sentence should be the same regardless of whether the victim was a policeman or not.
I dunno, police are working to protect us, if(!) greater sentences makes them safer then would help them with their job.
Give big punishments to the police that abuse their position though.
I dunno, police are working to protect us, if(!) greater sentences makes them safer then would help them with their job.
You could make that argument about other public servants. But in any case I think it's a false premise: is there any evidence that (say) a 50 year sentence rather than a 30 year sentence makes the police safer?
Personally, I think that we should aspire to be a country in which we're all equal before the law, and that should mean similar sentences for similar crimes.
Can't see a problem with it if the parole board thought it the correct thing.
I'm not a fan of the mob deciding the length of prison terms.
I also don't understand why the police should get more protection than anyone else. we are all ment to be equal under law. The occupation of a victim shouldn't come into it.
Ramsey Neil - MemberOnly Evans isn't being treated as though he has served his time and can now go back to his chosen career .
Unrepentant rapist Ched Evans was training with Sheffield Wednesday yesterday. Wonder why they chose yesterday to break the news?
Sheffield [s]Wednesday[/s] United.
FTFY.
I don't like him being released.
However, those with the knowledge and experience to make those decisions have done their job, so whether I like it really doesn't matter. So long as justice is fair and equitable to all, best not let forumites get involved
Mixing them up wouldn't cause any problems, surely?
I'm a tad surprised (should I be....) at the thoughts that the Police shouldn't receive greater protection legally.
Take the scenario of someone breaking into your house intent to cause you injury. You call the Police, and instead of them running to the rescue, risking their own safety, they say "Well, you're just one person Sir, if someone has to die it may as well be you".
I doubt you'd be impressed.
If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.
If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.
1. You can't have a full life sentence - breaches human rights thingy dunnit.
2. Coppers get killed in countries with the death penalty and I don't think people stabbing coppers are thinking, 'it's alright I'll be out by the time I'm 60'.
If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.
Thats the problem though. It doesn't. The American example of sentencing 'Cop Killers' to a million years in prison has made no difference whatsoever. If you're the kind of headcase who's going to do it, you'll do it whatever. I doubt that you'll be planning a moment of quiet contemplation shortly beforehand to weigh up the relative merits of potential sentences.
I know the people calling for bringing back hanging etc arn't too bothered about triviality like evidence, while they're foaming at the mouth with righteous indignation
DrRS**** - Member
I'm a tad surprised (should I be....) at the thoughts that the Police shouldn't receive greater protection legally.Take the scenario of someone breaking into your house intent to cause you injury. You call the Police, and instead of them running to the rescue, risking their own safety, they say "Well, you're just one person Sir, if someone has to die it may as well be you".
I doubt you'd be impressed.
If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.
So they shouldn't think twice about pulling a gun, knife or wherever on a normal person? The law is fine, tbh, I'm against mandatory life sentances for anything, the system allows for life sentances to be given, but this is done on a case by case basis, as it should be. Arbitrary justice, isn't where I think we should be.
btw it strikes me that in your scenario, it's unlikely the police would be able to respond in time to save your life, even if they had personal forcefields!
1. You can't have a full life sentence - breaches human rights thingy dunnit.
Yes you can, the bit that breached human rights legislation was having a politician deciding it.
Thats the problem though. It doesn't. The American example of sentencing 'Cop Killers' to a million years in prison has made no difference whatsoever. If you're the kind of headcase who's going to do it, you'll do it whatever. I doubt that you'll be planning a moment of quiet contemplation shortly beforehand to weigh up the relative merits of potential sentences.
Funnily enough, Lord Condon agrees with you. He goes further and says if you introduce whole-life tarrifs, you could actually reduce protection for police because the killers would have nothing left to lose.
[i]Judging by the reports from the farm where he was being reintroduced back into the community, he is still very much an unreformed character.
He shouldn't have served a sentence, he should have been executed.[/i]
Correct.
Too many miscarriages of justice for the death penalty to ever be an option.
Too many miscarriages of justice for the death penalty to ever be an option
How many ?
How many is too many ?
Examples please.
One is too many
Judging by the reports from the farm where he was being reintroduced back into the community, he is still very much an unreformed character.
Link? evidence?
How many is too many ?
One.
How many is too many ?
1 is too many.
How many ?How many is too many ?
Examples please.
One innocent person being executed to satisfy your blood lust is one too many. I don't need to provide any more evidence than that really.
How many ?How many is too many ?
Examples please.
As noted: 1 is too many
Theres also the small matter of actually being (for the most part) a civilised society. Civilised societies don't put people to death. What you're hankering after is this....
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans ]An Example[/url] Not only did He have his daughter and wife slaughered by Christie He was hung for it too. Four additional women were murder by Christie as a result.
What does amaze me is how many people are for the death sentence when these threads pop up.
+1 on the "1 is too many"! 😆
More examples? If we'd have had the death penalty in the 70's and 80's then an awful lot of people who had the misfortune of being Irish and In the wrong place at the wrong time, would have had their convictions quashed posthumously.
I know its a sweeping generalisation, but I usually just assume that anyone calling for the return of the death penalty is... well.... a bit of an idiot, really.
Feel free to prove me wrong though
To effect change you should be the change you want to see. So if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.
To effect change you should be the change you want to see. So if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.
That sounds really deep until you think about it, then realise it's bollocks.
That sounds really deep until you think about it, then realise it's bollocks.
Really mogrim oh wise one, how so? Perhaps you shouldn't have thought about it.
I can't see how you can believe that taking someones life is wrong, yet think it is OK to take someones life. It is a simple contradiction.
OK then.
if like most of us you think killing is wrong then using killing as a method to prevent killing is illogical, counter productive and morally meaningless.
Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing - assuming you're willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die. Counter productive? Maybe, maybe not. I know the evidence shows that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime, but does it increase it? And morally meaningless??? What could have more moral meaning than killing someone?
So, basically: bollocks.
He should not be let out.
Offences against the police should carry a greater sentence.
People wrongly executed vs convicted murderers going on to murder again once released,
You have more chance of being murdered by a once convicted murderer now than of being wrongly convicted and subsequently hung when we had the death sentence.
My tuppence worth.
[i]I know its a sweeping generalisation, but I usually just assume that anyone calling for the return of the death penalty is... well.... a bit of an idiot, really.[/i]
I don't think there has been a call for the return, only the simple statement that one Harry Roberts esq should have been topped all those years ago, which would have saved us all a packet and also the current situation.
Offences against the police should carry a greater sentence.
Why? In any case, he's served 48 years - that is a longer sentence.
You have more chance of being murdered by a once convicted murderer now than of being wrongly convicted and subsequently hung.
Correct. Because we don't hang people.
Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing - assuming you're willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die.
Yep - the 'logic' of killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people is completely incontrovertible. You just can't argue with it.
I retract fully my previous statement about death penalty supporters all being idiots. I'd just never looked at it like that before. Its all clear to me now. Thanks for that. Who feels like he idiot now eh? 😳
Out of interest, who believes that one eyed lunatic who threw grenades at the police should ever be released.
Morally meaningless because you state a moral position that killing people is wrong, yet discard that postion in order to kill those who are wrong, so you can't defend the position that killing is wrong. It's really very simple.
Correct. Because we don't hang people.
When we did.
Out of interest, who believes that one eyed lunatic who threw grenades at the police should ever be released.
A Parole board may well say so. And I would agree with them.
When we did.
Well, maybe it's just me, but the fact that the state only rarely executed innocent people wasn't an overwhelmingly good reason for keeping capital punishment.
Killing some people is wrong, others not so.
Some people are better of dead as there are some complete wrong 'uns in this world I would not shed a tear for.
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.
I am going to take your shit and have your wife in to the bargain, what are you going to do about it.
Yep - the 'logic' of killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people is completely incontrovertible. You just can't argue with it.I retract fully my previous statement about death penalty supporters all being idiots. I'd just never looked at it like that before. Its all clear to me now. Thanks for that. Who feels like he idiot now eh?
You're misstating the argument with "[i]killing innocent people to prevent the killing of innocent people[/i]" - what a supporter of the death penalty is willing to accept is that if you get it right 99% of the time (or whatever) that's enough. The other 1% is just collateral damage, unfortunate but worth the sacrifice.
Just for the record: I'm against the death penalty. But I can still see the logic behind it.
Binners, good edit. funny.
Mogrim has the swing shovel out and has selcted reverse. Well done fella we accept your capitulation.
Killing some people is wrong, others not so.
Could you give me a list?
Some people are better of dead as there are some complete wrong 'uns in this world I would not share a tear for.
Me neither. That doesn't mean we should execute them
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.
Please explain how a longer sentence results in greater protection.
I am going to take your shit and have your wife in to the bargain, what are you going to do about it.
Beat the crap out of you.
You're welcome to both. Not quite sure why you'd want my shit though?
Is he on his own living in a hostel or has he been welcomed back by the tasty geezers and sipping champagne in Marbella?
I would like his freedom to be as unpleasant as possible.
Must be a total head **** to see the world as it is today.
Had to Google to see who he was 😳
Morally meaningless because you state a moral position that killing people is wrong, yet discard that postion in order to kill those who are wrong, so you can't defend the position that killing is wrong. It's really very simple.
killing [i]innocent[/i] people is wrong, definitely.
Mogrim has the swing shovel out and has selcted reverse. Well done fella we accept your capitulation.
Hardly, what you posted still sounds stupid.
Why is not giving the police draconian levels of protection, the same as not having a police service?chip - Member
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.
Mogrim said earlier
Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing - assuming you're willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die
Mogrim said later
killing innocent people is wrong, definitely.
Congratulations you have managed to convince yourself that the death penalty is wrong. Welcome back to the human race.
Why greater protection for the police, without the police we would not have civilisation just a battle of the fittest.
How about when Police kill, does a double whammy law apply, and you can kill them twice?
I don't get how this geezer is unfit to live, yet the Krays and the Train Robbers are made out to be folk heores. Is it just the double standard, or better marketing?
Using killing is a perfectly logical way to prevent killing - assuming you're willing to accept that sometimes innocent people will die.
It's not logical at all.
Congratulations you have managed to convince yourself that the death penalty is wrong. Welcome back to the human race.
Gee, thanks 🙄 But then like I said, I don't support the death penalty. I'm not willing to accept the death of innocent people. But that's a moral position, and some people won't necessarily share it.
It's not logical at all.
Why not?
Gee, thanks But then like I said, I don't support the death penalty. I'm not willing to accept the death of innocent people. But that's a moral position, and some people won't necessarily share it.
Level 2 diggers license is in the post.
Level 2 diggers license is in the post.
You haven't actually read what I posted, have you? When have I contradicted myself or changed my mind???
Is it not counterproductive to dilute the protection given to police by the law as they go about their business on our behalf. Surely it will result in them having to resort to force increasingly, as it becomes socially and legally acceptable to have a go?