Baby P

Nodin

Latchy wrote: »

, in fact i was pointing out that they have benifited from the whole bulger case far beter than the victims family ( who have not benefited at all ) So justice worked for the two boys in question ..

Tried as adults, living under assumed names, subjected to more villification than any adult killer, including yer man huntley.......

Latchy wrote: »

,
When you say about them keeping in mind their 'youth ' remember thet it was not that long ago in Ireland that youth's were sent to Reformity Schools for the serious crimes of mitching from school ,stealing or just being unlucky enough to be an orphan ...

....which was/is also wrong....

Blazer

I've 4 nieces and a nephew.
If anyone including their parents ever did anything like this to them I'd make sure their last hours/days on their earth was so painful they'd be begging for death.

walshb

Well, both Thompson and Venables have a life, which is a damn lot more than
little Jamie Bulger!

Pity my arse. They are disturbed and wicked human beings and age alone
doesn't excuse it or what they did.

seanybiker

Just send them into rec yard and shout out to all the other inmates. Here we have the people who murdered baby P. Then I would turn off cctv and walk away for a few minutes.

seanybiker

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I was full of rage when I started this thread, and everytime i think of it I'm still filled with rage and I don't feel I should have to apolgise for it.

Nothing to apologise for bud.

Latchy

Nodin wrote: »

Tried as adults, living under assumed names, subjected to more villification than any adult killer, including yer man huntley.......

Which proves the justice system is flawed and not perfect .

From my memory ,those boys were treated very well and accordingly by all concerned at the time ie, police , social workers etc and it was the gentle handling of the boys by professionals that made them own up and confess ,which was the only option anyway . They were never manhandled physically , or emotionaly abused while in pre -court -appearence - care .

But giving the high feelings surrounding the case ,the rent a lynch mob outside , giving the chance , would have done them some serious harm .

The law rightly protected them .

Dudess

I don't think anyone's suggesting she should apologise for feeling rage. I feel rage too, but it's best to separate that rage from recommending how the justice system conduct itself.

Latchy

I agree !

Lockstep

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I was full of rage when I started this thread, and everytime i think of it I'm still filled with rage and I don't feel I should have to apolgise for it.

Why not do something posititve with this energy? Like helping prevent this happening to another kid.

It's wasted in raging posts on the internet.


EDIT: Dudess beat me to it and explained it better than me.

Mrs JackDaniels

What you suggest could be done to prevent this from happening again? Unfortunately there are always going to be people out there that abuse and murder, the only thing can be changed is the system

Dudess

The death penalty hasn't proven to be a deterrant, but yes, a life sentence should mean life.

Mrs JackDaniels

Prob a very controversial thing to say but I would not be opposed to the death penalty in extreme cases i.e Fred West, Ian Huntley etc


Maybe I have a very black and white view on justice and rights and all that jazz but i cant help it!

allabouteve

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I wouldn't want to do anything that would make me as inhuman and brutal as they obviously are. They've degraded humanity enough, I wouldn't want to do further damage.

Agreed.

Introducing the death penalty for rape just means that the attacker has nothing to lose by killing the victim.

Not something I'd think was a good idea.

Mrmoe

A slow painful hanging might be just rewards for this guy.

walshb

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Prob a very controversial thing to say but I would not be opposed to the death penalty in extreme cases i.e Fred West, Ian Huntley etc


Maybe I have a very black and white view on justice and rights and all that jazz but i cant help it!

I too am pro death penalty for certain crimes and premeditated murder is one.
I wouldn't even try to categorise these, as that would be too messy.
You take a life, then you should lose your life. So, guilty of murder means
automatic death penalty in my view!

Other crimes include class A drug smuggling, and aggravated rape
or aggravated burglary

Nodin

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Prob a very controversial thing to say but I would not be opposed to the death penalty in extreme cases i.e Fred West, Ian Huntley etc

You might consider the problem with that by watching this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/may/05/miscarriages-of-justice

Mrs JackDaniels

walshb wrote: »

I too am pro death penalty for certain crimes and premeditated murder is one.
I wouldn't even try to categorise these, as that would be too messy.
You take a life, then you should lose your life. So, guilty of murder means
automatic death penalty in my view!

Other crimes include class A drug smuggling, and aggravated rape
or aggravated burglary

+1

walshb

Nodin wrote: »

You might consider the problem with that by watching this....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/may/05/miscarriages-of-justice

Unfortunately it is a very sad and cruel world and at times, folks have been
jailed and put to death wrongfully; but should that lead to the abolition
completely? The U.S. still has the penalty in many States.

I am in favor of this penalty, and if we simply apply
the whole notion that "sometimes we get it wrong," then why ever
bother to prosecute or jail?

I know errors do occur, but mostly, the right person is convicted, and I would say
the percentage is very high. The Huntley example is one where they did get the right
man, and woman.

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

Unfortunately it is a very sad and cruel world and at times, folks have been
jailed and put to death wrongfully; but should that lead to the abolition
completely? The U.S. still has the penalty in many States..

And if you analyse who gets the death penalty out of those charged with an offence that merits that sentence, they are - in the vast majority - the ones from the bottom end of the socio-economic scale. It doesnt strike me as fair that death should be meted out not according to the crime but the ability to access a good lawyer.

walshb wrote: »

I am in favor of this penalty, and if we simply apply
the whole notion that "sometimes we get it wrong," then why ever
bother to prosecute or jail?..

...because that can - to an extent - be fixed.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Unfortunately it is a very sad and cruel world and at times, folks have been
jailed and put to death wrongfully; but should that lead to the abolition
completely? The U.S. still has the penalty in many States.

I am in favor of this penalty, and if we simply apply
the whole notion that "sometimes we get it wrong," then why ever
bother to prosecute or jail?

Because there's a gaping chasm of difference between saying "sorry we made a mistake, we're letting you out now, here's some compensation [maybe]" and a dead person who was innocent. Can't bring em back. And if killing innocent people wasn't a problem in the first place, murder wouldn't be a crime, n'est-ce pas?

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

You take a life, then you should lose your life. So, guilty of murder means
automatic death penalty in my view!

Other crimes include class A drug smuggling, and aggravated rape
or aggravated burglary

How do these "take a life"?

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Right, this case involved an extremely sad case and a kid who was tortured and stuff.

OP; you're angry. Instead of inviting people to post their sado-masochistic fantasies why not try and do something constructive such as working towards better social care.

I'm baffled as to what you hope to achieve in this thread other than RAAAAAGGE.

this from someone who finds the fritzl case amusing???:rolleyes:

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

How do these "take a life"?

I don't think I limited my death penalty view to just murder. I said murder was one crime I would have the penalty for?

Now, aggravated rape or aggravated burglary may not take a life, but they are heinous and deserve the penalty. As for class A drug smuggling; this takes many lives and has serious ramifications for society. It destroys families and communities!

BTW, we as a nation are not long into our "No death penalty" law!

4zn76tysfajdxp

walshb wrote: »

I am in favor of this penalty, and if we simply apply
the whole notion that "sometimes we get it wrong," then why ever
bother to prosecute or jail?

Because you can release and pardon a wrongfully imprisoned convict if more accurate evidence comes to light, but you can't bring a wrongfully executed person back to life.

I know errors do occur, but mostly, the right person is convicted, and I would say
the percentage is very high. The Huntley example is one where they did get the right
man, and woman.

Ian Huntley? He hasn't been put to death since his imprisonment, and how many people has he killed since as a result?

walshb

Eddie Obedient Yolk wrote: »

Ian Huntley? He hasn't been put to death since his imprisonment, and how many people has he killed since as a result?

I know he hasn't. What's your point?

I believe he should have been put to death, but England
does not use the penalty anymore!

Bottom line: Some folks believe in the penalty and others do not.
I am one who believes that it should exist!

Im with Mrs D on this one, if anyone hurt my children.. oh man, they'd be begging me to kill them by the time I finished with them. I would have nothing else I would want to live for, so Id spend the rest of my days avenging .
I think, most parents would feel pretty hollow and hopeless if something like this case was done to their children.

So, no I dont think Mrs D does have to go off and save the world instead of being angry.

4zn76tysfajdxp

walshb wrote: »

I know he hasn't. What's your point?

Um....the death penalty isn't the only effective form of punishment?

walshb

Eddie Obedient Yolk wrote: »

Um....the death penalty isn't the only effective form of punishment?

I know, and IMO, sometimes it's the easy way for some of these scum!

Dudess

Jake1 wrote: »

this from someone who finds the fritzl case amusing???:rolleyes:

He doesn't find the case one bit amusing, he laughs at jokes about it because he finds humour in everything and finds humour a way of dealing with horror. I don't subscribe to that, you don't, but to say he finds the case itself amusing is just incorrect.

Hope you don't mind me speaking for you, kotj...

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

He doesn't find the case one bit amusing, he laughs at jokes about it because he finds humour in everything and finds humour a way of dealing with horror. I don't subscribe to that, you don't, but to say he finds the case itself amusing is just incorrect.

Hope you don't mind me speaking for you, kotj...

He didnt just seem to find it amusing, indeed he made a little joke of his own.I wont bother trying to repost it, but its there.
So, I dont see how dealing with horror with Sick humour is any better at all at how Mrs D feels?,
I just dont see how he can ok his behaviour, and condone OP's?

walshb

Jake1 wrote: »

He didnt just seem to find it amusing, indeed he made a little joke of his own.I wont bother trying to repost it, but its there.
So, I dont see how dealing with horror with Sick humour is any better at all at how Mrs D feels?,
I just dont see how he can ok his behaviour, and condone OP's?

jake, don't you mean condemn?

You are doing a Bertie on us!

Mrs JackDaniels

Jake1 wrote: »

Im with Mrs D on this one, if anyone hurt my children.. oh man, they'd be begging me to kill them by the time I finished with them. I would have nothing else I would want to live for, so Id spend the rest of my days avenging .
I think, most parents would feel pretty hollow and hopeless if something like this case was done to their children.

So, no I dont think Mrs D does have to go off and save the world instead of being angry.

Thank you at last someone on the same page as me!!

Mrs JackDaniels

walshb wrote: »

I know, and IMO, sometimes it's the easy way for some of these scum!

+1
Just because he hasn't killed anyone else does'nt mean he has paid his dues in certain case's death should=death

I don't personally don't think if huntley served 200yrs in prison it would in any way justify what he did to those two inncoent girls

walshb

walshb wrote: »

jake, don't you mean condemn?

You are doing a Bertie on us!

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Lockstep

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

What you suggest could be done to prevent this from happening again? Unfortunately there are always going to be people out there that abuse and murder, the only thing can be changed is the system

Yes but this can be minimised.
Campaign for better social services, donate to NSPCC, become a social worker. There are a load of ways you can achieve change.

You don't have to apologise for writing how horrified you are but let's be honest; it achieves absolutely nothing.

Jake1 wrote: »

this from someone who finds the fritzl case amusing???:rolleyes:

Yeah what's your point?
That because I have an irreverent sense of humour that I see no point in raging impotently against these things happening?
Oh, and extra cool points for the use of the rolleyes. Always a surefire way to bolster any argument.

Jake1 wrote: »

He didnt just seem to find it amusing, indeed he made a little joke of his own.I wont bother trying to repost it, but its there.
So, I dont see how dealing with horror with Sick humour is any better at all at how Mrs D feels?

What was my little joke?
As previously stated, I have an irreverent sense of humour. This does not mean I always try to deal with stuff through it. It usually just means I'm finding something amusing in my own way.
What I didn't understand was why someone as shocked and outraged as the OP feels the need to express their shock and outrage when they could use their energy to help prevent things like this happening in the future. You're comparing two different things between my sense of humour and her post tbh.

Jake1 wrote: »

I just dont see how he can ok his behaviour, and condone OP's?

I think you mean condemn rather than condone here. And I never condemned the OP's posts. What I said was that if she is so horrified there are steps she can take to help reduce the chances of these things ever happening again. This doesn't stop me from having a different sense of humour and yet not seeing the point in raging over the 'net.

Jake1 wrote: »

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Well done for posting the correct definition and using the irritating little rolleyes smiley to boot.
However, if you meant to use condone then your train of thought makes no sense;
It would entirely easy for me to "ok my behaviour" and "accept or allow" the OP's post. If you meant otherwise, then frankly you're not making any sense.

Mrs JackDaniels

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes but this can be minimised.
Campaign for better social services, donate to NSPCC, become a social worker. There are a load of ways you can achieve change.

You don't have to apologise for writing how horrified you are but let's be honest; it achieves absolutely nothing.



Yeah what's your point?
That because I have an irreverent sense of humour that I see no point in raging impotently against these things happening?
Oh, and extra cool points for the use of the rolleyes. Always a surefire way to bolster any argument.




What was my little joke?
As previously stated, I have an irreverent sense of humour. This does not mean I always try to deal with stuff through it. It usually just means I'm finding something amusing in my own way.
What I didn't understand was why someone as shocked and outraged as the OP feels the need to express their shock and outrage when they could use their energy to help prevent things like this happening in the future. You're comparing two different things between my sense of humour and her post tbh.


I think you mean condemn rather than condone here. And I never condemned the OP's posts. What I said was that if she is so horrified there are steps she can take to help reduce the chances of these things ever happening again. This doesn't stop me from having a different sense of humour and yet not seeing the point in raging over the 'net.



Well done for posting the correct definition and using the irritating little rolleyes smiley to boot.
However, if you meant to use condone then your train of thought makes no sense;
It would entirely easy for me to "ok my behaviour" and "accept or allow" the OP's post. If you meant otherwise, then frankly you're not making any sense.

Guessing you have no children?

Which you will prob say you have now even if you haven't

Lockstep

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Guessing you have no children?

You could check my profile. It'd be quite an achievement for me to be looking after kids while in university.
What's your point anyway?

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Which you will prob say you have now even if you haven't

Where the hell did you get that from?

Mrs JackDaniels

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You could check my profile. It'd be quite an achievement for me to be looking after kids while in university.
What's your point anyway?



Where the hell did you get that from?

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Mrs JackDaniels

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Btw there are plenty of people in uni with kids so no I don't think would be a major achievement

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes but this can be minimised.
Campaign for better social services, donate to NSPCC, become a social worker. There are a load of ways you can achieve change.

You don't have to apologise for writing how horrified you are but let's be honest; it achieves absolutely nothing.



Yeah what's your point?
That because I have an irreverent sense of humour that I see no point in raging impotently against these things happening?
Oh, and extra cool points for the use of the rolleyes. Always a surefire way to bolster any argument.



What was my little joke?


here ye go, a little reminder of your joke if you forgot it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4t
It's going to make a great film someday.

It'll be based on his book.

They say it will be a best cellar.

I find the whole case rather amusing.
The last time there was an Austrian dude who kept his family in the basement it was made into a musical and film.
__________________



But you are so far up the high moral ground you believe jokes of this kind are fine, yet rage is not?
I was merely pointing that out.
Mrs D has no need to feel silly for feeling the way she does.

Slavery and Child rape are strangely unamusing to me.

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Hey, I am anti violence

LOL

walshb wrote: »

I too am pro death penalty for certain crimes and premeditated murder is one.
I wouldn't even try to categorise these, as that would be too messy.
You take a life, then you should lose your life. So, guilty of murder means
automatic death penalty in my view!

Other crimes include class A drug smuggling, and aggravated rape
or aggravated burglary

walshb wrote: »

Unfortunately it is a very sad and cruel world and at times, folks have been jailed and put to death wrongfully; but should that lead to the abolition completely?

Er... yes? Watch Fourteen Days In May about a young, black man from a poor background who was wrongfully executed for a cop killing, as well as a rape... because he was a young, black man from a poor background. To say we should have the death penalty, despite the possibilities of miscarriages of justice because this is a "cruel world" :rolleyes: is just galling.

The U.S. still has the penalty in many States.

What does that justify?

I know errors do occur, but mostly, the right person is convicted, and I would say the percentage is very high.

Oh well that's all right so, once there's only the odd person wrongfully executed. Guildford Four, Birmingham Six... ring a bell?

Terry wrote: »

WTF is this about?
I've no idea what this baby p thing is about.
Thread has no links. Just gossip.

Yeah, the mainstream media is not allowed to publish the mother and her boyfriend's identities. [AH Rabble-rousers]Special treatment![/AH Rabble-rousers]
Nah it's not, it's to protect the dead child's siblings. The identities are all over the net though.

walshb wrote: »

I don't think I limited my death penalty view to just murder. I said murder was one crime I would have the penalty for?

Your justification for the death penalty was "an eye for an eye" - a death sentence for e.g. burglary is hardly an eye for an eye...

Now, aggravated rape or aggravated burglary may not take a life, but they are heinous and deserve the penalty.

"They are heinous and deserve the death penalty" doesn't actually explain why they deserve the death penalty. You're "anti violence"? Really?

BTW, we as a nation are not long into our "No death penalty" law!

What does that justify?

Bottom line: Some folks believe in the penalty and others do not.
I am one who believes that it should exist!

"La la la la la la I can't hear you! I'm in favour of the death penalty because I just AM!"

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Thank you at last someone on the same page as me!!

I love the way that subtly implies people here aren't that appalled by what those monsters did. And that people might even believe they deserve special treatment ("they'll be sent to a holiday camp" etc). Who in the name of Christ, with any semblance of normality about them, would believe that crime isn't anything less than horrific and that its perpetrators deserve special treatment? FFS. Right-minded people, including the justice system (I love how it's felt those behind the justice system actually WANT sick ****s to have an easy time of it) wish to see these people punished severely but not for the state to have the ability to end a life. We're supposed to be the civilised ones. Life sentence, solitary confinement - depriving someone of their freedom til the day they die, just because it's not depraved torture, doesn't mean it isn't a severe punishment.

Jake1 wrote: »

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

No actually, you meant "condemn". And in fairness, the comment was a light-hearted one. Such defensiveness was hardly necessary.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Superbly patronising - would you make comments like that to people whom you know can't have kids? Yeah sure, you'd have to be a parent to see the true horror... Really and truly, you wouldn't. Yes, you can see it from a different perspective, but we all know who truly evil it is.
And kickoutthejams was actually wondering what the hell you meant by that baffling "Guess you have no children? Which you will prob say you have now even if you haven't". I too am wondering what that bizarre comment meant...

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

sorry but this case and many more like it just make my blood boil, I have a two year old child and if anyone ever laid a finger on her I would want them to suffer more than just being locked up for 20 odd years

Jake1 wrote: »

Im with Mrs D on this one, if anyone hurt my children.. oh man, they'd be begging me to kill them by the time I finished with them. I would have nothing else I would want to live for, so Id spend the rest of my days avenging .
I think, most parents would feel pretty hollow and hopeless if something like this case was done to their children.

So, no I dont think Mrs D does have to go off and save the world instead of being angry.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Guessing you have no children?

Not that any of the above comments are particularly relevant to the topic, but I suppose they do give you an opportunity to preach to us how you're more informed than us non parents on the horror. It's ok, we know how horrific it is - going down the "Joe, I'm a mudder" road is not required. You'd defend your children to the last, like any decent parent would... um, good for you.

seems we wont agree on this, so I am just leaving it alone.:)

tech77

Jake1 wrote: »

seems we wont agree on this, so I am just leaving it alone.:)

Fair enough.
Nobody's going to condone you for leaving the thread.

Lockstep

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

I'm saying that I think parents in particular would find this case even more disturbing then people that don't have kids

Why?
I never understand this argument. If something is a terrible occurrence, it is a terrible occurence. Having kids doesn't predicate more sensitivity to this.
BabyP's mother had kids and yet she didn't seem to find it too outrageous to treat her kid the way she dod.

Mrs JackDaniels wrote: »

Btw there are plenty of people in uni with kids so no I don't think would be a major achievement

You don't think attending university while being a young parent is a major achievement?
Woah...

Lockstep

Jake1 wrote: »

here ye go, a little reminder of your joke if you forgot it...


Originally Posted by K4t
It's going to make a great film someday.

It'll be based on his book.

They say it will be a best cellar.

I find the whole case rather amusing.
The last time there was an Austrian dude who kept his family in the basement it was made into a musical and film.
__________________
boards.ie is super awesomey

Oh God, what a trainwreck of a quote. It gives me eyecancer. At least it looks palatable when it's requoted.

Jake1 wrote: »

But you are so far up the high moral ground you believe jokes of this kind are fine, yet rage is not?
I was merely pointing that out.

I havn't attempted to take the moral high ground. You've just assumed I am.
Do you honestly not see a difference between;
a specific sense of humour
Not seeing the point in raging against something which has happened and which can't be changed.

Jake1 wrote: »

Mrs D has no need to feel silly for feeling the way she does.

Noone has attempted to make her feel silly. You seem to have constructed this in your head.

Jake1 wrote: »

Slavery and Child rape are strangely unamusing to me.

I'm willing to bet that something you find amusing would be offensive to someone else.
Such is the nature of humour.

Yawn..........

midlandsmissus

First thing I felt when I heard about Baby P was.....pity for the social workers involved.

I used to do admin a few years ago in a social workers office, and let me tell you, it's not the social workers fault.

A single social worker had responsibility for 70 + cases , they were barely able to keep on top of what was going on in each. It is so easy for something to slip their atterntion.

I saw one social worker come back from a house visit who was traumatised as she had been sent to visit a single man on his own and he had smeared excrement everywhere including on her.

It is a terrbile system. I never saw people more traumatised and stressed than those social workers.

I can see how Baby P happened and I dont think it was the social workers fault.

walshb

Jake1 wrote: »

eh, no, I was not, I meant condone.

Allow me to give you the definition, Spelling Police,

Condone:to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Chill jake, this has zero to do with spelling.
When I read your post, you seemed to be
backing the OP, and in doing so, you asked Dudess how
he/she can accept and ok one point from one poster but then condone the OP???

I just asumed you meant to say, "how can you accept and ok one poster and condemn another." That is how I interpreted it.

condone/condemn

I was wrong on that, I stand corrected, having reread my post.

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Your justification for the death penalty was "an eye for an eye" - a death sentence for e.g. burglary is hardly an eye for an eye...
.

Dudess, I am almost certain I said "aggravated burglary." If I didn't, then I meant to. And if I did, then you are telling porkies and not quoting me properly.

Anyway, the whole issue of the penalty is emotive with pro and anti sides.
Hey, I abhore violence for the sake of it. Does this then mean I should
not be pro the penalty:rolleyes:. I know many people who abhore violence and who do believe in the penalty for certain crimes.

If some scumbag broke into my home, I wouldn't think twice about shooting him.
I am hardly gonna' stop and think, "I'm anti violence, I can't do this," and allow the maniac
to run riot and severley endanger me and my family!

Also, I'm sure many here are anti violence, but if any member of my family
was raped and butchered by some scumbag, I would be the first wanting to
pull the switch on the person.