wewantourdarbyback wrote:guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
You're right that its a very important right, but this peice of scum imo has NO RIGHTS. He MURDERED a 2 year old child. Regardless of his age at the time, coupled with the fact he's BACK in prision, regardless of whatever he's done, thats enough for me to say he doesn't deserve to have any rights.
He paid for that crime once. Whatever he is in prison for now is a completely new case and therefore should be seen as that.
You're knocked out with who I am,
Look at you now, you're all in my hands.
woody wrote:Whilst I agreed with D4E, RH & WWODB............... you make a very good case. - BUT if this wasn't a case concerning a two year old child, would you still think the same?
Once a human being decides to take the life of another human being, they submit any human rights they may have imo. If they believe that they have the power to decide whether a fellow humans life should end prematurely, then they obviously see themselves as something special, something above other humans and the laws. Once they think they can disregard the laws of "humanity", their human rights go down the shitter quicker than Readings FA. Cup hopes.
A great set of replies from all concerned and also across a great spectrum of people.
As I stated, there MUST be some emotional partisanship because of the original age of both victim and his killers.
I used a throw away line that the killers were Scousers, that may seem cruel, but that area does bring about the lack of moral standards issues that we see daily.
RH is totally right in his statement this any new alleged crimes should be dealt with on a separate basis..................BUT, should they? These two little devils, killed and tortured a two year old child (by the way whose parents did not supervise sufficiently to save his life). They (the killers) went to prison but were deemed to be no longer a threat to society in general by being released. What sticks in my craw, is they IF there is no mention of 'previous' in any subsequent cases, this cany little shit might yet again fool the authorities into finding not guilty and release to bide his time until another opportunity arises.
THESE TWO SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN RELEASED.............they should have been left to rot in prison forever.
All this HOO HAR is now about - Who let them out, who or which politician took the decision, and how can it be used to score points. I believe that the general public would not have turned a hair, if LIFE HAD MEANT LIFE.
'If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking, how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time? Billy Connolly
Also just remember that the guy has only been re-called back because of his previous murder charge, I think its fair for people to talk about his previous for the simple fact that, if he had not murdered a 2 year old child, he might not have been pulled back into prison now. Its all relative.
mattreddan wrote:Also just remember that the guy has only been re-called back because of his previous murder charge, I think its fair for people to talk about his previous for the simple fact that, if he had not murdered a 2 year old child, he might not have been pulled back into prison now. Its all relative.
YOU and I are definitely on the same wavelength
'If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking, how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time? Billy Connolly
wewantourdarbyback wrote:guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
You're right that its a very important right, but this peice of scum imo has NO RIGHTS. He MURDERED a 2 year old child. Regardless of his age at the time, coupled with the fact he's BACK in prision, regardless of whatever he's done, thats enough for me to say he doesn't deserve to have any rights.
He paid for that crime once. Whatever he is in prison for now is a completely new case and therefore should be seen as that.
Technically he will never have paid for his crime. A life sentence is a sentence that hangs over you for life. You serve an initial tariff of said sentence fully in the knowledge that if you do anything imprisonable again you will be recalled to continue your sentence.
AFC Rushden & Diamonds - Member No: 354
You could have 140 years of no achievement, or twenty years of glorious victories, you decide.
wewantourdarbyback wrote:
Which is completely unethical by that shitrag of a paper. I would not be surprised to see them up in front of a judge for contempt at some point as that easily passes the test of creating 'a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the case'. And if they are hauled in front of said judge then it will only serve them right.
The right to be innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important rights we have in this country. Until he is charged with anything no one has the right to judge anyone guilty because of past crimes. If we do, we might as well allow lynch mobs.
Top post
On THIS occasion - I must agree!
The Mirror has used the loophole that WE don't know his new identity so NO LIBEL LAWS + is now an adult. THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO SELL PAPERS ONLY. I too, hope the Government Legals use all their power against the paper. However................Its taken Gordon Brown off the front pages (SURPRISE SURPRISE)
I had a check of my copy of McNae to check the exact ruling I'm talking about here. Under the Courts Act of 2003 the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer made regulations in 2004 to allow a judge to order the payment of ALL costs of any trial that was suspended after media interference. They also don't have to prove any contempt actually occurred in order to do this (which is a trainee journo is rather worrying).
The Mirror has already been hit by this once when they had to pay for the first attempt at the trial of Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer when they had to play more than £1million in costs.
AFC Rushden & Diamonds - Member No: 354
You could have 140 years of no achievement, or twenty years of glorious victories, you decide.
That looks like legal speak for 'Don't want to prejudice a trial' - So your Reading of the situation may just be SPOT ON, and Mr.Mirror may need their cheque book
'If women are so bloody perfect at multitasking, how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time? Billy Connolly
mattreddan wrote:Also just remember that the guy has only been re-called back because of his previous murder charge, I think its fair for people to talk about his previous for the simple fact that, if he had not murdered a 2 year old child, he might not have been pulled back into prison now. Its all relative.
I disagree. Yes he is back in custody for (if the stories can be believed) a collection of indecent images. IF he goes to court and the jury/magistrate have any knowledge of his previous crime then surely there will be a bias against him. Whilst I absolutely abhorr ANY kind of crime against children, I still think that the guy should be judged solely on this crime and not on his previous crime. Yes Woody he MAY pull the wool over the eyes of the authorities but even with that in mind he still deserves a fair trial based on this and only this crime. The authorities need looking at more closely if that is the case.
Now IF he has killed again then YES bring his previous into account.
You're knocked out with who I am,
Look at you now, you're all in my hands.
wewantourdarbyback wrote:
He paid for that crime once. Whatever he is in prison for now is a completely new case and therefore should be seen as that.
Technically he will never have paid for his crime. A life sentence is a sentence that hangs over you for life. You serve an initial tariff of said sentence fully in the knowledge that if you do anything imprisonable again you will be recalled to continue your sentence.[/quote]
OK, In the eyes of the authorities that let him out he has paid, if not why did they deem him fit enough to be released?
Not an argument, just a question.
You're knocked out with who I am,
Look at you now, you're all in my hands.
