Is it me ???? ... Rant.

[bobo the clown]

Nothing to do with football, I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Can someone explain something to me, someone, please ??

http://www.itv.com/news/index_409770.html

Paedophilia is, rightly, seen as an utterly abhorrent act by people with sociopathic tendencies … ie. they can barely comprehend that what they do is wrong, are often incapable of remorse and are staggeringly adept at their preparations & activities.

Today, 4 men have been jailed for systematic activities of the heinous nature. This is a GOOD thing.

Their crimes, multiple crimes not just an odd 'one-off' action, included rape, attempted rape, conspiring to rape and sexual assault, arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence, attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity and criminal damage with intent to commit a sexual offence.

A minimum of eight girls, aged between 7 to 13 years old, had been subjected to "horrific" abuse.

They have been given huge, & well deserved prison sentences … one, got seven life sentences … but (and here's my point … ) he "will serve a minimum of 12 years in prison". Something judges believe to be worthy of seven … that's SEVEN, life sentences … will probably add up to less than 12 years in fact.

After social workers and sympathetic psychologists … have finished misusing the Human Rights act on their behalf, he will, in all probability, be considered for softer regimes & day-passes at the latter stages of that. OK, as he's 55 now he'll be 67 by the time he's free … & will then need constant vigilance, as such criminals are rarely actually cured.

Similar applies to the others - one, who admitted inciting to rape a young girl, has been sentenced to life in prison … but he will serve a minimum of four years. FOUR !!!

A third will serve all eight years of his sentence. I assume there has been 'previous' which has resulted in the state actually requiring someone to serve an actual sentence.

The fourth got 20 years and will serve a minimum of ten.

Why can a life sentence be made to mean FOUR years, in fact ?? Why can 7 life sentences be equated to 12 years ?? An old woman who refused to pay more than the inflationary %'age of her rates increase was jailed for 3m. Maybe she should have buggered a girl-guide.

The state needs to ask itself why its citizens feel marginalised … and realise the implications of these events.

[TANGODANCER]

Yes, it's disgusting Bobo, but hardly surprising. No one wants to see a return of the death penalty, or indeed of the Bastille type prisons, but the very march of so-called humanity and progress has slowly shot itself in both feet. The one element that held crime in check to some degree, fear, has been taken out of the equation. Human rights now have reached a pinnacle of ridiculosity; coulour TV, games rooms and holidays abroad for wayward teenagers hardly inspire any respect for the law, indeed, laugh at it. No one backs away from crime at the very thought of the punishment, most take the chance knowing the punishment won't anywhere near fit the crime.

Until an element of fear and respect is returned to the judicial system crime will continue to be an industry. Tough measures and strict parental control are the obvious answers, but who's going to make the first move?

[FaninOz]

The law is an ass is all I can say. Could never understand that life didn't actually mean life. We get similar sentences in Oz which most people including the press don't understand but the magistrates and judges still amaze the rest of us with their judgements and rulings.

[sluffy]

No Bobo its not you.

Scum like that never should be let out into society ever again.

We had a good debate on this forum a while back about the death penalty and the majority view on here was that capital punishment was wrong. I was one of those in the minority.

My view for what its worth is that if someone is as cold and calculating enough to plan to rape a child (and then carries out that plan) then they have the intelligence to fully know what they are doing and know full well understand that such behaviour is abhorrent and totally unacceptable to the rest of society.

Locking them up until they are physically incapable of being able to rape/harm another child should be at the very least the minimum penalty that society should impose upon them.

I'm sure the parents of the abused children would think even this would be an inadequate punishment.

[davroduk]

Castration should form part of the punishment for this type of crime.

[knobpolisher]

No one wants to see a return of the death penalty

Speak for yourself !!

I would personally hang the b******* from the highest tree.

[bobo the clown]

No one wants to see a return of the death penalty

Speak for yourself !!

I would personally hang the b******* from the highest tree.

Think about it. A person enters life & joins a society. They are net USERS of said society for their early years ... consuming medical, social & health services. They are protected by police & army. They travel on roads & live in homes largely facilitated by taxation money. Government, local & national are there to facilitate them.

As they get older &, hopefully, achieve gainful employment they begin to pay taxes. It taken some while before your taxes paid compared with those consumed even begin to go into positive.

Those who DON'T gain useful employment, who DON'T pay much tax, who end up in court, jail, and need more & more use of social services. Those who begin breeding at 15 & produce more offspring than they can possibly feed, house & educate will probably never go into the black personally.

Now, I have no trouble with genuine people who get into difficulties. That's what society is about. But those who reject society, yet then want to soak in its benefits should kindly leave the building.


So, yes, I suppose I have rather aggressive views concerning time wasters & little tolerance of those who, THROUGH THEIR OWN DOING, cost society more than they will ever provide to it.

[Raven]

Law is an arse, I like to think myself as being a pretty tolerant dare I saw liberal person but some crime deserve life meaning life, plus if you do a crime then "do the time" no letting off for good behavoiur more like add on time for bad behaviour, not tags etc if prisons get too full then tough you should not done the crime. I'm for giving some people a second chance or retraining etc but if you constantly commit crimes then the sentance should get harsher and for some leave them in prison.

No death sentance that lets them off but a life should mean a life and instead of the death sentance how about solitary confinement no one else to talk to, no telly, no games etc etc.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

What they keep hidden from us when they say 'life', is the fact that they mean the life of a fxcking pigeon!!

Life is simply a wasted phrase in today's courts.

[White Army]

These scum should have received life sentences that actually means LIFE. There are no excuses for early release and castration is not the answer, as you have probably read, a portion of their crimes was to incite rape or 'groom' the children, castration will not alter their ability to perform this evil act.

I once fostered a two and a half year old girl who had been raped by a twenty two year old man and, without going into too much detail, there is nothing in the physiological sense to facilitate this in a child of such a young age.
This piece of shit got 8 years, which due to the lack of physical evidence was the maximum he could be given.

I would suggest that all the bleeding heart, liberal, human rights luvvies should try picking a 30 month old child from hospital wrapped in bandages bigger than herself, half bald due to the stress of months of abuse, with a facial expression you might normally see on footage of a war zone and then try to defend this pure filth.

Where were her human rights?

p.s. this happened in our town too, these b*stards are on every street in every area, child abuse is truly classless

[communistworkethic]

didn't bother reading all this but I think the original point was missed slightly, in that they were minimum terms not maximum ones. These were put in place to stop them getting out any earlier thanks to "do-gooders". They are not the terms they will serve and it is unlikely that they will serve only the minimum given the crimes themselves.

[bobo the clown]

.... they were minimum terms not maximum ones. These were put in place to stop them getting out any earlier thanks to "do-gooders". They are not the terms they will serve and it is unlikely that they will serve only the minimum given the crimes themselves.

But what is the point of seting a "life" sentence for which " ... you will serve a minimum of 4 years ...", or SEVEN life sentences " ... serve a minimum of 12 years" ??????

Imagine being the victim of such crimes ... It's not too much consolation to know these are minima.

[Harry Genshaw]

I agree with your sentiments Bobo and dont think any bstrd like this should ever be released. I dont think though, that its anything to do with Human Rights legislation and the HR Act. This kind of sentencing has been going on for years for all manner of crimes. I remember getting irate myself over something far less serious than the crimes mentioned here.

There was a Police series on a few years ago set in Manchester -X cars I think it was called - that featured Bolton a few times. Mainly it was footage of a couple of plain clothes traffic cops chasing car thieves and ram raiders. I would watch incredulous as it showed footage of somebody ramming the chasing Police car, getting out and threatening the Officers with a machete then high speeding it across a public park. The programme always seemed to end with a sentence like "The 19 year old Ram Raider was give a suspended/six month/Probation/Police Caution as a sentence "etc etc when any reasonable viewer was expecting 6/8/10 years.

Like Raven said - Serve the sentence you're given unless you misbehave at which time they can start adding to it.

[boltonboris]

It is a horrible crime to commit and in my view worthy of being hung, drawn and quartered in a packed town hall square, but I saw a programme on paedophiles a while ago, and the people interviewed who had been prosecuted strongly defended themselves, the blokes excuse was something along the likes of. "straight men like women, homosexuals like their own, we just happen to be attracted to our children in the same way" this annoyed me, becaus he was basically using this 'revelation' to justify raping a young girl, If i ever see that bloke........

[sluffy]

Another example of modern day liberalism!

A suspected car thief who spent 20 hours on a rooftop was delivered cigarettes and a KFC meal - because police wanted to protect his human rights.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07062006/140/r ... -fags.html

[TANGODANCER]

Another example of modern day liberalism!

A suspected car thief who spent 20 hours on a rooftop was delivered cigarettes and a KFC meal - because police wanted to protect his human rights.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07062006/140/r ... -fags.html

And another chapter is added to the "Why crime does pay" Manual.

[bobo the clown]

Another example of modern day liberalism!

A suspected car thief who spent 20 hours on a rooftop was delivered cigarettes and a KFC meal - because police wanted to protect his human rights.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07062006/140/r ... -fags.html

And another chapter is added to the "Why crime does pay" Manual.

If it had been a Burger King meal that would have transgressed his human rights, in itself.

Problem is the Act is so wide ranging & so poorly defined (along with a number of other poorly written acts ... ie the Data Protection Act) that no-one QUITE knows what can & can't be done & so ridiculous lemgths are gone to, so to avoid accusations.

"Come down & then you can get some food, you little nice person ... " ... would have been more than sufficient.

[CrazyHorse]

Can someone in our legal department explain how denying him his cigarettes would have been an infringement of his human rights? I mean I understand the food/drink thing (even though I don't agree with it) but surely smoking is freedom of choice as opposed to a necessity as his nourishment is? I mean would they have given a sex addict porn? A smack head a fix?

Come to think of it, forget I asked because I do understand after all. But surely some sun protection should have also been given? Hot running water? In fact I believe he should have been offered an electricity supply to run his beer fridge and high definition TV system complete with an x-box and a selection of games. It was clearly an infringement of his rights.

[bobo the clown]

Can someone in our legal department explain how denying him his cigarettes would have been an infringement of his human rights?

I await the law suit in about 25 years time as this guys gets lung cancer & claims it arose from smoking fags - an activity which was actively encouraged by the authorities, citing this as an example.

[bobo the clown]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 057164.stm

Madness. Total fckg madness.

So much so that you begin to wonder about a judge who sees this as worthy of so little punishment. Why could that be ? ... is that because he doesn't see at as particularly wrong ?

It is claimed that Paedophiles are much greater in number & go far deeper into society & are far more influential than 'normal' people appreciate. It does make you think.