Glen Quagmire

I also thought that Jamelia brought absolutely fuck all to the discussion.

Nice set of legs maybe?

When it comes to the General Election, I will listen to any party that is serious at getting a significant amount of the national debt down quickly and if it requires some short term pain for a few years (VAT rise, public sector lay-offs etc.), so be it. Apart from that, the two most important issues for me is immigration and law & order, two areas that have been allowed to spiral out of control in Britain in the last 10-15 years and which New Labour bear a lot of responsibility for.

I'd bet that if you took every one who commits a murder, a higher proportion of them would have previously committed a minor offence than the proportion which would have committed murder. So executing/locking up for life anyone who commits a minor offence is a much more effective way to cut the number of murders.

Again, how many drivers caught for speeding have ended up convicted for murder at a later point in their lives? Maybe you should check to see if any of your family or friends who have penalty points on their driving licence - if they do, call the police and tell them that you know someone who's going to commit murder.

Murderers that have been released don't often commit murder again but most of them still get involved in crime because while rehabilitation of offenders for some minor or blue-collar crimes have good success rates (in that they won't commit another offence that could see them end up in jail again), rehabilitation of criminals for certain crimes, especially those for who have been in prison multiple times, is more often than not a waste of time. Quite clearly here the rehabilitation of Venables, and the money spent on him doing this and giving him a new identity, has been a clear waste of time and if he is ever released again, the state should not spend one penny more on him and lift any legal matters concerning his identity.

Apply your logic to it. That the latter is fine because its legal and for the benefit of society as a whole. I'm fine with that because thats how it has to be.

But its not like Sutliffe is walking the streets and i'm claiming he should be punished by suffering the same "crime" of which he is being punished for. You're saying you want someone to be murdered, i'm not.

Load of waffle. The simple truth is that imprisonment and the death penalty are linked in that they are both punishments given by courts where they have the power to do so. Your Sutcliffe example is stupid, how about a man accused & convicted of rape being punished by being sodomised? For me the death penalty needs to be reintroduced into the UK as murder rates have shot up since its abolishment and that's how it needs to be.

Again you haven't answered the question, why is it accpetable for two 10 year old boys to be killed when that very society is claiming that killing people is wrong. Especially killing children.

 

I find pre-meditated murder wrong yet i'm not the one saying two 10 year olds boys should be killed, you are yet you claim to be against it. And you still can't see or wont admit the hypocrisy in that.

There is no hypocrisy to my stance on law & order in this country. The execution of Venables and Thompson would not be regarded as murder. Was Guy Fawkes "murdered"? Was Timothy McVeigh "murdered"?

What was that about strawman arguments you mentioned earlier.

And now you're back the whole 360 degrees... Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. Simples.

Only if you believe sexual assault or downloading child porn is serious enough that the perpetrators should be executed.

I didn't say that.

And even then it'd be bollocks, one can make a decent argument that murder should mean life inside, or that people who commit such crimes as venables should be yonked back to prison at the first sign of imbalance on the basis they just won't be safe for other people to be around.

And why is the death penalty not a decent argument? The justice system in this country right now is mostly concerned about the "rights" of criminals rather than ensuring that victims and other law-abiding citizens are safe. A country which has a half-decent stance on law & order would have at least ensured that Venables and Thompson would never have been allowed outside prison walls for the rest of their lives along with every other person convicted of murder.

You can ask questions as to why he was allowed out.

You might have seen from over the last few days, if not years that I am not the only one asking questions. The ECHR should have been told to fuck off and mind its own business.

There are quite a few options other than "He done something bad? Well we should have handed a death sentence to a child then, that'd be a fine idea."

I stand by what I said earlier. Anyone who commits premeditated murder should expect to pay for it with their own life, regardless of age. It then is clear that you can't scream about how "harsh" your punishment is when you knew what it would be. You don't whinge about being put on death row in SE Asia when you were a willing drug mule.

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

Believe it or not, it is still possible to commit an offence outside the prison walls, and inside them too, while in prison itself unless you are in lone confinement 24/7 & watched on CCTV every second.

 

Also, some perspective is needed. I don't advocate the death penalty to apply to someone who refuses to pay a car parking fine.

 

Well that's a ridiculously liberal attitude. I'm sure there are murderers who have previously had car parking fines. If they'd been hung then, they wouldn't have been able to kill.

How many people who have received fixed fines for not wearing their seat belt in a car or for doing 37mph in a 30 zone have went on to commit a cold-blooded murder of a toddler for kicks?

On the other hand, how many people who have committed serious offences like murder, rape, paedophilia and I suppose spouse abuse reoffend with another serious offence if not the same offence once out of prison? From the statement Jack Straw made, it seems quite clear that Venables has committed at least one serious offence since being let out of prison on licence. "Reformed" my arse.

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

Perhaps then you could tell me the difference between Josef Fritzl locking up his daughter in a cellar for 24 years (forgetting the rape cases involved in that) and the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. By your logic, because the imprisonment of Elizabeth Fritzl by her father was wrong, so to has been the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. This is clearly nonsense.

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

I do find committing pre-meditated murder abhorrent and I am sure that is the point of view of law-abiding citizens of Britain.

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

Well when you start asking stupid questions, stupid answers are a reasoned response.

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

Believe it or not, it is still possible to commit an offence outside the prison walls, and inside them too, while in prison itself unless you are in lone confinement 24/7 & watched on CCTV every second.

Also, some perspective is needed. I don't advocate the death penalty to apply to someone who refuses to pay a car parking fine.

Strawman.

 

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

 

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

 

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

If you cannot tell the difference between what Venables and Thompson did and a hangman, then I'd get the idea that your sister is your mother.

We all watched Newswipe, right? The bit about "sources"? Okay, good.

Irrelevant at this point because of the legal restrictions on the current reporting of this case.

Otherwise a shitload of newspaper editors would be up for contempt of court. No one in that position is too stupid to risk it (unless their Piers Morgan) and they will only try and get out as much as they legally can right now like The King Of Swing says and even here they're skating on thin ice. "Sources" is all we have to go on right now. Simples.

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

 

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

 

Hypothetically speaking, if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

Again, you are saying that " If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are"

 

How is the legally appointed executioner not doing just that?

 

And back to the original point, how can you on one hand condemn the pre-meditated taking of a human life and on the other support it without being drowned in hypocrisy?

 

 

Strawman.

And when I was 10 years old I do remember being at school with kids who had an upbringing as bad as what was reported about Venables and Thompson yet they didn't go out killing a toddler because they knew that you simply did not do that.

And that's the difference right there.

Are you presuming, again, that Venables and Thompson were not aware of what they were doing? Making their killing look like a train accident tells me they knew what they were trying to do. Even back then, children were growing up fairly quickly.

Two ten year olds killing a two year old = String 'em up.

Someone (probably) in their early to mid twenties executing two ten year olds = Justice

 

Delightful hypocrisy.

I don't see it myself.

 

 

 

What do you see then? By on one hand condemning 2 human beings for the murder of a child, then on the other hand advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults.

 

Either you've got youe eyse closed or don't want to see the hypocrisy cause i fail to see how you could say there isn't any there.

 

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

 

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

Two ten year olds killing a two year old = String 'em up.

Someone (probably) in their early to mid twenties executing two ten year olds = Justice

 

Delightful hypocrisy.

I don't see it myself.

 

 

 

What do you see then? By on one hand condemning 2 human beings for the murder of a child, then on the other hand advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults.

 

Either you've got youe eyse closed or don't want to see the hypocrisy cause i fail to see how you could say there isn't any there.

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

Hanging 10 year old boys is just as fucked up.

I would agree, but we're talking about 10 year old murder's here.

Hold on a fucking minute here.

 

These were children. Ten year old children. They weren't even old enough for secondary school. No child of ten has a full understanding of what he or she is doing, because they're so easily impressed. There are ten year old children who still believe in Santa Claus. Why should you expect ten year olds to have any more sophisticated a grasp of reality in other areas?

 

Never mind though, let's HANG THEM because the SUN says to.

I've met 13 year olds who still believed in Santa Claus. Do 13 year olds not have an understanding of murder?

And I don't read the Sun either - a nasty rag.

Two ten year olds killing a two year old = String 'em up.

Someone (probably) in their early to mid twenties executing two ten year olds = Justice

 

Delightful hypocrisy.

I don't see it myself.

You don't know the circumstances in which these children were raised. Just because you were taught the difference between right & wrong & had consciences parents that cared & took an interest in your upbringing doesn't mean they did. Can you remember being 10 years old? Fair enough we're talking about possibly the most extreme circumstances imaginable but to treat an (obviously highly troubled) 10 year old as an adult of sound mind is ridiculous.

It's presumptuous that you are telling me that I don't know the circumstances in which these two murderers were raised yet you make a presumption about my upbringing. And when I was 10 years old I do remember being at school with kids who had an upbringing as bad as what was reported about Venables and Thompson yet they didn't go out killing a toddler because they knew that you simply did not do that.

He and Thompson should have been hung after being found guilty.

 

When they were fucking 10 years old?? Are you really Gary Bushell?

Yes, I would have had no problem with them being executed as 11 year olds. If that was too much to stomach, then they could have been imprisoned until they were 16 or 18 and then hung. When I was 10 years old I knew that killing another person was one of the worst things you could ever do so I don't buy the argument that these evil boys did not know of the consequences for what they did. They even tried to cover it up FFS! If you deliberately go out to kill some one and take their life, you must be ready to lose yours.

However seeing that this country has come to this state, the minimum that must happen to Jon Venables is that if he is ever released from prison again, he no longer should have anonymity rights. Since he broke this release licence and betrayed the protection given to him by the state, he should not expect the state's protection any more.

Those who are saying that Venables is back where he belongs are stupid.

He and Thompson should have been hung after being found guilty.