Paedophile bought children McDonalds and gave them alcohol

Jailed: The sexual predator who groomed Southampton children over the Internet

Jailed: The sexual predator who groomed Southampton children over the Internet

First published in News

A SELF-CONFESSED sexual predator set up fake identities on a social networking website to groom children for sex.

Robert Anderson would fantasize about having sex with under age girls and targeted them by pretending to be a teenage boy on a website which is easily accessible to youngsters.

As part of a “sophisticated campaign” of grooming, the 33-year-old from Chandler’s Ford would shower underage girls as young as 13 with compliments before asking them to strip in front of a web camera.

He even picked some of them up in his car for sexual liaisons in the New Forest, buying them McDonald’s takeaways and plying them with alcohol to win their favour.

When caught by police after a family member of one of the victims found out what had been going on, Anderson confessed to being a sexual predator, Southampton Crown Court heard.

Prosecutor Gavin Sumpter said: “He said he began acting out his desires by using social networking websites to contact under age girls and specifically said it was to meet them and have sex with them. He described his sexual fantasies as ‘mental and out of control’.”

The court heard how Anderson is known to have groomed eight girls, aged between 13 and 15.

One of his victims was targeted on the website tagged.com, a social networking site linked to Facebook.

Having contacted the teenager using his false profile, Anderson then began messaging her using the Whatsapp smart phone application, promising her a McDonald’s in exchange for a hug. When they met at the Millbrook branch of the takeaway, he drove her to a remote spot in the New Forest and kissed her.

On another occasion he drove the girl and her friend into the New Forest where she was convinced to perform a sex act on him.

Another girl, aged just 13, was persuaded to talk to him over Skype and ordered to take her clothes off on a webcam. Anderson also talked to her about her “sexy school uniform” and having a drive together.

Anderson, of Baddesley Road, admitted attempting and engaging children in sexual activity and offences of grooming.

Sentencing him to five years behind bars, Judge Peter Ralls said: “Clearly this was a long and serious campaign of sexual offences.”

Anderson was also given an extended supervision period of four years because he was considered a danger and handed a sexual prevention order.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:16am Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Interesting that comments are allowed on this thread but not on another case where two burglars also recieved sentences that are a threat to all decent people in the land. If the CPS do not appeal the lenience of these sentences then it's time to get rid of the CPS.
Interesting that comments are allowed on this thread but not on another case where two burglars also recieved sentences that are a threat to all decent people in the land. If the CPS do not appeal the lenience of these sentences then it's time to get rid of the CPS. Inform Al
  • Score: 11

10:50am Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.
Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims. charrlee
  • Score: 4

10:57am Thu 20 Feb 14

Funkydory82 says...

hang him
hang him Funkydory82
  • Score: 6

11:09am Thu 20 Feb 14

izzybiza says...

Cut his manhood off or give the childrens parents one hour in a locked room with.
Cut his manhood off or give the childrens parents one hour in a locked room with. izzybiza
  • Score: 9

12:26pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Block41row0sfc says...

5 years for ruining these young girls life's. He should castrated and buried alive the sick ba*tard.
5 years for ruining these young girls life's. He should castrated and buried alive the sick ba*tard. Block41row0sfc
  • Score: 10

12:26pm Thu 20 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.
It not only saves court time and money, it often means the victims are spared the torment of having to give testimony, which can often be very unpleasant.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.[/p][/quote]It not only saves court time and money, it often means the victims are spared the torment of having to give testimony, which can often be very unpleasant. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 8

12:28pm Thu 20 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Block41row0sfc wrote:
5 years for ruining these young girls life's. He should castrated and buried alive the sick ba*tard.
Why buried alive? Sounds like you get off on this sort of thinking.
[quote][p][bold]Block41row0sfc[/bold] wrote: 5 years for ruining these young girls life's. He should castrated and buried alive the sick ba*tard.[/p][/quote]Why buried alive? Sounds like you get off on this sort of thinking. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -3

12:29pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger. charrlee
  • Score: 1

12:50pm Thu 20 Feb 14

hulla baloo says...

charrlee wrote:
Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.
Agreed, Seems its more about the money than justice for the victims. He be out again soon and possibly reoffend, If so, he should swing.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.[/p][/quote]Agreed, Seems its more about the money than justice for the victims. He be out again soon and possibly reoffend, If so, he should swing. hulla baloo
  • Score: 2

1:04pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction. Inform Al
  • Score: 3

1:42pm Thu 20 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

hulla baloo wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.
Agreed, Seems its more about the money than justice for the victims. He be out again soon and possibly reoffend, If so, he should swing.
The problem with the death penalty for lesser crimes than murder is, it gives less deterrent for those crimes to be followed up with a murder. If this guy was going to hang for simply abusing these girls, he'd be as well to just murder them as well, because why leave a living witness?
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Are people who are actually guilty of the crime they are accuse of offered lighter sentences if they own up straight away and save the court time and money? If its true, that sort of deal may get results but it doesn't seem like justice for the victims.[/p][/quote]Agreed, Seems its more about the money than justice for the victims. He be out again soon and possibly reoffend, If so, he should swing.[/p][/quote]The problem with the death penalty for lesser crimes than murder is, it gives less deterrent for those crimes to be followed up with a murder. If this guy was going to hang for simply abusing these girls, he'd be as well to just murder them as well, because why leave a living witness? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

1:43pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Hastagger says...

What we need are tough sentences in this country. Every report of a crime causes a reaction similar to the one above, this is because offenders are getting off lightly. We need to have whole life terms (no parole) for murder. The same for sex offenders and 25 years mandatory when you are convicted of your third minor offence. Most reasonable people will not even commit one offence, but there are people who have hundreds of convictions and are let of relatively scott free. Now, some people may complain about the cost of locking people up, but what about the cost of crime and cost of investigation. Time to get the scum off the streets and in to prison where it belongs!
What we need are tough sentences in this country. Every report of a crime causes a reaction similar to the one above, this is because offenders are getting off lightly. We need to have whole life terms (no parole) for murder. The same for sex offenders and 25 years mandatory when you are convicted of your third minor offence. Most reasonable people will not even commit one offence, but there are people who have hundreds of convictions and are let of relatively scott free. Now, some people may complain about the cost of locking people up, but what about the cost of crime and cost of investigation. Time to get the scum off the streets and in to prison where it belongs! Hastagger
  • Score: -1

2:10pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers. charrlee
  • Score: -2

3:13pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back.. Inform Al
  • Score: 2

3:43pm Thu 20 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

3:57pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.[/p][/quote]Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America. Inform Al
  • Score: -3

6:02pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle.
I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life?
However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection.
There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins.
So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt.
Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt.
Goodness, this is complicated!
I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle. I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life? However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection. There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins. So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt. Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt. Goodness, this is complicated! I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable! charrlee
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Thu 20 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.
Please show the link between cannabis and murder.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.[/p][/quote]Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.[/p][/quote]Please show the link between cannabis and murder. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -3

7:34pm Thu 20 Feb 14

SmileyXo says...

We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.
We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets. SmileyXo
  • Score: 1

8:17pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

SmileyXo wrote:
We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.
Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder?
Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail.
Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter.
Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person?
My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.
[quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.[/p][/quote]Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder? Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail. Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter. Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person? My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling. charrlee
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Thu 20 Feb 14

SmileyXo says...

charrlee wrote:
SmileyXo wrote:
We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.
Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder?
Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail.
Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter.
Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person?
My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.
How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.[/p][/quote]Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder? Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail. Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter. Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person? My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.[/p][/quote]How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls. SmileyXo
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charrlee says...

SmileyXo wrote:
charrlee wrote:
SmileyXo wrote:
We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.
Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder?
Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail.
Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter.
Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person?
My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.
How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls.
Smiley, please read what people have written again, and you will see that we are all in agreement with you.
The only opinion I have expressed is that I believe that the violation of young people is EQUAL in seriousness to the violation of the elderly, not MORE so. Taking paedophilia out of context and making it seem worse than any other crime is a bit unrealistic. It is AS bad as many other serious crimes, and should carry severe punishment by law. Which it does. The gentleman above may be attacked in prison. When he comes out he will have to constantly notify the police of his whereabouts. He will not ever be able to get a job, and he will never be able to live for long in any one area. With the right help his victims will be able to rebuild their lives, but he will always be "on the run" for the rest of his life. Whether or not this will drive him to commit more abuse on the basis that he has no hope of a future is what we, as a community need to think about.
[quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.[/p][/quote]Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder? Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail. Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter. Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person? My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.[/p][/quote]How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls.[/p][/quote]Smiley, please read what people have written again, and you will see that we are all in agreement with you. The only opinion I have expressed is that I believe that the violation of young people is EQUAL in seriousness to the violation of the elderly, not MORE so. Taking paedophilia out of context and making it seem worse than any other crime is a bit unrealistic. It is AS bad as many other serious crimes, and should carry severe punishment by law. Which it does. The gentleman above may be attacked in prison. When he comes out he will have to constantly notify the police of his whereabouts. He will not ever be able to get a job, and he will never be able to live for long in any one area. With the right help his victims will be able to rebuild their lives, but he will always be "on the run" for the rest of his life. Whether or not this will drive him to commit more abuse on the basis that he has no hope of a future is what we, as a community need to think about. charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
SmileyXo wrote:
charrlee wrote:
SmileyXo wrote:
We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.
Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder?
Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail.
Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter.
Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person?
My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.
How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls.
Smiley, please read what people have written again, and you will see that we are all in agreement with you.
The only opinion I have expressed is that I believe that the violation of young people is EQUAL in seriousness to the violation of the elderly, not MORE so. Taking paedophilia out of context and making it seem worse than any other crime is a bit unrealistic. It is AS bad as many other serious crimes, and should carry severe punishment by law. Which it does. The gentleman above may be attacked in prison. When he comes out he will have to constantly notify the police of his whereabouts. He will not ever be able to get a job, and he will never be able to live for long in any one area. With the right help his victims will be able to rebuild their lives, but he will always be "on the run" for the rest of his life. Whether or not this will drive him to commit more abuse on the basis that he has no hope of a future is what we, as a community need to think about.
You've just made the case to exterminate paedophiles. That way whatever they feel about where they are going will not adversely affect our children
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: We're going off subject. This man has ruined the lives of young girls here, particularly the young girl convinced into performing a sex act on this man. It takes guts to stand up and give evidence against a man like this I guess. I can only hope the victims and their families are coping well. Again, I also see fault in these girls meeting strangers from the internet, which may I point out is extremely dangerous. However that does not justify this manipulative mans actions. We aren't interested on comments that don't relate to the post. Did this man get what he deserved in your opinion? Certainly not in mine. Fantasizing about girls as young as this is sick and twisted and this vile human being deserves every ounce of pain he gets.[/p][/quote]Is paedophilia worse than crimes like torturing old ladies until they hand over their savings? Raping someone of any age? Killing or maiming someone through reckless or drunk driving? Setting fire to someone's house and accidentally killing their children? All forms of murder? Crimes such as these are reported quite frequently, but only with child abuse do certain individuals seem to go apoplectic with rage and start recommending perverted and sexually deviant punishments in graphic detail. Think of two stories : one relates to an 84-year-old lady who has been beaten to death with a hammer, and the other to a little girl of seven who has been raped and strangled. Now I have seen, time and time again, stories like the former elicit anger and sympathy from the public, but nothing like the violent outrage voiced in reaction to stories like the latter. Why is this? Both victims are defenceless. Both are vulnerable. Both would have suffered terrible pain. So why is the violation and/or murder of a child considered so much worse than the violation and/or murder of an elderly person? My own view is that all violations and/or murders of innocent, defenceless people, whatever their age, are equally appalling.[/p][/quote]How do you know this innocent girl wasn't raped? How do you know she wasn't defensiveless? It seems as if a lot of people are commenting on something they know little about. Now all of you sit and think what are goin through those girls heads. How they're feeling. Has justice been served? Think of their parents. They could be reading these comments with anger. It is NOT ok to manipulate underage girls into having sex with you when you are 33 years of age. It disgusts me. Do you think that's ok? I believe that those girls were defenseless. Idiotic and thoughtless but nobody deserves what happened to those young girls.[/p][/quote]Smiley, please read what people have written again, and you will see that we are all in agreement with you. The only opinion I have expressed is that I believe that the violation of young people is EQUAL in seriousness to the violation of the elderly, not MORE so. Taking paedophilia out of context and making it seem worse than any other crime is a bit unrealistic. It is AS bad as many other serious crimes, and should carry severe punishment by law. Which it does. The gentleman above may be attacked in prison. When he comes out he will have to constantly notify the police of his whereabouts. He will not ever be able to get a job, and he will never be able to live for long in any one area. With the right help his victims will be able to rebuild their lives, but he will always be "on the run" for the rest of his life. Whether or not this will drive him to commit more abuse on the basis that he has no hope of a future is what we, as a community need to think about.[/p][/quote]You've just made the case to exterminate paedophiles. That way whatever they feel about where they are going will not adversely affect our children Inform Al
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.
Please show the link between cannabis and murder.
Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.[/p][/quote]Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.[/p][/quote]Please show the link between cannabis and murder.[/p][/quote]Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis. Inform Al
  • Score: -2

12:04am Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle.
I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life?
However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection.
There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins.
So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt.
Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt.
Goodness, this is complicated!
I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable!
Since capital punishment went it has unfortunately become easier to be wrongly convicted of murder. The two cases that the anti hanging brigade focussed on is for that reason interesting. Hanratty's DNA was fairly recently found in the semen in his victim Valerie Storey, this despite some of his stupid friends giving him an alibi for the time it happened. Personally I think they should have been done for wasting police time. The other was Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his daughter, the murder of his partner was left on file as it couldn't be proved. Later Christie was found to have murdered a few women in 10 Rillington Place, W2 and the anti hanging brigade picked on that one. However he was never covicted of the murder of his wife, just his daughter. If all the facts had come out before his trial it is possible he would not have hung, but he did not admit to Christies part in the murders, so paid for it with his life. The indisputable fact is however that forensic evidence clearly showed him present when his daughter was murdered, so he was guilty of murder. It was very difficult to get a jury to find someone guilty of murder when they may be sending someone to their deaths, the evidence had to be overwhelming which is why we do now get some miscarriages of justice.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle. I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life? However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection. There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins. So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt. Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt. Goodness, this is complicated! I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable![/p][/quote]Since capital punishment went it has unfortunately become easier to be wrongly convicted of murder. The two cases that the anti hanging brigade focussed on is for that reason interesting. Hanratty's DNA was fairly recently found in the semen in his victim Valerie Storey, this despite some of his stupid friends giving him an alibi for the time it happened. Personally I think they should have been done for wasting police time. The other was Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his daughter, the murder of his partner was left on file as it couldn't be proved. Later Christie was found to have murdered a few women in 10 Rillington Place, W2 and the anti hanging brigade picked on that one. However he was never covicted of the murder of his wife, just his daughter. If all the facts had come out before his trial it is possible he would not have hung, but he did not admit to Christies part in the murders, so paid for it with his life. The indisputable fact is however that forensic evidence clearly showed him present when his daughter was murdered, so he was guilty of murder. It was very difficult to get a jury to find someone guilty of murder when they may be sending someone to their deaths, the evidence had to be overwhelming which is why we do now get some miscarriages of justice. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

12:11am Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle.
I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life?
However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection.
There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins.
So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt.
Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt.
Goodness, this is complicated!
I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable!
Since capital punishment went it has unfortunately become easier to be wrongly convicted of murder. The two cases that the anti hanging brigade focussed on is for that reason interesting. Hanratty's DNA was fairly recently found in the semen in his victim Valerie Storey, this despite some of his stupid friends giving him an alibi for the time it happened. Personally I think they should have been done for wasting police time. The other was Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his daughter, the murder of his partner was left on file as it couldn't be proved. Later Christie was found to have murdered a few women in 10 Rillington Place, W2 and the anti hanging brigade picked on that one. However he was never covicted of the murder of his wife, just his daughter. If all the facts had come out before his trial it is possible he would not have hung, but he did not admit to Christies part in the murders, so paid for it with his life. The indisputable fact is however that forensic evidence clearly showed him present when his daughter was murdered, so he was guilty of murder. It was very difficult to get a jury to find someone guilty of murder when they may be sending someone to their deaths, the evidence had to be overwhelming which is why we do now get some miscarriages of justice.
PS. I do know a bit about the Timothy Evans thing because one of my aunts actually went out with him before she met my uncle. The first time I heard the expressioon 'inveterate liar' was when she described him. Subsequently when I joined the Met i made a point of looking at the evidence in the black museum, the evidence showing his presence at the murder of his daughter was overwhelming, even for those days. Definitely guilty
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]You know, Al, the more you say on the subject, the more I am beginning to agree with you in principle. I certainly agree that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. How much money has been spent on housing murderers for life? However, it can be argued that we have learned more about the criminal mind through keeping them alive, leading to the introduction of criminal type profiling, and improved detection. There are also cases like, for instance, Sion Jenkins, who was convicted of the murder of Billy-Jo. His first appeal failed, but the second re-trial found his conviction to be "unsafe". You ask yourself has a guilty man got away with it through sheer persistence, or did an innocent man finally get justice? With the death penalty, there is always the risk that an innocent person may die. Is that a risk we must take? Ask Sion Jenkins. So, Al, yes I agree with the return of the death penalty in principle as a deterrant, and as a punishment where there is an overwhelming abundance of incontrovertible evidence (many eye witnesses) of guilt. Here's another dilemma. Supposing someone with Asperger's Syndrome commits murder-how would you assess the level and degree of their guilt. Goodness, this is complicated! I definitely agree that we have gone too soft on criminals, generally, Al. Remember, just a few years ago when, if you tried to apprehend a burglar in your home, you could be prosecuted for assault? Unbelieveable![/p][/quote]Since capital punishment went it has unfortunately become easier to be wrongly convicted of murder. The two cases that the anti hanging brigade focussed on is for that reason interesting. Hanratty's DNA was fairly recently found in the semen in his victim Valerie Storey, this despite some of his stupid friends giving him an alibi for the time it happened. Personally I think they should have been done for wasting police time. The other was Timothy Evans who was hung for the murder of his daughter, the murder of his partner was left on file as it couldn't be proved. Later Christie was found to have murdered a few women in 10 Rillington Place, W2 and the anti hanging brigade picked on that one. However he was never covicted of the murder of his wife, just his daughter. If all the facts had come out before his trial it is possible he would not have hung, but he did not admit to Christies part in the murders, so paid for it with his life. The indisputable fact is however that forensic evidence clearly showed him present when his daughter was murdered, so he was guilty of murder. It was very difficult to get a jury to find someone guilty of murder when they may be sending someone to their deaths, the evidence had to be overwhelming which is why we do now get some miscarriages of justice.[/p][/quote]PS. I do know a bit about the Timothy Evans thing because one of my aunts actually went out with him before she met my uncle. The first time I heard the expressioon 'inveterate liar' was when she described him. Subsequently when I joined the Met i made a point of looking at the evidence in the black museum, the evidence showing his presence at the murder of his daughter was overwhelming, even for those days. Definitely guilty Inform Al
  • Score: 0

12:13am Fri 21 Feb 14

Dave Of The South says...

Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example? Dave Of The South
  • Score: 1

8:43am Fri 21 Feb 14

Raxx says...

Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.
Please show the link between cannabis and murder.
Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis.
Yep. I see the link very clearly.

Where it's illegal, it's in the hands of criminals and mobsters who are liable to commit violent crime to protect their black-market trade.

Where it's legal, it's in the hands of health professionals and the government who can oversee regulation and tax it.

Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.[/p][/quote]Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.[/p][/quote]Please show the link between cannabis and murder.[/p][/quote]Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis.[/p][/quote]Yep. I see the link very clearly. Where it's illegal, it's in the hands of criminals and mobsters who are liable to commit violent crime to protect their black-market trade. Where it's legal, it's in the hands of health professionals and the government who can oversee regulation and tax it. Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it? Raxx
  • Score: 1

11:47am Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Raxx wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions?
This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions.
That said, I share your anger.
I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.
I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do?
Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims.
The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers.
Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they?
If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.
However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..
As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.
Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.
Please show the link between cannabis and murder.
Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis.
Yep. I see the link very clearly.

Where it's illegal, it's in the hands of criminals and mobsters who are liable to commit violent crime to protect their black-market trade.

Where it's legal, it's in the hands of health professionals and the government who can oversee regulation and tax it.

Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it?
And that is not what is meant by those who want to legalise the stuff. Their wish is that it will be sold in the same manner as alcohol and fags, not through prescription that is already available.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Don't some of you ever feel like making an informed comment rather than coming out with the same old, gross, predictable over-reactions? This is a serious matter and warrants more than a game of trying to outdo one another with outrageous punishment suggestions. That said, I share your anger.[/p][/quote]I know you are trying to appear reasonable, but this is not the sort of crime that can cause an overreaction, consider the children, consider the parents then consider just what any reasonable person would like to do to this verminous slag. That can only leave room for underreaction.[/p][/quote]I know what you mean Al, but the reason we have courts and all manner of "care providers" is that we no longer believe, in a civilised world, that criminals should be executed by a lynch mob. And what good does acting out those ridiculous fantasies on a newspaper website do? Remembering school days, the more everyone hated and bullied a person, the more they became entrenched in the actions and behaviour that got them hated and bullied in the first place. I'm talking about those that went around asking for trouble, not the innocent victims. The statistics say that on average, 1 person in 400 has the potential to be a child abuser. That statistic is based on the number of abuse crimes that the police know about, so the ratio is likely to be much lower ! So, in Southampton there are likely to be at the very least (250,000 divided by 400) over 600 potential abusers. Where are they, Al? My feeling is that they know who they are, but if they think that people want to hang them, or cut their private parts off, they are not likely to give themselves up and get help and treatment, are they? If we accept that paedophilia is as much a mental health disorder like any other equally serious psychiatric problem, and, like those other disorders, requires understanding and treatment rather than summary execution, then the police and medical professionals might find out who and where these people are, and prevent them from carrying out any attacks. That is going to protect and save far more children than the occasional, arbitrary bellowing of death threats by angry Echo readers.[/p][/quote]However, the death threats are very understandable. When I was a nipper I could walk accross Paddington to play with my brothers unescorted in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. In those days when paedophiles were punished, not understood, there was no or very little risk attached. Unfortunately I would not condone allowing my grandchildren to do the same. The more we try rehabilitation, the less safe our streets become. Punishment worked in most cases when it was applied in the 1950s, it really is time to return to the judicial system of those days. Although paedophiles were not executed then unless they killed a child, I would like to see the return of capital punishment for murder, it was a deterrent. Unfortunately the deterrent effect will take a time to kick in as has been discovered in those US states that have brought it back..[/p][/quote]As discussed before, the death penalty in those states has NOT shown to be a deterrent.[/p][/quote]Which I covered in my post. Of course another aspect is the legaisation of cannabis in some states, this will lead to even more murders in the Useless States of America.[/p][/quote]Please show the link between cannabis and murder.[/p][/quote]Waste of time, anyone with more than 1 useable brain cell is able to see the connection, unless of course your useable brain cell is affected by cannabis.[/p][/quote]Yep. I see the link very clearly. Where it's illegal, it's in the hands of criminals and mobsters who are liable to commit violent crime to protect their black-market trade. Where it's legal, it's in the hands of health professionals and the government who can oversee regulation and tax it. Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it?[/p][/quote]And that is not what is meant by those who want to legalise the stuff. Their wish is that it will be sold in the same manner as alcohol and fags, not through prescription that is already available. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime. charrlee
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.[/p][/quote]Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
They're "high profile" because they're unusual. Think about it. Since Labour's 2003 Criminal Justice Act, if you come home and find your husband in bed with the meter reader and you top him, that's murder (used to be manslaughter until the wimmins' movement got stuck in). There are lots and lots of those, Cain and Abel murders, "road rage" murders. They're common enough to stay on Page 5.Yes I DO know that murder is "with malice aforethought" but even the ones where for example a "carer" tops her charge for a piffling £10,000 bequest are hardly planned in the way this man was seeking out the youngsters
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.[/p][/quote]They're "high profile" because they're unusual. Think about it. Since Labour's 2003 Criminal Justice Act, if you come home and find your husband in bed with the meter reader and you top him, that's murder (used to be manslaughter until the wimmins' movement got stuck in). There are lots and lots of those, Cain and Abel murders, "road rage" murders. They're common enough to stay on Page 5.Yes I DO know that murder is "with malice aforethought" but even the ones where for example a "carer" tops her charge for a piffling £10,000 bequest are hardly planned in the way this man was seeking out the youngsters Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
They're "high profile" because they're unusual. Think about it. Since Labour's 2003 Criminal Justice Act, if you come home and find your husband in bed with the meter reader and you top him, that's murder (used to be manslaughter until the wimmins' movement got stuck in). There are lots and lots of those, Cain and Abel murders, "road rage" murders. They're common enough to stay on Page 5.Yes I DO know that murder is "with malice aforethought" but even the ones where for example a "carer" tops her charge for a piffling £10,000 bequest are hardly planned in the way this man was seeking out the youngsters
Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.[/p][/quote]They're "high profile" because they're unusual. Think about it. Since Labour's 2003 Criminal Justice Act, if you come home and find your husband in bed with the meter reader and you top him, that's murder (used to be manslaughter until the wimmins' movement got stuck in). There are lots and lots of those, Cain and Abel murders, "road rage" murders. They're common enough to stay on Page 5.Yes I DO know that murder is "with malice aforethought" but even the ones where for example a "carer" tops her charge for a piffling £10,000 bequest are hardly planned in the way this man was seeking out the youngsters[/p][/quote]Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime. charrlee
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

"Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime"
I have described the type of homicide that is spontaneous and therefore unlikely to excite much interest. The only "high profile " one I can immediately recall was when a group from the Beeches at Chipping Norton managed to fool a hotel into letting them have a wedding there and one of the p*keys killed another for dancing with first P's cousin. Hear of that? No, well we could be here all night and quite frankly I can't be a**ed.
"Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime" I have described the type of homicide that is spontaneous and therefore unlikely to excite much interest. The only "high profile " one I can immediately recall was when a group from the Beeches at Chipping Norton managed to fool a hotel into letting them have a wedding there and one of the p*keys killed another for dancing with first P's cousin. Hear of that? No, well we could be here all night and quite frankly I can't be a**ed. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then.
There's a difference between murder, and unlawful killing, I thought. Isn't murder where you kill someone intentionally, and unlawful killing where you didn't intend to kill?
I was intrigued by Dai's theory that murder is usually a spontaneous crime. Assault that results in unintentional killing is probably fairly common, but the idea of someone suddenly deciding to kill another person "spontaneously" struck me as being more UNusual than usual. It's the sort of thing that has characterised cases where disturbed children have murdered other children ie Mary Bell, and Venables/Thompson. In both of these cases, it does not seem the perpetrators planned the killings in advance.
Of the 700 or so murders that carried convictions in 2012, I've scanned a few random cases briefly, and all, so far, seemed to involve planning in advance, ie not "spur of the moment".
The reason why I'm interested is that I would expect someone who assaulted another, but did not intend to kill them, would get about 15years. But someone who deliberately set out to end the life of another should get a whole life sentence without parole.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.[/p][/quote]Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then.[/p][/quote]There's a difference between murder, and unlawful killing, I thought. Isn't murder where you kill someone intentionally, and unlawful killing where you didn't intend to kill? I was intrigued by Dai's theory that murder is usually a spontaneous crime. Assault that results in unintentional killing is probably fairly common, but the idea of someone suddenly deciding to kill another person "spontaneously" struck me as being more UNusual than usual. It's the sort of thing that has characterised cases where disturbed children have murdered other children ie Mary Bell, and Venables/Thompson. In both of these cases, it does not seem the perpetrators planned the killings in advance. Of the 700 or so murders that carried convictions in 2012, I've scanned a few random cases briefly, and all, so far, seemed to involve planning in advance, ie not "spur of the moment". The reason why I'm interested is that I would expect someone who assaulted another, but did not intend to kill them, would get about 15years. But someone who deliberately set out to end the life of another should get a whole life sentence without parole. charrlee
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime"
I have described the type of homicide that is spontaneous and therefore unlikely to excite much interest. The only "high profile " one I can immediately recall was when a group from the Beeches at Chipping Norton managed to fool a hotel into letting them have a wedding there and one of the p*keys killed another for dancing with first P's cousin. Hear of that? No, well we could be here all night and quite frankly I can't be a**ed.
All right, be rude if you must. I thought for once an interesting, in depth discussion was happening on this forum.
The fact is that "spontaneous" murders are extremely rare, carried out solely by dangerous psychopaths, or similarly disturbed people. Spontaneous unlawful killings, where causing death was not the intention - well that is more common.
I am sorry if I have troubled you, as that was not my intention.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime" I have described the type of homicide that is spontaneous and therefore unlikely to excite much interest. The only "high profile " one I can immediately recall was when a group from the Beeches at Chipping Norton managed to fool a hotel into letting them have a wedding there and one of the p*keys killed another for dancing with first P's cousin. Hear of that? No, well we could be here all night and quite frankly I can't be a**ed.[/p][/quote]All right, be rude if you must. I thought for once an interesting, in depth discussion was happening on this forum. The fact is that "spontaneous" murders are extremely rare, carried out solely by dangerous psychopaths, or similarly disturbed people. Spontaneous unlawful killings, where causing death was not the intention - well that is more common. I am sorry if I have troubled you, as that was not my intention. charrlee
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous"
If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder.
If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense?
In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection.
If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media".
OK?
OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous" If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder. If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense? In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection. If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media". OK? Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

7:24pm Fri 21 Feb 14

SmileyXo says...

All of these comments are irrelevant to the article. Take this silliness elsewhere please
All of these comments are irrelevant to the article. Take this silliness elsewhere please SmileyXo
  • Score: -1

8:17pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

Dai Rear wrote:
OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous"
If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder.
If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense?
In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection.
If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media".
OK?
We have stalled because you said that "murder is a spontaneous crime usually", and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a comment. I was challenging the general implications of that statement, not the definition of "spontaneous". However, I do find the idea of "spontaneous murder" quite amusing ( ! ) - like shoot-em-up computer games !

On the subject of deterrants, I totally agree with you and Al, albeit with reservations about "hanging the wrong guy". But I have to think about the greater good for all.

A final thought. People do not CHOOSE to have a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, psychopathy, or paedophilic orientation. IT chooses YOU. To refer to these lost souls as "creatures" reminds me of the limited thinking behind the witch hunts of centuries ago. It's but a short step from that attitude to branding someone a "pedo" on rumour and hearsay, and feeling justified in attacking someone who may be totally innocent.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous" If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder. If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense? In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection. If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media". OK?[/p][/quote]We have stalled because you said that "murder is a spontaneous crime usually", and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a comment. I was challenging the general implications of that statement, not the definition of "spontaneous". However, I do find the idea of "spontaneous murder" quite amusing ( ! ) - like shoot-em-up computer games ! On the subject of deterrants, I totally agree with you and Al, albeit with reservations about "hanging the wrong guy". But I have to think about the greater good for all. A final thought. People do not CHOOSE to have a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, psychopathy, or paedophilic orientation. IT chooses YOU. To refer to these lost souls as "creatures" reminds me of the limited thinking behind the witch hunts of centuries ago. It's but a short step from that attitude to branding someone a "pedo" on rumour and hearsay, and feeling justified in attacking someone who may be totally innocent. charrlee
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Fri 21 Feb 14

charrlee says...

SmileyXo wrote:
All of these comments are irrelevant to the article. Take this silliness elsewhere please
If you don't wish to contribute to a detailed, developing discussion, you don't have to. But please don't start issuing orders like some over-zealous security guard. This is an open forum, and people are entitled to take the discussion wherever they want without being accosted by some arrogant, self-appointed "moderator" such as yourself.

Oh, I think your comments are shallow and grossly simplistic. You need, in my humble, "silly" opinion, to do some serious research before you make comments in public about serious issues.
[quote][p][bold]SmileyXo[/bold] wrote: All of these comments are irrelevant to the article. Take this silliness elsewhere please[/p][/quote]If you don't wish to contribute to a detailed, developing discussion, you don't have to. But please don't start issuing orders like some over-zealous security guard. This is an open forum, and people are entitled to take the discussion wherever they want without being accosted by some arrogant, self-appointed "moderator" such as yourself. Oh, I think your comments are shallow and grossly simplistic. You need, in my humble, "silly" opinion, to do some serious research before you make comments in public about serious issues. charrlee
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Fri 21 Feb 14

thesouth says...

Stop quoting each other , it's annoying
Stop quoting each other , it's annoying thesouth
  • Score: 0

8:38am Sat 22 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous"
If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder.
If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense?
In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection.
If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media".
OK?
We have stalled because you said that "murder is a spontaneous crime usually", and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a comment. I was challenging the general implications of that statement, not the definition of "spontaneous". However, I do find the idea of "spontaneous murder" quite amusing ( ! ) - like shoot-em-up computer games !

On the subject of deterrants, I totally agree with you and Al, albeit with reservations about "hanging the wrong guy". But I have to think about the greater good for all.

A final thought. People do not CHOOSE to have a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, psychopathy, or paedophilic orientation. IT chooses YOU. To refer to these lost souls as "creatures" reminds me of the limited thinking behind the witch hunts of centuries ago. It's but a short step from that attitude to branding someone a "pedo" on rumour and hearsay, and feeling justified in attacking someone who may be totally innocent.
Interestingly enough, and although undoubtedly merciful, the law does regard those whose mental disorder renders them incapable of not avoiding evil as a "creature", not a human. For the finding that the actus reus occurred but the mens rea was absent is a finding that the perpetrator did not have that capacity which constitutes a human i.e. moral choice. However in this case I was not, if you read what I said again, describing the mentally disordered as creatures but rather those who set out to lure the less discerning members of our youth the better to violate them.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: OK, we seem to have stalled on "spontaneous" If you are mentally disordered you'll not have "murdered" anyone. You will be subject to an Hospital Order (with conditions as to release set by the Judge) and the offence not recorded as a murder. If I say "heat of the moment" does that make more sense? In the heat of the moment I will not consider that I may die by lethal injection. If I am aware that it is the policy of my State to execute me for endeavouring to solicit a minor, as this man did, I may hesitate before accessing Facebook or whatever media "thing" these creatures use. It's all a mystery to me and I'll happily be Victor Meldrew as regards the "social media". OK?[/p][/quote]We have stalled because you said that "murder is a spontaneous crime usually", and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such a comment. I was challenging the general implications of that statement, not the definition of "spontaneous". However, I do find the idea of "spontaneous murder" quite amusing ( ! ) - like shoot-em-up computer games ! On the subject of deterrants, I totally agree with you and Al, albeit with reservations about "hanging the wrong guy". But I have to think about the greater good for all. A final thought. People do not CHOOSE to have a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, psychopathy, or paedophilic orientation. IT chooses YOU. To refer to these lost souls as "creatures" reminds me of the limited thinking behind the witch hunts of centuries ago. It's but a short step from that attitude to branding someone a "pedo" on rumour and hearsay, and feeling justified in attacking someone who may be totally innocent.[/p][/quote]Interestingly enough, and although undoubtedly merciful, the law does regard those whose mental disorder renders them incapable of not avoiding evil as a "creature", not a human. For the finding that the actus reus occurred but the mens rea was absent is a finding that the perpetrator did not have that capacity which constitutes a human i.e. moral choice. However in this case I was not, if you read what I said again, describing the mentally disordered as creatures but rather those who set out to lure the less discerning members of our youth the better to violate them. Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

11:59am Sat 22 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

charrlee wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Dave Of The South wrote:
Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?
Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention.
5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens.
Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.
"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually"

Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.
Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then.
There's a difference between murder, and unlawful killing, I thought. Isn't murder where you kill someone intentionally, and unlawful killing where you didn't intend to kill?
I was intrigued by Dai's theory that murder is usually a spontaneous crime. Assault that results in unintentional killing is probably fairly common, but the idea of someone suddenly deciding to kill another person "spontaneously" struck me as being more UNusual than usual. It's the sort of thing that has characterised cases where disturbed children have murdered other children ie Mary Bell, and Venables/Thompson. In both of these cases, it does not seem the perpetrators planned the killings in advance.
Of the 700 or so murders that carried convictions in 2012, I've scanned a few random cases briefly, and all, so far, seemed to involve planning in advance, ie not "spur of the moment".
The reason why I'm interested is that I would expect someone who assaulted another, but did not intend to kill them, would get about 15years. But someone who deliberately set out to end the life of another should get a whole life sentence without parole.
Murder is unlawful killing, unfortunately immediately after capital punishment was abolished pleas to manslaughter were accepted for what were definitely murders, because the sentences were so similar, and possibly because it would have been counter productive if a big increase in murders were to show on the records.. So in order to get some idea on how unlawful killings have dramaticxally increased since 1965 one has to take all of them into acvcount.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Of The South[/bold] wrote: Ok, I'm NOT (NOT NOT NOT) saying what the paedo did was right, but why were not the parents of the children involved observing their daughters internet/mobile activities? A 13 yr old girl on Skype unsupervised for example?[/p][/quote]Yes. A little prevention is worth a deal of cure. I cannot remember any time at which it would have been possible for my children at 13 to have been touring around the New Forest or "feasting" with unrelated men at Macdonalds without my knowledge and intervention. 5 years is about right on a scale where even "classical" rape perpetrators (jumping on a sober stranger and violating her or I suppose him) get sentences in the early teens. Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually. Gentlemen like this would likely be deterred by the prospect of execution because he was pretty pre-meditated, but then we're going down a strange road because shoplifting is nearly always pre-meditated.[/p][/quote]"Execution is unlikely to deter much murder because it's a "spontaneous" crime usually" Would you be kind enough to list, say, half a dozen high-profile "spontaneous" murders - killings that took place on the spur of the moment, not planned, where an improvised weapon was found, and used with intent to kill, at the scene of the crime.[/p][/quote]Actually I can give you one, about two years ago a bus driver used his bus to chase and run over, killing, a confrotational pedestrial. The fact that this unlawful killing did not even make the local paper is evidence of the numbers of unlawful killings now occuring. When I was a kid all the national papers carried a story of a man who tried to rob a post office with a water pistol. Bad crime stories were not so plentiful then.[/p][/quote]There's a difference between murder, and unlawful killing, I thought. Isn't murder where you kill someone intentionally, and unlawful killing where you didn't intend to kill? I was intrigued by Dai's theory that murder is usually a spontaneous crime. Assault that results in unintentional killing is probably fairly common, but the idea of someone suddenly deciding to kill another person "spontaneously" struck me as being more UNusual than usual. It's the sort of thing that has characterised cases where disturbed children have murdered other children ie Mary Bell, and Venables/Thompson. In both of these cases, it does not seem the perpetrators planned the killings in advance. Of the 700 or so murders that carried convictions in 2012, I've scanned a few random cases briefly, and all, so far, seemed to involve planning in advance, ie not "spur of the moment". The reason why I'm interested is that I would expect someone who assaulted another, but did not intend to kill them, would get about 15years. But someone who deliberately set out to end the life of another should get a whole life sentence without parole.[/p][/quote]Murder is unlawful killing, unfortunately immediately after capital punishment was abolished pleas to manslaughter were accepted for what were definitely murders, because the sentences were so similar, and possibly because it would have been counter productive if a big increase in murders were to show on the records.. So in order to get some idea on how unlawful killings have dramaticxally increased since 1965 one has to take all of them into acvcount. Inform Al
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree