Three convicted murderers working in Belfast shopping center.

Mr. CooL ICE

baldbear wrote: »

Cutting house keys. Great jobs for violent criminals. Easy access to peoples homes! What could go wrong?

This point has been addressed numerous times. You don't give your address when handing in a key to be cut.

Welcome to the thread.

Qualitymark

What's all this calling each other liars? Are yiz all ten years old?

Mr. CooL ICE

Laois6556 wrote: »

How is it the other way around?

If the criminals rights were being put ahead of those of the victim's families, then the victim's families would be forced to get their keys cut in their loved ones' killers place of employment and not allowed get their kets cut elsewhere.

It's ridiculous. Stop arguing about it.

Laois6556

Qualitymark wrote: »

What's all this calling each other liars? Are yiz all ten years old?

It seems that way, I caught someone out lying and like a 10 year old they are now saying I'm the liar. It's a deep and meaningfull conversation you've come across.

Billy86

Laois6556 wrote: »

Where did I lie? I'm afraid you're the only liar round here, you've even admitted it.

You said you want them hounded out of their jobs over earning a living. So you don't want them employed.

You said "neither" when I asked if you wanted them on the dole, of not allowed employment or welfare.

You then claimed that I was lying about saying this, when you said it all. It's right there in my post from 00:42 on Monday night. Keep digging.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

Your position could not be clearer than it is in that post. Good luck lying your way out of that.

Speaking of dodging questions, I asked you repeatedly if the family should be considered when these guys were all employed in the same place? Someone said Belfast is a big place, that's a cop out. There's always the off chance they'll run into them. One poster NicholasCage said '' They should just go to different key cutters.'' That's one solution I guess, although it's a pretty cold view to hold towards the family.

Qualitymark

Laois6556 wrote: »

It seems that way, I caught someone out lying and like a 10 year old they are now saying I'm the liar. It's a deep and meaningfull conversation you've come across.

Heh!

As for the key cutting, sometimes you do give your address when you bring keys to be cut; for example, I've always gone to the same shop, and they've been out to instal locks in my house, and mend locks here.
It's also possible to use credit cards to find addresses with a little social engineering of the kind some murderers might enjoy.

Laois6556

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

If the criminals rights were being put ahead of those of the victim's families, then the victim's families would be forced to get their keys cut in their loved ones' killers place of employment and not allowed get their kets cut elsewhere.

It's ridiculous. Stop arguing about it.

No, the murderer would be told to move on and the victims family members would be able to shop without having to be served by their relatives killer.

Laois6556

Billy86 wrote: »

You said you want them hounded out of their jobs over earning a living. So you don't want them employed.

You said "neither" when I asked if you wanted them on the dole, of not allowed employment or welfare.

You then claimed that I was lying about saying this, when you said it all. It's right there in my post from 00:42 on Monday night. Keep digging.

Still with the lies. I didn't say the first thing or the second but I did say the third.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

If the criminals rights were being put ahead of those of the victim's families, then the victim's families would be forced to get their keys cut in their loved ones' killers place of employment and not allowed get their kets cut elsewhere.

It's ridiculous. Stop arguing about it.

You said to be yesterday that I said these guys should be treated by mob rule. I'd like you to find the post where I said, seeing as you ignored me when I asked yesterday after repeatedly accusing me of saying these men shouldn't be allowed to work.

Irish Guitarist

Billy86 wrote: »

Are you another one of these people that gives a copy of your ID and your home address details in every time you get a key cut?

I just give them a piece of shaped metal, and a note or some coins as payment, personally.

If someone gets a key cut it's highly likely that they live somewhere near the shop. The convicted rapist could very well see them leaving or entering their premises.

Qualitymark

I'd be inclined to think that we're all in agreement here (despite how it looks): people who've served their time should be able to work and earn a living; however, someone who's been convicted of a violent crime probably shouldn't be working in a "customer-facing" job; and such people shouldn't be allowed to resettle near where the crime took place.
Look at this loopy story from England:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mass-killer-next-door-man-4393691

Billy86

Laois6556 wrote: »

Still with the lies. I didn't say the first thing or the second but I did say the third.

It's right there in my post with all the quotes, 00:42 Monday night where you said "neither" and osarusan quoted the post where you said look would prefer then ran out of any jobs. You are not only constantly attempting to dodge questions, but you are ignoring your we answers as well. It's kind of comical, really.

bucketybuck

Hi Laois6556, can you answer the simple question I asked you?

Its really a simple question, and in the 60/70 times you have posted in this thread you have continually dodged the question.

I say you have not answered the question, can you either repeat your answer or actually answer the simple question in the first place?

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

It's right there in my post with all the quotes, 00:42 Monday night where you said "neither" and osarusan quoted the post where you said look would prefer then ran out of any jobs. You are not only constantly attempting to dodge questions, but you are ignoring your we answers as well. It's kind of comical, really.

You always resort to this stuff, can you not just discuss the topic?

Billy86

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If someone gets a key cut it's highly likely that they live somewhere near the shop. The convicted rapist could very well see them leaving or entering their premises.

They would have to run out of the shop in pursuit of them in the middle of their shift to get anywhere with that though, and hope to be parked near them or able to get a taxi as soon as they left. Either that of try out every door I the surrounding area whenever they cut a key. It's just not realistic.

Laois6556

Billy86 wrote: »

It's right there in my post with all the quotes, 00:42 Monday night where you said "neither" and osarusan quoted the post where you said look would prefer then ran out of any jobs. You are not only constantly attempting to dodge questions, but you are ignoring your we answers as well. It's kind of comical, really.

You'll need to re-read those posts then.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

They would have to run out of the shop in pursuit of them in the middle of their shift to get anywhere with that though, and hope to be parked near them or able to get a taxi as soon as they left. Either that of try out every door I the surrounding area whenever they cut a key. It's just not realistic.

Or get a dodgy friend to follow them.

Laois6556

bucketybuck wrote: »

Hi Laois6556, can you answer the simple question I asked you?

Its really a simple question, and in the 60/70 times you have posted in this thread you have continually dodged the question.

I say you have not answered the question, can you either repeat your answer or actually answer the simple question in the first place?

Hello, I've answered.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Speaking of dodging questions, I asked you repeatedly if the family should be considered when these guys were all employed in the same place? Someone said Belfast is a big place, that's a cop out. There's always the off chance they'll run into them. One poster NicholasCage said '' They should just go to different key cutters.'' That's one solution I guess, although it's a pretty cold view to hold towards the family.

I don't recall being asked that question before in this thread, but I agree that proximity to their victims families could represent and issue, and that there wouldn't have been much of an argument against relocating the to other areas, even other counties, to create some distance.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Or get a dodgy friend to follow them.

So they would have "dodgy friends" just sitting around outside their workplace, ready to take the call to pursue customers as soon as they left the shop? Seems a bit elaborate, would be more of an issue if they were repeat offenders for burglary and the like to be honest.

bucketybuck

Laois6556 wrote: »

Hello, I've answered.

No, you have not, and in multiple posts such as the one I have quoted you could have stated your answer ten times over. That you will not is quite telling.

It is clear you are debating dishonestly and avoiding the very simple question. Your posts are really quite foolish, which is disappointing considering how many times you are posting to the thread.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't recall being asked that question before in this thread, but I agree that proximity to their victims families could represent and issue, and that there wouldn't have been much of an argument against relocating the to other areas, even other counties, to create some distance.

It wouldn't have been a story for the papers either. As bad a tactic it was, and it was a poorly written article, 3 murderers in one shop is something that I personally would like to know about.

Billy86

Laois6556 wrote: »

You'll need to re-read those posts then.

Done...


Osarusan: do you want them to try and get some kind of job and leave some kind of normal life? Or are you happy for newspapers to harass them, 'out' them, and make it much less likely that they can get any kind of employment?

You: Neither of those 2 options are great but the second one is preferable to the first.



Me: So do you hope to pay for their dole for the rest of their lives, or do you hope to see an increase in crime?

You: obviously neither.

Mr. CooL ICE

CaptainInsano wrote: »

You said to be yesterday that I said these guys should be treated by mob rule. I'd like you to find the post where I said, seeing as you ignored me when I asked yesterday after repeatedly accusing me of saying these men shouldn't be allowed to work.

I must have missed your reply and I don't recall accusing you of wanting a lynch mob. If you are referring to this post, then read it again:

Because your opinion of how these criminals should be handled is emotively driven.

The justice system has seen fit that they were sentenced, served their sentences and have been released. If the justice system was emotively driven, they would have been handled by a blood thirsty lynch mob. Luckily enough, society in this part of the world doesn't work like that.

I did not accuse you of wanting a lynch mob in this post.

Anyway, to answer your reply to that post...

CaptainInsano wrote: »

You obviously are completely unaware of my view point.
You just saw me discussing a very specific topic about rehabilitation with a person who you agreed with earlier in the thread and assumed I was someone calling for these guys' heads, didn't you?

Nope, not at all. If anything, my post was referencing Laois6556

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

So they would have "dodgy friends" just sitting around outside their workplace, ready to take the call to pursue customers as soon as they left the shop? Seems a bit elaborate, would be more of an issue if they were repeat offenders for burglary and the like to be honest.

I'm just pointing out how easy it would be to do if they were so inclined. As was the discussion you were having.

Laois6556

bucketybuck wrote: »

No, you have not, and in multiple posts such as the one I have quoted you could have stated your answer ten times over. That you will not is quite telling.

It is clear you are debating dishonestly and avoiding the very simple question. Your posts are really quite foolish, which is disappointing considering how many times you are posting to the thread.

I have answered. It's very clear but maybe you're getting confused with someone making up stuff that I've said.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

It wouldn't have been a story for the papers either. As bad a tactic it was, and it was a poorly written article, 3 murderers in one shop is something that I personally would like to know about.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bit of a strange case. I would have no problem with the place refusing to hire all three together (or even to hire in the first place), what gets Mr with this story is that they knew all three had served ling stretches and we're definite at least one was for murder, but only fired them after this tabloid piece. The end result benefits nobody, unfortunately.

CaptainInsano

bucketybuck wrote: »

No, you have not, and in multiple posts such as the one I have quoted you could have stated your answer ten times over. That you will not is quite telling.

It is clear you are debating dishonestly and avoiding the very simple question. Your posts are really quite foolish, which is disappointing considering how many times you are posting to the thread.

Just go and find the post where he said it and stop cluttering the place up with your same question over and over! You're adding nothing to the debate yourself.

bucketybuck

CaptainInsano wrote: »

It wouldn't have been a story for the papers either. As bad a tactic it was, and it was a poorly written article, 3 murderers in one shop is something that I personally would like to know about.

Again, why is it a surprise that they were in the same shop? The pool of companies that will hire convicted murderers would be incredibly small I would imagine, for obvious reasons. This would only increase the likelihood that if a convicted murderer is going to get a job, that it is in the same place as another convicted murderer.

More to the point, does it actually matter?

Qualitymark

Billy86 wrote: »

They would have to run out of the shop in pursuit of them in the middle of their shift to get anywhere with that though, and hope to be parked near them or able to get a taxi as soon as they left. Either that of try out every door I the surrounding area whenever they cut a key. It's just not realistic.

Good thing murderers are so meticulous about keeping the rules on break times.

Mal-Adjusted

Laois6556 wrote: »

The off chance? Belfast isn't that big. First of all they get a very light punishment,

I'm in Galway and Iv'e gone years without seeing people i know are here and this is a much smaller than Belfast. A city is a very easy place to get lost in.

Laois6556 wrote: »

the least that should happen when they're out is that they should be banned from the place where they murdered their victims, no matter how big or small that place is.

Ban them from where,that neighborhood? Belfast? Northern Ireland? the U.K? What if a family member lives nowhere near where the crime took place?

Laois6556 wrote: »

If they're reformed characters they would understand this.

You've brought this up a few times and it doesn't really hold water. Assuming they're reformed, a person still has to live. It's not really an option to hide away up the mountains for the rest of their lives.

bucketybuck

Laois6556 wrote: »

I have answered. It's very clear but maybe you're getting confused with someone making up stuff that I've said.

I have read all of your posts and cannot see an answer to the question. I do not believe you when you keep repeating that you have already answered.

I respectfully ask that you take a few seconds in among your dozens of posts in this thread to answer the question asked.

Mr. CooL ICE

bucketybuck wrote: »

I have read all of your posts and cannot see an answer to the question. I do not believe you when you keep repeating that you have already answered.

I respectfully ask that you take a few seconds in among your dozens of posts in this thread to answer the question asked.

Or even quote it. That would suffice, for me at least.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, it's a bit of a strange case. I would have no problem with the place refusing to hire all three together (or even to hire in the first place), what gets Mr with this story is that they knew all three had served ling stretches and we're definite at least one was for murder, but only fired them after this tabloid piece. The end result benefits nobody, unfortunately.

The company's stance was that they were unaware of their convictions and unaware or the location to the victim's families so they sacked them ie we are going to lose business now. They only positive now is that it might bring some relief to the family, maybe they'll get other jobs closer to the families, maybe they'll re offend. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

bucketybuck

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Or even quote it. That would suffice, for me at least.

I dread to think what unrelated post he would quote and then claim was an answer to the question, before dodging the issue for another ten pages.

The simple thing would be to quickly and clearly answer the question, that he will not do so speaks to his motives.

Laois6556

Billy86 wrote: »

Done...


Osarusan: do you want them to try and get some kind of job and leave some kind of normal life? Or are you happy for newspapers to harass them, 'out' them, and make it much less likely that they can get any kind of employment?

You: Neither of those 2 options are great but the second one is preferable to the first.



Me: So do you hope to pay for their dole for the rest of their lives, or do you hope to see an increase in crime?

You: obviously neither.

So why did you say that I want them hounded out of their jobs over earning a living. So you don't want them employed?
I was given the choice between two options and asked what I hoped would happen. You just made up what you think or hoped I said.
You lied in other words.

bucketybuck

CaptainInsano wrote: »

They only positive now is that it might bring some relief to the family, maybe they'll get other jobs closer to the families, maybe they'll re offend. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

The fact that these outcomes are now more likely than before hardly seems to be a positive.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Or even quote it. That would suffice, for me at least.

Can you respond to my previous questions to you please? You being the one hounding people to quote posts.

Laois6556

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I'm in Galway and Iv'e gone years without seeing people i know are here and this is a much smaller than Belfast. A city is a very easy place to get lost in.



Ban them from where,that neighborhood? Belfast? Northern Ireland? the U.K? What if a family member lives nowhere near where the crime took place?


You've brought this up a few times and it doesn't really hold water. Assuming they're reformed, a person still has to live. It's not really an option to hide away up the mountains for the rest of their lives.

Galway is tiny!

Ban them from where they committed their crimes, so Belfast in this case.

Not up a mountain but not where they killed their victims for sure.

CaptainInsano

bucketybuck wrote: »

The fact that these outcomes are now more likely than before hardly seems to be a positive.

In response to your previous post, the company supposedly doesn't hire serious offenders, hence my surprise. Are you really saying you wouldnt like to know if three murderers are working in your local shop? It really wouldn't bother you one bit? And how can you possibly say that these outcomes are more likely now? Do you not think it's more likely that they go further away where they are not known?

Laois6556

bucketybuck wrote: »

I have read all of your posts and cannot see an answer to the question. I do not believe you when you keep repeating that you have already answered.

I respectfully ask that you take a few seconds in among your dozens of posts in this thread to answer the question asked.

A few pages back I said they should work in a different area to where they committed their crimes, I think that's easy enough to understand.

Mr. CooL ICE

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Can you respond to my previous questions to you please? You being the one hounding people to quote posts.

/sigh

KERSPLAT!

MOD

"You're a liar"
"I'm not lying, you are!"
"No I'm not, you are!!"

Jaysus lads give it a rest, keep it civil and on topic please

CaptainInsano

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Ban them from where,that neighborhood? Belfast? Northern Ireland? the U.K? What if a family member lives nowhere near where the crime took place

They do live nearby. A move to a different county would probably suffice.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I must have missed your reply and I don't recall accusing you of wanting a lynch mob. If you are referring to this post, then read it again:



I did not accuse you of wanting a lynch mob in this post.

Anyway, to answer your reply to that post...



Nope, not at all. If anything, my post was referencing Laois6556

Apologies I missed it. But yeah that clears nothing up thanks, not sure why you'd quote me in reference to another poster. Don't see how my view is not based on logic, we seem to agree for the most part. I'll just assume you didn't read my posts. Back on topic anyway.

Mr. CooL ICE

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Apologies I missed it. But yeah that clears nothing up thanks, not sure why you'd quote me in reference to another poster. Don't see how my view is not based on logic, we seem to agree for the most part. I'll just assume you didn't read my posts. Back on topic anyway.

I quoted you in reference to another poster, because you were discussing another poster's opinion. So yes, I read your posts.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I quoted you in reference to another poster, because you were discussing another poster's opinion. So yes, I read your posts.

You said I was emotively driven in how these men should be handled and not logical . How is wanting them to find work not logical?

Mal-Adjusted

Laois6556 wrote: »

Galway is tiny!

that kinda reinforces my point.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Ban them from where they committed their crimes, so Belfast in this case.

CaptainInsano wrote: »

They do live nearby. A move to a different county would probably suffice.

assuming they can get a job as easily in Fermannagh as they can in Belfast. like i said, a person still has to eat.

bucketybuck

CaptainInsano wrote: »

They only positive now is that it might bring some relief to the family, maybe they'll get other jobs closer to the families, maybe they'll re offend. We'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

bucketybuck wrote: »

The fact that these outcomes are now more likely than before hardly seems to be a positive.

CaptainInsano wrote: »

And how can you possibly say that these outcomes are more likely now? Do you not think it's more likely that they go further away where they are not known?

Its very possible that they go further away, however its equally as possible that they become more visible to the families. Don't forget, it wasn't the families that complained about having to see these guys every day, its very possible the families had no clue where they were at all. That situation could have remained, but instead we now have a non-zero chance that the murderers will end up closer to the families involved. I'm not convinced the staus-quo wasn't a better choice.

CaptainInsano wrote: »

In response to your previous post, the company supposedly doesn't hire serious offenders, hence my surprise. Are you really saying you wouldnt like to know if three murderers are working in your local shop?

Would I like to know? Probably, yes, though I don't believe the knowledge would actually affect my life in any way. But thats a different question to whether I think they should automatically be sacked once I become aware of the fact they are convicted murderers. As I said previously, you can meet/pass by thousands upon thousands of convicted criminals in your lifetime and probably don't even know it.