Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

Its interesting that you're always talking about communism Hoboh, as you seem to want everyone to be watching everyone else.

There would be no need to watch a lot of folk Your Lordship in my world! They simply would not exist

I'm all for people being free to live in peace and without fear of being mugged, robbed, shot, stabbed, burgled, etc. If it means removing a few deviants so be it! If sociaty decides topping them is a bit too extreme then at least lets lock them up with bare essentials for a long long time, forever in serious cases.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Especially them dirty vegetarians.

[CAPSLOCK]

You're wasting your time, Hobo

The lefties have created what we've got

It's failed, again

[thebish]

You're wasting your time, Hobo

The lefties have created what we've got

It's failed, again

hmmm... cos it is obviously a lot less safe on the streets today than it was in the days when we did have the death penalty - or before that - in Victorian times... isn't it? oh - bugger - must be some other reason then....

[Hoboh]

You're wasting your time, Hobo

The lefties have created what we've got

It's failed, again

hmmm... cos it is obviously a lot less safe on the streets today than it was in the days when we did have the death penalty - or before that - in Victorian times... isn't it? oh - bugger - must be some other reason then....

Considering we are supposed to have moved on and become a better sociaty since then, I'd say there is only one reason, the abuse of human rights by the lawyers that slant everthing to the protection of the guilty, victims and the rest of us are meant to shut up and suffer in silence. Oh nearly forgot and pay for it too.

[Raven]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

You believe in evil? Really?

What trial is it you want publicising?

When it happened they were ten, hoboh, ten years old. They'd be doing the Tudors in history, and learning Scotland was up from England, and by many accounts the case notes suggest they didn't understand what they were doing or what they had done. Unless of course you believe a pair of ten year old criminal masterminds could learn how to outwit the police and entire legal system after watching Scooby Doo? You talk about the principles of the British legal system versus that of the USSR, not only in doing so demanding a show trial, but in forgetting principle number one, innocence until proven guilty. You can bet your last can of superbow, if he has commited something bad, and it does go to trial, we will know about it, so I don't see the fuss. Wait and see.

That's got to be the biggest load of bullshite from this case, of course a 10 year old would know what they were doing, along with taking a child they do not know away from a shopping centre is wrong, not even to mention what they did later, even if true it proves they should never have been let out and had serious mental problems.

I would like to think I am pretty liberal minded but certain cases and certain people prove that some should be locked up for good.

[as]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

You believe in evil? Really?

What trial is it you want publicising?

When it happened they were ten, hoboh, ten years old. They'd be doing the Tudors in history, and learning Scotland was up from England, and by many accounts the case notes suggest they didn't understand what they were doing or what they had done. Unless of course you believe a pair of ten year old criminal masterminds could learn how to outwit the police and entire legal system after watching Scooby Doo? You talk about the principles of the British legal system versus that of the USSR, not only in doing so demanding a show trial, but in forgetting principle number one, innocence until proven guilty. You can bet your last can of superbow, if he has commited something bad, and it does go to trial, we will know about it, so I don't see the fuss. Wait and see.

Yes - they were 10 years old. In modern times, that's only 3/4 years off being sexually active.

And surely somebody that age would know that some of the sick/twisted/evil s**t they were doing to him was 'wrong'.

I'm not backing all this media witch-hunt about Venables, they don't give a s**t and are exploiting this whole story to sell more papers, but he & his mate were fully aware that torturing a two year old was evil.

[Hoboh]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

You believe in evil? Really?

What trial is it you want publicising?

When it happened they were ten, hoboh, ten years old. They'd be doing the Tudors in history, and learning Scotland was up from England, and by many accounts the case notes suggest they didn't understand what they were doing or what they had done. Unless of course you believe a pair of ten year old criminal masterminds could learn how to outwit the police and entire legal system after watching Scooby Doo? You talk about the principles of the British legal system versus that of the USSR, not only in doing so demanding a show trial, but in forgetting principle number one, innocence until proven guilty. You can bet your last can of superbow, if he has commited something bad, and it does go to trial, we will know about it, so I don't see the fuss. Wait and see.

That's got to be the biggest load of bullshite from this case, of course a 10 year old would know what they were doing, along with taking a child they do not know away from a shopping centre is wrong, not even to mention what they did later, even if true it proves they should never have been let out and had serious mental problems.

I would like to think I am pretty liberal minded but certain cases and certain people prove that some should be locked up for good.[/quote

WHOSE CASE NOTES THEIR LAWYERS????

[thebish]

I'm not srictly speaking "angry" about this - so I might be ruled out of order - but I am slightly puzzled by it!

as I was waiting for my West-Ham supporting mate outside the station on Saturday - I watched as many West Ham supporting blokes were dropped off outside the station by their wives in the taxi-rank layby.

now.... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM had driven the car there with their wife as passenger - then got out at the station - and the wife had to get out and walk round to the drivers seat to drive the car home.

the same happened as I dropped the missus off at the station this morning - TWO cars in front of me - BOTH times the bloke is dropped off and the woman has to get out and walk to the drivers side to get in and drive home.

why????? why not have the woman drive in the first place???

[Hoboh]

I'm not srictly speaking "angry" about this - so I might be ruled out of order - but I am slightly puzzled by it!

as I was waiting for my West-Ham supporting mate outside the station on Saturday - I watched as many West Ham supporting blokes were dropped off outside the station by their wives in the taxi-rank layby.

now.... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM had driven the car there with their wife as passenger - then got out at the station - and the wife had to get out and walk round to the drivers seat to drive the car home.

the same happened as I dropped the missus off at the station this morning - TWO cars in front of me - BOTH times the bloke is dropped off and the woman has to get out and walk to the drivers side to get in and drive home.

why????? why not have the woman drive in the first place???

Not men of "faith" like you sir, quite clearly.

[Prufrock]

And there we go again. A couple of 'I reckon's >>>>>>> legal and psychiatric consensus. Yet again people apply adult notions to kids. Now it is perfectly possible they knew what they doing was 'wrong' in the sense that shey shouldn't be doing it, but you're telling me they had a crasp of consequences, of death? You're applying adult reasoning to kids. It's not uncommon for kids that age to not be sure if Father Christmas is real or not!

So then, a question for the mob. If this proves Jon Venables is inherently evil, should the authorities track down Robert Thompson, and hang him as well?

[Hoboh]

And there we go again. A couple of 'I reckon's >>>>>>> legal and psychiatric consensus. Yet again people apply adult notions to kids. Now it is perfectly possible they knew what they doing was 'wrong' in the sense that shey shouldn't be doing it, but you're telling me they had a crasp of consequences, of death? You're applying adult reasoning to kids. It's not uncommon for kids that age to not be sure if Father Christmas is real or not!

So then, a question for the mob. If this proves Jon Venables is inherently evil, should the authorities track down Robert Thompson, and hang him as well?

No it's not his fault he was given a chance, if he blows it then yes, see hobo is fair though tbh neither should have got out in the first place.
Ps he shouldn't be that hard to find should he unless the public servants have mis laid him.

[Prufrock]

And there we go again. A couple of 'I reckon's >>>>>>> legal and psychiatric consensus. Yet again people apply adult notions to kids. Now it is perfectly possible they knew what they doing was 'wrong' in the sense that shey shouldn't be doing it, but you're telling me they had a crasp of consequences, of death? You're applying adult reasoning to kids. It's not uncommon for kids that age to not be sure if Father Christmas is real or not!

So then, a question for the mob. If this proves Jon Venables is inherently evil, should the authorities track down Robert Thompson, and hang him as well?

No it's not his fault he was given a chance, if he blows it then yes, see hobo is fair though tbh neither should have got out in the first place.
Ps he shouldn't be that hard to find should he unless the public servants have mis laid him.

Then all anyone is saying is what for the sodding legal system to decide if Venables has 'blown it'. We'll have to disagree on them being let out to start with.

[David Lee's Hair]

I'm not srictly speaking "angry" about this - so I might be ruled out of order - but I am slightly puzzled by it!

as I was waiting for my West-Ham supporting mate outside the station on Saturday - I watched as many West Ham supporting blokes were dropped off outside the station by their wives in the taxi-rank layby.

now.... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM had driven the car there with their wife as passenger - then got out at the station - and the wife had to get out and walk round to the drivers seat to drive the car home.

the same happened as I dropped the missus off at the station this morning - TWO cars in front of me - BOTH times the bloke is dropped off and the woman has to get out and walk to the drivers side to get in and drive home.

why????? why not have the woman drive in the first place???

Alf Garnett wouldn't allow his wife to drop him off as such no other Spam fan dare

[TANGODANCER]

Not commented on this before, but it's all about personal opinions, so I'll venture one:

I got quite a few tannings as a ten year old for things like breaking a window, having a bow and arrow when forbidden to do so, no being home in time to the extent of causing worry etc. In other words, disobeying my parents rules. Very unfair at the time, I thought, but certainly not ignorable. Bullying in one form or another has existed has since time imemorial, but this wasn't just bullying, it was evil and caused the deliberate death of a child. I don't seem to hear much mention of parental responsibility amongst any of it..... I feel, somehow, that I should.

[Prufrock]

Not commented on this before, but it's all about personal opinions, so I'll venture one:

I got quite a few tannings as a ten year old for things like breaking a window, having a bow and arrow when forbidden to do so, no being home in time to the extent of causing worry etc. In other words, disobeying my parents rules. Very unfair at the time, I thought, but certainly not ignorable. Bullying in one form or another has existed has since time imemorial, but this wasn't just bullying, it was evil and caused the deliberate death of a child. I don't seem to hear much mention of parental responsibility amongst any of it..... I feel, somehow, that I should.

To be fair Tango, I think at the time that played a large part in them being put in protective custody, their parents had failed them, and so it was hoped the state could 'reprogramme' them if you will. Indeed something went wrong for them to do what they did, I'm not sure they had any real idea of the consequences, and I'm not sure one could call a ten year old 'evil'

[TANGODANCER]

Not commented on this before, but it's all about personal opinions, so I'll venture one:

I got quite a few tannings as a ten year old for things like breaking a window, having a bow and arrow when forbidden to do so, no being home in time to the extent of causing worry etc. In other words, disobeying my parents rules. Very unfair at the time, I thought, but certainly not ignorable. Bullying in one form or another has existed has since time imemorial, but this wasn't just bullying, it was evil and caused the deliberate death of a child. I don't seem to hear much mention of parental responsibility amongst any of it..... I feel, somehow, that I should.

To be fair Tango, I think at the time that played a large part in them being put in protective custody, their parents had failed them, and so it was hoped the state could 'reprogramme' them if you will. Indeed something went wrong for them to do what they did, I'm not sure they had any real idea of the consequences, and I'm not sure one could call a ten year old 'evil'

The crime certainly was. I think James Bulgers' parents might disagree, as undoubtedly would the parents of any child that died in that way. That protective custody didn't succeed too well.

[thebish]

Not commented on this before, but it's all about personal opinions, so I'll venture one:

I got quite a few tannings as a ten year old for things like breaking a window, having a bow and arrow when forbidden to do so, no being home in time to the extent of causing worry etc. In other words, disobeying my parents rules. Very unfair at the time, I thought, but certainly not ignorable. Bullying in one form or another has existed has since time imemorial, but this wasn't just bullying, it was evil and caused the deliberate death of a child. I don't seem to hear much mention of parental responsibility amongst any of it..... I feel, somehow, that I should.

you and hobo have both described venables and thompson as "evil".

now - unless you're just using sloppy language (in which case - fair enough) - what precisely do you mean in describing someone (or someone's actions) as "evil"?

I actually think this is quite a serious issue...

if it was "evil" - then that suggests something inherent - from the "devil" - at least in its common usage - so how, in that case, do parents have any role in the matter?

you describe it as "evil" - and then prescribe a good tanning (or parental discipline) - can "evil" be beaten out of someone? is "evil" conquered by the imposition of childhood boundaries? if so - then you have a fairly weak definition of "evil" - hence my question - what precisely do you mean in describing it thus?

[thebish]

tag lines in emails and suchlike that tell you how a person could possibly have managed to send the message in the first place...

eg..

"Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange"

why would I give a monkey's HOW you managed it??? do you want a medal????

[as]

Not commented on this before, but it's all about personal opinions, so I'll venture one:

I got quite a few tannings as a ten year old for things like breaking a window, having a bow and arrow when forbidden to do so, no being home in time to the extent of causing worry etc. In other words, disobeying my parents rules. Very unfair at the time, I thought, but certainly not ignorable. Bullying in one form or another has existed has since time imemorial, but this wasn't just bullying, it was evil and caused the deliberate death of a child. I don't seem to hear much mention of parental responsibility amongst any of it..... I feel, somehow, that I should.

you and hobo have both described venables and thompson as "evil".

now - unless you're just using sloppy language (in which case - fair enough) - what precisely do you mean in describing someone (or someone's actions) as "evil"?

I actually think this is quite a serious issue...

if it was "evil" - then that suggests something inherent - from the "devil" - at least in its common usage - so how, in that case, do parents have any role in the matter?

you describe it as "evil" - and then prescribe a good tanning (or parental discipline) - can "evil" be beaten out of someone? is "evil" conquered by the imposition of childhood boundaries? if so - then you have a fairly weak definition of "evil" - hence my question - what precisely do you mean in describing it thus?

Can't you look in a dictionary?

I'm amazed people are arguing that them being 10 years old meant they didn't know what they were doing?

They brutally tortured and murdered an infant, I'll leave out some of the grim details of what they did, as we've all heard them before.

But, both kids knew what they were doing.